Mandatory vaccines for teachers/staff and eligible students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be the points of negotiation if DCPS did mandate a vaccine for DC employees, including teachers? The time frame? I doubt medical exemptions would be a point of contention, and I doubt religious ones would be either.

Money, money, money, money. Money. That and demanding a mandate for students.

And right on cue, Politico is on the case.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/28/vaccine-mandates-labor-biden-501123

I just can’t express how upsetting this is. WHY would organized labor oppose the single most potent weapon we have against covid? They are protecting anti-vax members. That’s all I can conclude.

I think they just want some compensation in return for it. Fot example, the Flight Attendants got three extra days of vacation in exchange for it.

Yeah, which is kind of gross and belies the notion that their goals are covid safety.

Yup. But as long as they can skirt the line and avoid a public perception backlash they'll continue to do it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:As the statement from the AFT that I posted earlier demonstrates, the organization supports negotiating a vaccine mandate. I have removed the post that wrongly stated that the AFT has "expressly come out against mandatory vaccination". I also removed the responses to that false post. I have repeatedly asked the poster whose post I removed to stop posting misinformation so it is unfortunate that this continues.

Here is what Politico says:

“ While the AFT, for example, rejected the idea of compulsory vaccination for members, it did laud the update issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Tuesday recommending that both vaccinated and unvaccinated Americans who live in areas where Covid-19 transmission is “high” or “substantial” wear masks indoors.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/28/vaccine-mandates-labor-biden-501123

If your reply to this is “Oh, the unions just want to bargain over it locally, they support mandatory vaccination!” … I’d like to know how you reach that conclusion.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:As the statement from the AFT that I posted earlier demonstrates, the organization supports negotiating a vaccine mandate. I have removed the post that wrongly stated that the AFT has "expressly come out against mandatory vaccination". I also removed the responses to that false post. I have repeatedly asked the poster whose post I removed to stop posting misinformation so it is unfortunate that this continues.

Here is what Politico says:

“ While the AFT, for example, rejected the idea of compulsory vaccination for members, it did laud the update issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Tuesday recommending that both vaccinated and unvaccinated Americans who live in areas where Covid-19 transmission is “high” or “substantial” wear masks indoors.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/28/vaccine-mandates-labor-biden-501123

If your reply to this is “Oh, the unions just want to bargain over it locally, they support mandatory vaccination!” … I’d like to know how you reach that conclusion.

That was a poor bit of reporting by Politico. Had you read further, you would have seen that they got a further towards the truth later in the article. But, I came to my conclusion by reading the actual statement put out by the ATF rather than Politico's misleading summary of it:

“More than 90 percent of the AFT’s educators and school staff, and nearly 80 percent of our healthcare professionals, are vaccinated against COVID-19, and those numbers are only increasing. The COVID-19 vaccine is the most important tool we have to protect ourselves; our families; and the students, patients and communities we serve. As the delta variant spreads and COVID-19 cases rise in unvaccinated communities, we are reminded just how unpredictable this virus is and how critical vaccinations are to keeping our schools open for in-person learning and preventing our hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. With ICUs once again filling up and many reaching capacity, our nurses and healthcare professionals in particular are exhausted and anxious at the prospect of another COVID-19 surge.

“In order for everyone to feel safe and welcome in their workplaces, vaccinations must be negotiated between employers and workers, not coerced. We believe strongly that everyone should get vaccinated unless they have a medical or religious exception, and that this should be a mandatory subject of negotiation for employers to keep their employees safe and build trust. But healthcare professionals are concerned that mandating vaccines outside contract negotiation will only result in more people leaving the bedside at a time when staffing levels are already low from the trauma of the past year. This makes vaccine advocacy more important than ever, and medical professionals must be on the front lines of correcting the rampant vaccine disinformation campaign that is costing American lives.”

The bolding is mine. As you can read, the ATF strongly supports vaccinations and believes that mandatory vaccinations should be subject to negotiation.

https://www.aft.org/press-release/aft-president-randi-weingarten-says-healthcare-worker-vaccines-are-critical

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:As the statement from the AFT that I posted earlier demonstrates, the organization supports negotiating a vaccine mandate. I have removed the post that wrongly stated that the AFT has "expressly come out against mandatory vaccination". I also removed the responses to that false post. I have repeatedly asked the poster whose post I removed to stop posting misinformation so it is unfortunate that this continues.

Here is what Politico says:

“ While the AFT, for example, rejected the idea of compulsory vaccination for members, it did laud the update issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Tuesday recommending that both vaccinated and unvaccinated Americans who live in areas where Covid-19 transmission is “high” or “substantial” wear masks indoors.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/28/vaccine-mandates-labor-biden-501123

If your reply to this is “Oh, the unions just want to bargain over it locally, they support mandatory vaccination!” … I’d like to know how you reach that conclusion.

That was a poor bit of reporting by Politico. Had you read further, you would have seen that they got a further towards the truth later in the article. But, I came to my conclusion by reading the actual statement put out by the ATF rather than Politico's misleading summary of it:

“More than 90 percent of the AFT’s educators and school staff, and nearly 80 percent of our healthcare professionals, are vaccinated against COVID-19, and those numbers are only increasing. The COVID-19 vaccine is the most important tool we have to protect ourselves; our families; and the students, patients and communities we serve. As the delta variant spreads and COVID-19 cases rise in unvaccinated communities, we are reminded just how unpredictable this virus is and how critical vaccinations are to keeping our schools open for in-person learning and preventing our hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. With ICUs once again filling up and many reaching capacity, our nurses and healthcare professionals in particular are exhausted and anxious at the prospect of another COVID-19 surge.

“In order for everyone to feel safe and welcome in their workplaces, vaccinations must be negotiated between employers and workers, not coerced. We believe strongly that everyone should get vaccinated unless they have a medical or religious exception, and that this should be a mandatory subject of negotiation for employers to keep their employees safe and build trust. But healthcare professionals are concerned that mandating vaccines outside contract negotiation will only result in more people leaving the bedside at a time when staffing levels are already low from the trauma of the past year. This makes vaccine advocacy more important than ever, and medical professionals must be on the front lines of correcting the rampant vaccine disinformation campaign that is costing American lives.”

The bolding is mine. As you can read, the ATF strongly supports vaccinations and believes that mandatory vaccinations should be subject to negotiation.

https://www.aft.org/press-release/aft-president-randi-weingarten-says-healthcare-worker-vaccines-are-critical

So you believe that AFT is *in favor* of mandatory vaccination? What evidence do you have to support that?

I’ve explained like 10 times that “subject of mandatory bargaining” does not mean AFT is in favor of the subject.

[Anonymous]

I think it's clear that AFT wants to negotiate on whether vaccines should be mandated. But beyond that they don't have any statements whether they are for or against a mandate. They certainly don't have a statement that says "we are for a mandate" or "we are against a mandate".

So they are neither for nor against a mandate.

[Anonymous]

Whenever my mom came to me and said "we need to talk about this," I definitely did not interpret that as support for whatever it is I wanted to do. Maybe there was a chance, but it certainly isn't 100%.

If this was 100%, definite support, then there's no need for negotiation. If the outcome is already determined, there's no conversation to be had. As someone who is familiar with actually bargaining on behalf of a public sector union, there is potential for any negotiation to end with a no. That is the point of negotiation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's clear that AFT wants to negotiate on whether vaccines should be mandated. But beyond that they don't have any statements whether they are for or against a mandate. They certainly don't have a statement that says "we are for a mandate" or "we are against a mandate".

So they are neither for nor against a mandate.

and that does not accord with any of the statements and reporting on the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's clear that AFT wants to negotiate on whether vaccines should be mandated. But beyond that they don't have any statements whether they are for or against a mandate. They certainly don't have a statement that says "we are for a mandate" or "we are against a mandate".

So they are neither for nor against a mandate.

and that does not accord with any of the statements and reporting on the issue.

Of course it does. Did you mistype?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's clear that AFT wants to negotiate on whether vaccines should be mandated. But beyond that they don't have any statements whether they are for or against a mandate. They certainly don't have a statement that says "we are for a mandate" or "we are against a mandate".

So they are neither for nor against a mandate.

and that does not accord with any of the statements and reporting on the issue.

Of course it does. Did you mistype?

Let me try re-phrasing....
The AFT says that a vaccine mandate is the subject of mandatory bargaining. That means they want to negotiate the vaccine mandate. Is that what you are struggling with? It's literally up there bolded in Jeff's comment.

They don't have any statements like "we are for a vaccine mandate" OR "we are against a vaccine mandate" in their statement. They do not state if they are for or against a vaccine mandate.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
So you believe that AFT is *in favor* of mandatory vaccination? What evidence do you have to support that?

I’ve explained like 10 times that “subject of mandatory bargaining” does not mean AFT is in favor of the subject.

First of all, the AFT will not negotiate anything. Contracts are between union locals and their various managements. In the case of DC, that is the WTU and DCPS. So the AFT wants WTU and DCPS to hash this issue out rather than it being decided by edict. If those two parties did come to agreement on mandatory vaccinations, then the AFT would obviously support it. If the AFT actually opposed mandates as you seem to believe, it would just say so.

Moreover, you have absolutely lost track of the actual goal we are trying to achieve. I think what everyone wants is a safe environment for students, staff, and teachers. The AFT and the WTU and both absolutely clear that vaccinations are a key -- perhaps the key -- element of safety. However, it may well be that vaccination rates are already high enough that they are no longer even that important of an item. Or, perhaps a mandate is not necessary to reach the vaccination goal. At any rate, rather than fixating on a mandate, you should focus on the level of vaccinations and how best to reach any holdouts. That might be a mandate, but it might not be.

The WTU has made a wide-ranging proposal to DCPS and hopefully that is being negotiated now. There are a host of issues beyond vaccinations that need to be worked out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's clear that AFT wants to negotiate on whether vaccines should be mandated. But beyond that they don't have any statements whether they are for or against a mandate. They certainly don't have a statement that says "we are for a mandate" or "we are against a mandate".

So they are neither for nor against a mandate.

and that does not accord with any of the statements and reporting on the issue.

Of course it does. Did you mistype?

Let me try re-phrasing....
The AFT says that a vaccine mandate is the subject of mandatory bargaining. That means they want to negotiate the vaccine mandate. Is that what you are struggling with? It's literally up there bolded in Jeff's comment.

They don't have any statements like "we are for a vaccine mandate" OR "we are against a vaccine mandate" in their statement. They do not state if they are for or against a vaccine mandate.

They didn't say that they want to negotiate. They said it's a subject that they think needs to be negotiated.

Translation: Their default position is no but they might be willing to say yes in exchange for something else.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

The WTU has made a wide-ranging proposal to DCPS and hopefully that is being negotiated now. There are a host of issues beyond vaccinations that need to be worked out.

Is there any reporting or documentation of what is in this proposal? I ask this more as a parent who is anxious about school not being in-person at the beginning of the school year again -- I realize that there are strong statements it will happen but I'm concerned that we will have an unexpected surprise in August (like we did last year when no agreement could be reached).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's clear that AFT wants to negotiate on whether vaccines should be mandated. But beyond that they don't have any statements whether they are for or against a mandate. They certainly don't have a statement that says "we are for a mandate" or "we are against a mandate".

So they are neither for nor against a mandate.

and that does not accord with any of the statements and reporting on the issue.

Of course it does. Did you mistype?

the politico article literally says they are against it; as does the AFT statement reference to protecting hypothetical anti-vax nurses. to believe AFT is neutral on this or in favor but we just don’t know! is REALLY a stretch.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So you believe that AFT is *in favor* of mandatory vaccination? What evidence do you have to support that?

I’ve explained like 10 times that “subject of mandatory bargaining” does not mean AFT is in favor of the subject.

First of all, the AFT will not negotiate anything. Contracts are between union locals and their various managements. In the case of DC, that is the WTU and DCPS. So the AFT wants WTU and DCPS to hash this issue out rather than it being decided by edict. If those two parties did come to agreement on mandatory vaccinations, then the AFT would obviously support it. If the AFT actually opposed mandates as you seem to believe, it would just say so.

Moreover, you have absolutely lost track of the actual goal we are trying to achieve. I think what everyone wants is a safe environment for students, staff, and teachers. The AFT and the WTU and both absolutely clear that vaccinations are a key -- perhaps the key -- element of safety. However, it may well be that vaccination rates are already high enough that they are no longer even that important of an item. Or, perhaps a mandate is not necessary to reach the vaccination goal. At any rate, rather than fixating on a mandate, you should focus on the level of vaccinations and how best to reach any holdouts. That might be a mandate, but it might not be.

The WTU has made a wide-ranging proposal to DCPS and hopefully that is being negotiated now. There are a host of issues beyond vaccinations that need to be worked out.

you know what would be great to assess vaccination rates? data collection from teachers on their vaccination status. oh wait … WTU got in the way of that too. Instead of allowing data collection to go forward at a time when DCPS could do something with the data, it’s now 5 weeks until school starts and we have no data, and time is basically out for unvaxxed teachers to be fully vaccinated before school.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's clear that AFT wants to negotiate on whether vaccines should be mandated. But beyond that they don't have any statements whether they are for or against a mandate. They certainly don't have a statement that says "we are for a mandate" or "we are against a mandate".

So they are neither for nor against a mandate.

and that does not accord with any of the statements and reporting on the issue.

Of course it does. Did you mistype?

the politico article literally says they are against it; as does the AFT statement reference to protecting hypothetical anti-vax nurses. to believe AFT is neutral on this or in favor but we just don’t know! is REALLY a stretch.

I don't know why you are being so argumentative about this. The Politico article was reporting on the ATF statement. The same statement that I have posted twice in this thread. Why are you relying on Politico than the actual source? The answer, of course, is that you are more interested in spin than facts.

You do not believe that the AFT is neutral, so let me ask you this:

1) if a local union negotiates a deal with its management that includes mandatory vaccinations, do you think the AFT will oppose it or support it?
2) if a local union negotiates a deal with its management that does not include mandatory vaccinations, do you think the AFT will oppose it or support it?

I think the AFT will support both cases, but that is a neutral position that you do not believe AFT has. So, how do you believe the AFT would respond in each case?