Mandatory vaccines for teachers/staff and eligible students

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:And Jeff, giving you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you don't understand what "mandatory subject of negotiation" means. It's doesn't mean that the union is putting mandatory vaccination on the table, as in, they want to advocate for it. It means that the employer MUST bargain with the union over vaccination. The rest of the statement makes clear that AFT is against mandatory vaccination, and will oppose it in their negotiations. That's what AFT means when they say "mandatory subject for negotiations."

You are welcome to your interpretation, but you are not welcome to attempt to teach me a new version of English. If something is subject to negotiation, then it is subject to negotiation. If the outcome is something that is not acceptable, then it is not subject to negotiation.

[Anonymous]

Where is she getting the vaccination percentages from? I thought DC, to name one location, hasn't gotten the figures yet. I have a feeling she is just talking about union staff.

[Anonymous]

Saying it should be negotiated is not the same as saying it should happen

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Saying it should be negotiated is not the same as saying it should happen

If it shouldn't happen, why bother to negotiate? Certainly, agreeing to negotiate an outcome is not an indication that you oppose that outcome which is the claim made by the earlier poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where is she getting the vaccination percentages from? I thought DC, to name one location, hasn't gotten the figures yet. I have a feeling she is just talking about union staff.

Agree. Why gather numbers and not release it for DC, if hat has happened for WTU (presumably part of AFT?). I would imagine as well that she is referring to AFT staff.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying it should be negotiated is not the same as saying it should happen

If it shouldn't happen, why bother to negotiate? Certainly, agreeing to negotiate an outcome is not an indication that you oppose that outcome which is the claim made by the earlier poster.

Because it is basically saying that if districts want it, they have to go through the union first. This doesn't inspire confidence to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saying it should be negotiated is not the same as saying it should happen

true

[Anonymous]

With mandate coming for federal workers, I don’t see how teachers unions can keep any argument against mandatory vaccination or routine testing.

[Anonymous]

Teachers unions should simply be asking how they can support mandatory vaccination.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying it should be negotiated is not the same as saying it should happen

If it shouldn't happen, why bother to negotiate? Certainly, agreeing to negotiate an outcome is not an indication that you oppose that outcome which is the claim made by the earlier poster.

Ok, in labor law, “subject for mandatory bargaining” means that it is an issue that if the employer wants to have happen, they have to negotiate with the union. It does not mean the union is affirmatively bringing the issue to the table because the union wants to consider it. It’s the opposite. It protects the union from management issueing an edict about it.

So AFT saying it is a “subject for mandatory bargaining” means they are asserting their right to force the employer to negotiate over it. And from the rest of the AFT statement (that they don’t think vaccines should be “coereced”) I think we can conclude that when/if the issue is bargained over, they will oppose it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying it should be negotiated is not the same as saying it should happen

If it shouldn't happen, why bother to negotiate? Certainly, agreeing to negotiate an outcome is not an indication that you oppose that outcome which is the claim made by the earlier poster.

Ok, in labor law, “subject for mandatory bargaining” means that it is an issue that if the employer wants to have happen, they have to negotiate with the union. It does not mean the union is affirmatively bringing the issue to the table because the union wants to consider it. It’s the opposite. It protects the union from management issueing an edict about it.

So AFT saying it is a “subject for mandatory bargaining” means they are asserting their right to force the employer to negotiate over it. And from the rest of the AFT statement (that they don’t think vaccines should be “coereced”) I think we can conclude that when/if the issue is bargained over, they will oppose it.

+1

This makes sense.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying it should be negotiated is not the same as saying it should happen

If it shouldn't happen, why bother to negotiate? Certainly, agreeing to negotiate an outcome is not an indication that you oppose that outcome which is the claim made by the earlier poster.

Ok, in labor law, “subject for mandatory bargaining” means that it is an issue that if the employer wants to have happen, they have to negotiate with the union. It does not mean the union is affirmatively bringing the issue to the table because the union wants to consider it. It’s the opposite. It protects the union from management issueing an edict about it.

So AFT saying it is a “subject for mandatory bargaining” means they are asserting their right to force the employer to negotiate over it. And from the rest of the AFT statement (that they don’t think vaccines should be “coereced”) I think we can conclude that when/if the issue is bargained over, they will oppose it.

I agree with your first paragraph. The ATF statement is clear that the union opposes a mandate that is not negotiated. However, your conclusion that the a mandate would be opposed in negotiations is not supported. If negotiations failed, what would prevent a mandate from being issued anyway? The only reason to negotiate is to reach agreement on the modalities.

Moreover, since any such negotiations would need to between the local unions and their respective managements, it is not even clear that all of the locals would have the same position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is she getting the vaccination percentages from? I thought DC, to name one location, hasn't gotten the figures yet. I have a feeling she is just talking about union staff.

Agree. Why gather numbers and not release it for DC, if hat has happened for WTU (presumably part of AFT?). I would imagine as well that she is referring to AFT staff.

+1

The WTU hasn’t gathered data from teachers on vaccination status and I’ve never been surveyed by the AFT. Does she explain how she got that 90% or to whom she’s specifically referring? FWIW I don’t think 90% of AFT members are vaccinated.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying it should be negotiated is not the same as saying it should happen

If it shouldn't happen, why bother to negotiate? Certainly, agreeing to negotiate an outcome is not an indication that you oppose that outcome which is the claim made by the earlier poster.

Ok, in labor law, “subject for mandatory bargaining” means that it is an issue that if the employer wants to have happen, they have to negotiate with the union. It does not mean the union is affirmatively bringing the issue to the table because the union wants to consider it. It’s the opposite. It protects the union from management issueing an edict about it.

So AFT saying it is a “subject for mandatory bargaining” means they are asserting their right to force the employer to negotiate over it. And from the rest of the AFT statement (that they don’t think vaccines should be “coereced”) I think we can conclude that when/if the issue is bargained over, they will oppose it.

I agree with your first paragraph. The ATF statement is clear that the union opposes a mandate that is not negotiated. However, your conclusion that the a mandate would be opposed in negotiations is not supported. If negotiations failed, what would prevent a mandate from being issued anyway? The only reason to negotiate is to reach agreement on the modalities.

Moreover, since any such negotiations would need to between the local unions and their respective managements, it is not even clear that all of the locals would have the same position.

AFT clearly says they don’t think vaccination should be “coerced” so I’m not sure how you can interpret that in any other way than that they will oppose it in negotiations. I am not sure if WTU shares AFT’s position but I would be surprised if they didn’t.

If the parties don’t reach agreement this is called an “impass” and that gets into issues of DC public employee labor law I cannot speak to. But it would obviously be a crazy turn of events if WTU went on strike to oppose mandatory vaccination.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying it should be negotiated is not the same as saying it should happen

If it shouldn't happen, why bother to negotiate? Certainly, agreeing to negotiate an outcome is not an indication that you oppose that outcome which is the claim made by the earlier poster.

Ok, in labor law, “subject for mandatory bargaining” means that it is an issue that if the employer wants to have happen, they have to negotiate with the union. It does not mean the union is affirmatively bringing the issue to the table because the union wants to consider it. It’s the opposite. It protects the union from management issueing an edict about it.

So AFT saying it is a “subject for mandatory bargaining” means they are asserting their right to force the employer to negotiate over it. And from the rest of the AFT statement (that they don’t think vaccines should be “coereced”) I think we can conclude that when/if the issue is bargained over, they will oppose it.

I agree with your first paragraph. The ATF statement is clear that the union opposes a mandate that is not negotiated. However, your conclusion that the a mandate would be opposed in negotiations is not supported. If negotiations failed, what would prevent a mandate from being issued anyway? The only reason to negotiate is to reach agreement on the modalities.

Moreover, since any such negotiations would need to between the local unions and their respective managements, it is not even clear that all of the locals would have the same position.

Okay but this has been going on a while now and where have we seen teachers unions advocating for mandatory vaccinations?