Sorry I can't hear you over all the guys crying about AgE sIxTy fIVe! mAkE mE wHoLe!

 

Uh...because the current law discriminates against under 23 to get an ATP and thus be employed?

Age discrimination is illegal -- except in all those cases where it isn't. Including at least 4 instances in the US Constitution.

 

Yes. Age discrimination is specified in the constitution in a couple places, minimum age for certain elected officials (obviously they should have set a max too )

It is not proscribed by the constitution, so congress can enact laws as it sees fit. You could envision a law that might violate the 14th (equal protections), but everything to date has either been to protect people or for specific job requirements.

The ADEA is the law with the most application, protects those over 40 from discrimination, and applies to all fed, state, local, and private employers except where specific exceptions have been made (we are one of those).

It is also well established (and common sense) that laws or policies restricting youth are OK, for their own protection or the protection of society from their not-fully-developed judgment. Firearm possession/ownership by youth under 21 (or 25) would almost certainly be restricted if not for the 2nd amendment.

However...

A change in the age for reasons of job performance is clearly established as OK.

A change that protects certain, preferred constituents over other constituents would clearly violate the 14th amendment.

You *might* be able to do a phased-in age change (ex. increase it by one month every 2-3 months) to avoid industry disruption. But the elders would sue and argue that it violated the 14th and they might well prevail on that.

But to make age 67 only applicable to youth for reasons of union politics would clearly violate the 14th, unless they could show empirically that younger generations are more healthy and will somehow stay that way for 40+ years.

Best you can hope for is a phased-in approach. But I doubt even that.

 

The same way you change ss benefits, military retirement benefits, etc. Not change it the day before it affects someone.

 

Yes I know there are wingnuts like Nehls. But the rank and file in congress are shall we say "engaged" with big money interests, both parties but maybe more so GOP.

If the legacies (A4A) are seriously opposed I'm not sure why their congressional friends would ignore their patrons... one third of the senate and all of the house have a looming re-election campaign to pay for.

Maybe A4A doesn't care that much? What they say in public may not match what their K street operators say behind closed doors.

Or maybe A4A wants to make sure ICAO goes first, just to ensure they don't have to deal with an operational schism that their CBA's (and federal law) don't account for.

 

Not applicable. The very fact that SS age changes is due to empirical changes in longevity across generations (and the financial impact on SS). So it's not a 14th amendment issue. Believe me, it would have been tried in court if it was.

Military benefits are irrelevant, just because a certain employment package was offered in the past, doesn't mean it can never be changed and must be available in perpetuity to all comers. That's ridiculous. Flip side of that is annual raises for inflation... better just lock all the pay tables where they were on Jan 1st 1900. Status Quo!

Also as an aside, service members do not have any sort of airtight employment "contract"... retirement provisions are set by federal law, and could be completely changed or revoked at any time by congress (no constitutional entitlement to mil or any other pension). Obviously politically unpalatable, but that's the only protection you have.

Bottom line you can't enact an age limit (which is already an exception under federal law) and then apply it inconsistently because union intra-mural politics.

Personally I think it should have a gradual phase-in, to minimize disruption for employers and employees, but even that might be illegal. The ADEA does not allow businesses to discriminate for their "convenience" or to "avoid disruption"... they'd have to come up with a better reason. Maybe just maybe if ICAO did a phase-in they could justify matching that.

 

"over here in the US" vs "over, here in the US" mean two different things in English. I guess you meant the latter.

 

LOL, where is the shortage?

 

How many years have I been hearing this?

 

What does being on the inside do for ALPA or its non LEPF members? The reward is higher to be against to the last day. Coming back at the top lawsuits are overblown. Scare tactics. Where is there precedent for that?