Schools with positive cases thread - post here

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I oppose the WTU position that there should be vaccine exemptions for medical or religious reasons. I think anyone who won't get vaccinated should be transferred to a non-teaching position or should quit. In fact, in the history of this website, I have only had one interaction with the WTU (at least to my knowledge) and that interaction did not go particularly well. I thought the WTU official was an idiot. As I mentioned earlier, most of the posts by teachers in the Website Feedback forum are very hostile to me and believe that I allow posters like you to constantly attack them unfairly. I have two children. One is a DCPS graduate and one is a current DCPS student.

Unlike you, I appreciate my children's teachers. I think my children are lucky to have experienced so many dedicated professionals. Given your clear dislike for teachers, I wonder why you would want to expose your children to such people.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I oppose the WTU position that there should be vaccine exemptions for medical or religious reasons. I think anyone who won't get vaccinated should be transferred to a non-teaching position or should quit. In fact, in the history of this website, I have only had one interaction with the WTU (at least to my knowledge) and that interaction did not go particularly well. I thought the WTU official was an idiot. As I mentioned earlier, most of the posts by teachers in the Website Feedback forum are very hostile to me and believe that I allow posters like you to constantly attack them unfairly. I have two children. One is a DCPS graduate and one is a current DCPS student.

Unlike you, I appreciate my children's teachers. I think my children are lucky to have experienced so many dedicated professionals. Given your clear dislike for teachers, I wonder why you would want to expose your children to such people.

Why did you make a strawman argument like this? PP is talking about the WTU and not the individual teachers she's experienced, who she very well may appreciate.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I oppose the WTU position that there should be vaccine exemptions for medical or religious reasons. I think anyone who won't get vaccinated should be transferred to a non-teaching position or should quit. In fact, in the history of this website, I have only had one interaction with the WTU (at least to my knowledge) and that interaction did not go particularly well. I thought the WTU official was an idiot. As I mentioned earlier, most of the posts by teachers in the Website Feedback forum are very hostile to me and believe that I allow posters like you to constantly attack them unfairly. I have two children. One is a DCPS graduate and one is a current DCPS student.

Unlike you, I appreciate my children's teachers. I think my children are lucky to have experienced so many dedicated professionals. Given your clear dislike for teachers, I wonder why you would want to expose your children to such people.

Oh FFS. No one here hates teachers. That's just the dumb rhetoric of WTU that you're parroting. People do hate WTU, and many will probably never forgive it, for what it has done to their children.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Why did you make a strawman argument like this? PP is talking about the WTU and not the individual teachers she's experienced, who she very well may appreciate.

The poster often makes broad allegations against teachers and, obviously, the WTU's members are teachers.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Oh FFS. No one here hates teachers. That's just the dumb rhetoric of WTU that you're parroting. People do hate WTU, and many will probably never forgive it, for what it has done to their children.

Who do you think the WTU represents? Who do you think makes up the WTU membership? When you allege that the WTU went on strike, who do you think was calling in sick? When we discuss a vaccine mandate, just exactly who do you think will be covered by the mandate? The answer to all of these questions is "teachers". Do you not realize that you are talking about teachers when you make these criticisms?

This is not even to mention the times you have explicitly made broad criticisms of teachers.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh FFS. No one here hates teachers. That's just the dumb rhetoric of WTU that you're parroting. People do hate WTU, and many will probably never forgive it, for what it has done to their children.

Who do you think the WTU represents? Who do you think makes up the WTU membership? When you allege that the WTU went on strike, who do you think was calling in sick? When we discuss a vaccine mandate, just exactly who do you think will be covered by the mandate? The answer to all of these questions is "teachers". Do you not realize that you are talking about teachers when you make these criticisms?

This is not even to mention the times you have explicitly made broad criticisms of teachers.

You seem to be seriously implying that those of us who do not trust the WTU hate teachers generally. I think that is mistaken.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:You seem to be seriously implying that those of us who do not trust the WTU hate teachers generally. I think that is mistaken.

I really don't know how you can complain about WTU positions and actions while claiming to like teachers who support those policies and participate in those actions. But, if you are somehow able to thread that needle, more power to you. However, there are posters here who do nothing but post complaints about teachers. Sometimes they manage to say "WTU" instead of "teachers" but not always. When posters allege -- as was done in this thread -- that posts about covid cases are from teachers who want to close schools so that they can sit on the beach while teaching, that has nothing to do with the WTU.

It may have been true in the past that there was a significant distance between the WTU and teachers they represent. But, all available evidence suggests that teachers are pretty united behind the WTU's positions with regard to covid (which is not to say every teacher supports the union).

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You seem to be seriously implying that those of us who do not trust the WTU hate teachers generally. I think that is mistaken.

I really don't know how you can complain about WTU positions and actions while claiming to like teachers who support those policies and participate in those actions. But, if you are somehow able to thread that needle, more power to you. However, there are posters here who do nothing but post complaints about teachers. Sometimes they manage to say "WTU" instead of "teachers" but not always. When posters allege -- as was done in this thread -- that posts about covid cases are from teachers who want to close schools so that they can sit on the beach while teaching, that has nothing to do with the WTU.

It may have been true in the past that there was a significant distance between the WTU and teachers they represent. But, all available evidence suggests that teachers are pretty united behind the WTU's positions with regard to covid (which is not to say every teacher supports the union).

This entire thread is basically just a platform for Jeff to vilify parents and make ever-more tortured defenses of WTU.

[Anonymous]

The mayor isn’t even trying to lead on this issue. It’s pathetic.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You seem to be seriously implying that those of us who do not trust the WTU hate teachers generally. I think that is mistaken.

I really don't know how you can complain about WTU positions and actions while claiming to like teachers who support those policies and participate in those actions. But, if you are somehow able to thread that needle, more power to you. However, there are posters here who do nothing but post complaints about teachers. Sometimes they manage to say "WTU" instead of "teachers" but not always. When posters allege -- as was done in this thread -- that posts about covid cases are from teachers who want to close schools so that they can sit on the beach while teaching, that has nothing to do with the WTU.

It may have been true in the past that there was a significant distance between the WTU and teachers they represent. But, all available evidence suggests that teachers are pretty united behind the WTU's positions with regard to covid (which is not to say every teacher supports the union).

Not a teacher, but a former union member.

People always “third-party” the union so-to-speak, talking about the union as if it’s an amorphous blob that just exists and magically has power without wondering how the union formed.

To push back on the charge made earlier in this thread, WTU’s union salaries are in line with their members’; it’s not like there’s fat cats pulling some strings and teachers are just zombies going along. Unions are democratic institutions, with leadership elected by the membership, and major actions like ratifying a contract require the vote of members. It’s ridiculous to act as if WTU is somehow not the same as teachers; WTU is made up of, by and for teachers. If the majority of the union wanted to dissolve itself, it could. Most teachers seem pretty align with their union, which sounds like their union is doing a good job representing them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You seem to be seriously implying that those of us who do not trust the WTU hate teachers generally. I think that is mistaken.

I really don't know how you can complain about WTU positions and actions while claiming to like teachers who support those policies and participate in those actions. But, if you are somehow able to thread that needle, more power to you. However, there are posters here who do nothing but post complaints about teachers. Sometimes they manage to say "WTU" instead of "teachers" but not always. When posters allege -- as was done in this thread -- that posts about covid cases are from teachers who want to close schools so that they can sit on the beach while teaching, that has nothing to do with the WTU.

It may have been true in the past that there was a significant distance between the WTU and teachers they represent. But, all available evidence suggests that teachers are pretty united behind the WTU's positions with regard to covid (which is not to say every teacher supports the union).

Not a teacher, but a former union member.

People always “third-party” the union so-to-speak, talking about the union as if it’s an amorphous blob that just exists and magically has power without wondering how the union formed.

To push back on the charge made earlier in this thread, WTU’s union salaries are in line with their members’; it’s not like there’s fat cats pulling some strings and teachers are just zombies going along. Unions are democratic institutions, with leadership elected by the membership, and major actions like ratifying a contract require the vote of members. It’s ridiculous to act as if WTU is somehow not the same as teachers; WTU is made up of, by and for teachers. If the majority of the union wanted to dissolve itself, it could. Most teachers seem pretty align with their union, which sounds like their union is doing a good job representing them.

I know several teachers in DCPS who do not support the WTU, despite being members. They just don't have the energy or time to fight it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers went on strike on around Nov 2. Why are you trying to re-write history? That WTU vote you linked to was on Nov 13, AFTER teachers went on strike. And, WTU did not stop threatening to strike, which is why DCPS had to go seek a TRO against a strike in Feb.

Wrong. The teachers did not go on strike. Many teachers called in sick after DCPS tried to force school openings in unsafe conditions. That forced opening was also opposed by the Principals' Union. So, if you going to blame teachers, you should also blame principals.

it was a strike. a concerted labor action. you may think it was justified- but it was the legal definition of a strike.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
The WTU negotiated a number of safety issues for schools which included mandatory vaccines. That is a fact. The negotiations resulted in a mandate with WTU support.

Every time you make this false claim, I'm going to come back here and dispute it. WTU saying that vaccines are a subject of "mandatory bargaining" does NOT mean that WTU was affirmatively pushing DCPS for a vaccine mandate. It means that WTU was asserting its right to limit DCPS's ability to impose a vaccine mandate. And of course -- THERE IS NO MANDATE. Vaccination is still VOLUNTARY for WTU members and all adults in DCPS. WTU has zero, and I mean ZERO, credibility to be claiming expertise or bona fide interest in safety measures unless and until they are affirmatively pushing for vaccine mandates for all adults in DCPS. Period.

I really don't understand your hangup on this topic, especially since you have been proven wrong. Saying that something is subject to "mandatory bargaining" means that it must be negotiated. Indeed, a vaccine mandate was negotiated and approved. For some reason, you understand "negotiate" to mean "oppose". I don't know why you have this understanding, but it is wrong linguistically and it has been proven wrong factually.

Yes, teachers now have a vaccine mandate. There are medical and religious reasons -- both of which I oppose -- but those with such exemptions are subject to weekly testing. This is the same mandate faced by other DC employees.

you know what Jeff? I and other knowledgable people have explained to you what “subject of mandatory bargaining” means - many times. if you’re going to insist on weighing in, why don’t you call up a labor lawyer and ask them.

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/labor_law/basics_papers/nlra/obligations.pdf

[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".

Oh Jeff. “Subject of mandatory bargaining” has a specific meaning in labor law - which you refuse to understand. You can’t just look it up in the dictionary.

1) WTU cannot on its own declare that something is a mandatory subject. that comes from the contract and statutes.
2) If an item is a subject of mandatory bargaining, the word “mandatory” just means thay labor and management are obliged to negotiate in good faith over it. It does not mean that the side invoking mandatory bargaining is pro or con.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
The WTU negotiated a number of safety issues for schools which included mandatory vaccines. That is a fact. The negotiations resulted in a mandate with WTU support.

Every time you make this false claim, I'm going to come back here and dispute it. WTU saying that vaccines are a subject of "mandatory bargaining" does NOT mean that WTU was affirmatively pushing DCPS for a vaccine mandate. It means that WTU was asserting its right to limit DCPS's ability to impose a vaccine mandate. And of course -- THERE IS NO MANDATE. Vaccination is still VOLUNTARY for WTU members and all adults in DCPS. WTU has zero, and I mean ZERO, credibility to be claiming expertise or bona fide interest in safety measures unless and until they are affirmatively pushing for vaccine mandates for all adults in DCPS. Period.

I really don't understand your hangup on this topic, especially since you have been proven wrong. Saying that something is subject to "mandatory bargaining" means that it must be negotiated. Indeed, a vaccine mandate was negotiated and approved. For some reason, you understand "negotiate" to mean "oppose". I don't know why you have this understanding, but it is wrong linguistically and it has been proven wrong factually.

Yes, teachers now have a vaccine mandate. There are medical and religious reasons -- both of which I oppose -- but those with such exemptions are subject to weekly testing. This is the same mandate faced by other DC employees.

you know what Jeff? I and other knowledgable people have explained to you what “subject of mandatory bargaining” means - many times. if you’re going to insist on weighing in, why don’t you call up a labor lawyer and ask them.

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/labor_law/basics_papers/nlra/obligations.pdf

Yes, you have explained it repeatedly and I basically agree with you. The issue is that you think "mandatory bargaining" means being opposed to something whereas I think it means you want to negotiate over it. Events transpired consistent with my expectations and contrary to yours. I really don't understand why you can't simply accept that.