Schools with positive cases thread - post here

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You said vaccines are subject to mandatory bargaining. Source?

The source was the WTU and ATF stating as such. You might want to reread the other thread if you are confused about "mandatory bargaining".

Is that accurate, though? Just because a union asserts it is a subject of mandatory bargaining doesn't make that true.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You said vaccines are subject to mandatory bargaining. Source?

The source was the WTU and ATF stating as such. You might want to reread the other thread if you are confused about "mandatory bargaining".

You can just say you don't actually know if it's true. But it's revealing how you take WTU's word as God's truth.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You said vaccines are subject to mandatory bargaining. Source?

The source was the WTU and ATF stating as such. You might want to reread the other thread if you are confused about "mandatory bargaining".

Is that accurate, though? Just because a union asserts it is a subject of mandatory bargaining doesn't make that true.

Again, there is a really long thread here in which the meaning of "mandatory bargaining" is discussed. Let's not waste further pages repeating everything. The bottom line is that the WTU saying it is subject to mandatory bargaining means that they intend to negotiate it. It does not mean that they oppose it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There would be nothing to negotiate if WTU actually wanted a mandate. Do you think if Bowser offered every teacher a $50,000 bonus, the WTU would say, "wait, wait, wait -- we need to negotiate this first." No, they'd say thank you very much and everyone would move on.

The fact that we have a teacher vaccine "mandate" with so many holes and exceptions and literally no information WHATSOEVER about how many people are vaccinated shows the mandate we have is almost meaningless, and that is thanks to resistance by WTU.

There are always things to negotiate, if for no other reason than to ascertain the details and to make sure both sides are on the same page. In the case of the vaccine mandate details would include: the date by which vaccines would be required, what -- if any -- exemptions would be allowed, penalties for failing to abide by the mandate, how medical information related to the mandate would be handled and who would have access to it, etc.

And, yes, if Bowser offered every teacher a $50,000 bonus, the WTU would want to negotiate it. That doesn't mean -- despite your "negotiate means oppose" understanding of the word "negotiate" -- that the union would oppose it. But, it would want to make sure that all the ramifications were understood and agree upon.

This is just so utterly and completely ridiculous. If WTU actually wanted a mandate, just like if they actually wanted a $50,000 per teacher bonus, the details would be sorted out in 30 minutes.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You said vaccines are subject to mandatory bargaining. Source?

The source was the WTU and ATF stating as such. You might want to reread the other thread if you are confused about "mandatory bargaining".

Is that accurate, though? Just because a union asserts it is a subject of mandatory bargaining doesn't make that true.

Again, there is a really long thread here in which the meaning of "mandatory bargaining" is discussed. Let's not waste further pages repeating everything. The bottom line is that the WTU saying it is subject to mandatory bargaining means that they intend to negotiate it. It does not mean that they oppose it.

I read that other long thread and it started from the premise that bargaining over vaccines was definitely (mandatorily) part of what WTU could do. I just don't know if that's even accurate. It could be that the WTU is asserting that because it WANTS to negotiate. (And yes, I agree they could bargain over vaccines and still be FOR vaccinations.)

But you are correct, that's a side issue.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You said vaccines are subject to mandatory bargaining. Source?

The source was the WTU and ATF stating as such. You might want to reread the other thread if you are confused about "mandatory bargaining".

You can just say you don't actually know if it's true. But it's revealing how you take WTU's word as God's truth.

What are you talking about? If the WTU says something is subject to mandatory bargaining it means that it intends to negotiate the item. It doesn't mean that it opposes it. That's what the WTU said and that's what happened. Please get over whatever is bugging you about this.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You said vaccines are subject to mandatory bargaining. Source?

The source was the WTU and ATF stating as such. You might want to reread the other thread if you are confused about "mandatory bargaining".

Is that accurate, though? Just because a union asserts it is a subject of mandatory bargaining doesn't make that true.

Again, there is a really long thread here in which the meaning of "mandatory bargaining" is discussed. Let's not waste further pages repeating everything. The bottom line is that the WTU saying it is subject to mandatory bargaining means that they intend to negotiate it. It does not mean that they oppose it.

If the answer is so obvious, then why don't you tell us what it is? What provision in the collective bargaining agreement requires vaccines to be negotiated?

If you can't cite a source, then I'd recommend you delete your own comment.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There would be nothing to negotiate if WTU actually wanted a mandate. Do you think if Bowser offered every teacher a $50,000 bonus, the WTU would say, "wait, wait, wait -- we need to negotiate this first." No, they'd say thank you very much and everyone would move on.

The fact that we have a teacher vaccine "mandate" with so many holes and exceptions and literally no information WHATSOEVER about how many people are vaccinated shows the mandate we have is almost meaningless, and that is thanks to resistance by WTU.

There are always things to negotiate, if for no other reason than to ascertain the details and to make sure both sides are on the same page. In the case of the vaccine mandate details would include: the date by which vaccines would be required, what -- if any -- exemptions would be allowed, penalties for failing to abide by the mandate, how medical information related to the mandate would be handled and who would have access to it, etc.

And, yes, if Bowser offered every teacher a $50,000 bonus, the WTU would want to negotiate it. That doesn't mean -- despite your "negotiate means oppose" understanding of the word "negotiate" -- that the union would oppose it. But, it would want to make sure that all the ramifications were understood and agree upon.

This is just so utterly and completely ridiculous. If WTU actually wanted a mandate, just like if they actually wanted a $50,000 per teacher bonus, the details would be sorted out in 30 minutes.

If the WTU had been the only party to the negotiations, they could have been. But, as with most negotiations, three were other parties. Not only the Bowser administration, but other public employee unions. The WTU publicly complained that negotiations were taking too long.

But, is your complaint now that negotiations took too long? That is a real goalpost moving effort.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You said vaccines are subject to mandatory bargaining. Source?

The source was the WTU and ATF stating as such. You might want to reread the other thread if you are confused about "mandatory bargaining".

You can just say you don't actually know if it's true. But it's revealing how you take WTU's word as God's truth.

What are you talking about? If the WTU says something is subject to mandatory bargaining it means that it intends to negotiate the item. It doesn't mean that it opposes it. That's what the WTU said and that's what happened. Please get over whatever is bugging you about this.

Something is only subject to bargaining if that was stipulated as such in their collective bargaining agreement. It's not like WTU can just declare whatever it wants, willy nilly, to be subject to mandatory bargaining.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There would be nothing to negotiate if WTU actually wanted a mandate. Do you think if Bowser offered every teacher a $50,000 bonus, the WTU would say, "wait, wait, wait -- we need to negotiate this first." No, they'd say thank you very much and everyone would move on.

The fact that we have a teacher vaccine "mandate" with so many holes and exceptions and literally no information WHATSOEVER about how many people are vaccinated shows the mandate we have is almost meaningless, and that is thanks to resistance by WTU.

There are always things to negotiate, if for no other reason than to ascertain the details and to make sure both sides are on the same page. In the case of the vaccine mandate details would include: the date by which vaccines would be required, what -- if any -- exemptions would be allowed, penalties for failing to abide by the mandate, how medical information related to the mandate would be handled and who would have access to it, etc.

And, yes, if Bowser offered every teacher a $50,000 bonus, the WTU would want to negotiate it. That doesn't mean -- despite your "negotiate means oppose" understanding of the word "negotiate" -- that the union would oppose it. But, it would want to make sure that all the ramifications were understood and agree upon.

This is just so utterly and completely ridiculous. If WTU actually wanted a mandate, just like if they actually wanted a $50,000 per teacher bonus, the details would be sorted out in 30 minutes.

If the WTU had been the only party to the negotiations, they could have been. But, as with most negotiations, three were other parties. Not only the Bowser administration, but other public employee unions. The WTU publicly complained that negotiations were taking too long.

But, is your complaint now that negotiations took too long? That is a real goalpost moving effort.

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You said vaccines are subject to mandatory bargaining. Source?

The source was the WTU and ATF stating as such. You might want to reread the other thread if you are confused about "mandatory bargaining".

Is that accurate, though? Just because a union asserts it is a subject of mandatory bargaining doesn't make that true.

Again, there is a really long thread here in which the meaning of "mandatory bargaining" is discussed. Let's not waste further pages repeating everything. The bottom line is that the WTU saying it is subject to mandatory bargaining means that they intend to negotiate it. It does not mean that they oppose it.

If the answer is so obvious, then why don't you tell us what it is? What provision in the collective bargaining agreement requires vaccines to be negotiated?

If you can't cite a source, then I'd recommend you delete your own comment.

The collective bargaining agreement has nothing to do with it. I know that you hate being wrong about your claim that the WTU opposed a mandate only to see it blow up in your face. But, trying to divert the discussion is not going to change the fact that you were wrong.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There would be nothing to negotiate if WTU actually wanted a mandate. Do you think if Bowser offered every teacher a $50,000 bonus, the WTU would say, "wait, wait, wait -- we need to negotiate this first." No, they'd say thank you very much and everyone would move on.

The fact that we have a teacher vaccine "mandate" with so many holes and exceptions and literally no information WHATSOEVER about how many people are vaccinated shows the mandate we have is almost meaningless, and that is thanks to resistance by WTU.

There are always things to negotiate, if for no other reason than to ascertain the details and to make sure both sides are on the same page. In the case of the vaccine mandate details would include: the date by which vaccines would be required, what -- if any -- exemptions would be allowed, penalties for failing to abide by the mandate, how medical information related to the mandate would be handled and who would have access to it, etc.

And, yes, if Bowser offered every teacher a $50,000 bonus, the WTU would want to negotiate it. That doesn't mean -- despite your "negotiate means oppose" understanding of the word "negotiate" -- that the union would oppose it. But, it would want to make sure that all the ramifications were understood and agree upon.

This is just so utterly and completely ridiculous. If WTU actually wanted a mandate, just like if they actually wanted a $50,000 per teacher bonus, the details would be sorted out in 30 minutes.

If the WTU had been the only party to the negotiations, they could have been. But, as with most negotiations, three were other parties. Not only the Bowser administration, but other public employee unions. The WTU publicly complained that negotiations were taking too long.

But, is your complaint now that negotiations took too long? That is a real goalpost moving effort.

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

What didn't I understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You said vaccines are subject to mandatory bargaining. Source?

The source was the WTU and ATF stating as such. You might want to reread the other thread if you are confused about "mandatory bargaining".

You can just say you don't actually know if it's true. But it's revealing how you take WTU's word as God's truth.

What are you talking about? If the WTU says something is subject to mandatory bargaining it means that it intends to negotiate the item. It doesn't mean that it opposes it. That's what the WTU said and that's what happened. Please get over whatever is bugging you about this.

Something is only subject to bargaining if that was stipulated as such in their collective bargaining agreement. It's not like WTU can just declare whatever it wants, willy nilly, to be subject to mandatory bargaining.

This is true.

Source that discusses the issue: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/coronavirus-bargain-with-unions-vaccines.aspx

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Something is only subject to bargaining if that was stipulated as such in their collective bargaining agreement. It's not like WTU can just declare whatever it wants, willy nilly, to be subject to mandatory bargaining.

This is true.

Source that discusses the issue: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/coronavirus-bargain-with-unions-vaccines.aspx

If the Bowser Administration didn't think a mandate was subject to mandatory bargaining, it could have acted unilaterally or took the Union to court. You are trying to argue wether the WTU was correct in its position. I don't really care either way. The bottom line is that the WTU was willing -- eager even -- to negotiate. Those negotiations took place and ended successfully. I don't know why this is controversial.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Something is only subject to bargaining if that was stipulated as such in their collective bargaining agreement. It's not like WTU can just declare whatever it wants, willy nilly, to be subject to mandatory bargaining.

This is true.

Source that discusses the issue: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/coronavirus-bargain-with-unions-vaccines.aspx

If the Bowser Administration didn't think a mandate was subject to mandatory bargaining, it could have acted unilaterally or took the Union to court. You are trying to argue wether the WTU was correct in its position. I don't really care either way. The bottom line is that the WTU was willing -- eager even -- to negotiate. Those negotiations took place and ended successfully. I don't know why this is controversial.

If she acted unilaterally, the teachers would have gone on strike (there's that word!) again. Sadly, she has to live with the realities of having an almost comically intransigent teachers union.

It's odd how you take WTU's position in every single dispute. (Even most union people hate teachers' unions). And how aggressively hostile you are to parents (maybe you should change the name of the forum to DCUrbanTeachers?). And as far as I can tell, you don't give a rat's ass about children. You clearly do not have schoolage children.