Mandatory vaccines for teachers/staff and eligible students

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks. So is this not the "vax or test" that was described earlier, but "vax or you'd better have an exemption and test"? What I am understanding is that this policy leaves no room for antivaxxers. Is that correct?

There was a question about employees without exemptions and whether they could get test instead. I wasn't paying that close of attention at that point, but I believe that answer was that they would have to be tested. I think that realistically there is no way to prove that a claimed exemption is valid so basically anyone who is not vaxxed will have to be tested whether they are claiming an exemption or not.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It appears that this issue will soon be resolved:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/covid-vaccine-mandate-dc-employees/2021/08/06/490c6a52-f6cd-11eb-9068-bf463c8c74de_story.html

A day after the governors of Virginia and Maryland announced that some state employees must be vaccinated against coronavirus or tested weekly, a D.C. administration official said Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) intends to impose a similar requirement on D.C. government employees, after bringing nearly the entire city workforce back to their desks last month.

The administration is hammering out the policy with labor unions representing city workers, including the Washington Teachers Union, assistant city administrator Jay Melder said Friday during a discussion with D.C. Council members. They have been negotiating this week over how noncompliant employees might be disciplined, among other issues.

Fantastic news.

+1

What kind of teacher would be non-complaint about either getting vaccinated OR tested weekly? Seems like a win/win for both sides.

It’s not just teachers, and I could see unvaccinated individuals skipping testing here and there. Not many but there does need to be some consequence if you want the policy to be followed.

If you skip one test, you are not permitted to work, and must take leave without pay before being permitted to resume work. Miss a second test, and you're fired.

[Anonymous]

I think vaccination is less of an issue in charter schools since those are private employees who are not unionized and thus can be more easily encouraged/required to get vaccinated. For example, our kid is in an HRC and they just announced that about 90 percent of their staff are vaccinated plus all staff are required to be tested weekly regardless of vax status.

[Anonymous]

Would charters count as grantees? They get city funding, so shouldn't the vaccination policy apply to them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It appears that this issue will soon be resolved:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/covid-vaccine-mandate-dc-employees/2021/08/06/490c6a52-f6cd-11eb-9068-bf463c8c74de_story.html

A day after the governors of Virginia and Maryland announced that some state employees must be vaccinated against coronavirus or tested weekly, a D.C. administration official said Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) intends to impose a similar requirement on D.C. government employees, after bringing nearly the entire city workforce back to their desks last month.

The administration is hammering out the policy with labor unions representing city workers, including the Washington Teachers Union, assistant city administrator Jay Melder said Friday during a discussion with D.C. Council members. They have been negotiating this week over how noncompliant employees might be disciplined, among other issues.

Fantastic news.

+1

What kind of teacher would be non-complaint about either getting vaccinated OR tested weekly? Seems like a win/win for both sides.

It’s not just teachers, and I could see unvaccinated individuals skipping testing here and there. Not many but there does need to be some consequence if you want the policy to be followed.

If you skip one test, you are not permitted to work, and must take leave without pay before being permitted to resume work. Miss a second test, and you're fired.

Is this the official policy or just what you wish it would be?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Would charters count as grantees? They get city funding, so shouldn't the vaccination policy apply to them?

During the press conference, Bowser said that charters are not grantees. She said she can't require them to vaccinate though she would if she could.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people are confused about Weingarten’s statement, apparently made on a TV show. unclear what AFT’s position actually is about mandatory vax.

https://mobile.twitter.com/crampell/status/1424392084472094722

Only you are confused. As I just said, the AFT supports negotiating mandates. This has been the case all along.

A mandate involves more than just shots in arms. What are the ramifications for those who can't or won't vaccinate? Will vaccination status be made public? Will sick leave be allowed for anyone who suffers from vaccine side effects? Will the mandate apply to potential booster shots? Etc. etc. All of that has to be worked out.

But a mandate is black and white, there should be zero negotiation. If you can’t or won’t get vaccinated, you no longer have employment in education. By throwing in “… we’ll what about people that…” isn’t a mandate, it’s a choice. And considering that teachers in this area were pushed to the front of the line in February, if they don’t have vaccines now, they need to drop everything and get a shot -CVS, Walgreens etc.- are open very late, some open 24 hours. Get it now or get your resume together because you will no longer be employed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post link to text of mandate?

I haven't seen in it writing yet, but I am listening to the press conference. The mandate is for all government employees and anyone hired in the future. There are religious and medial exemptions and those folks have to provide weekly negative tests. Employees have until September 19 to get their vaccinations (I am not sure if this is for both or just the first).

For the person asking about charter schools, charter employees are not DC employees. Therefore, the mandate does not cover them.

Thanks. So is this not the "vax or test" that was described earlier, but "vax or you'd better have an exemption and test"? What I am understanding is that this policy leaves no room for antivaxxers. Is that correct?

Lol, giving choice to exempt people is giving into anti-vaxxers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people are confused about Weingarten’s statement, apparently made on a TV show. unclear what AFT’s position actually is about mandatory vax.

https://mobile.twitter.com/crampell/status/1424392084472094722

Only you are confused. As I just said, the AFT supports negotiating mandates. This has been the case all along.

A mandate involves more than just shots in arms. What are the ramifications for those who can't or won't vaccinate? Will vaccination status be made public? Will sick leave be allowed for anyone who suffers from vaccine side effects? Will the mandate apply to potential booster shots? Etc. etc. All of that has to be worked out.

But a mandate is black and white, there should be zero negotiation. If you can’t or won’t get vaccinated, you no longer have employment in education. By throwing in “… we’ll what about people that…” isn’t a mandate, it’s a choice. And considering that teachers in this area were pushed to the front of the line in February, if they don’t have vaccines now, they need to drop everything and get a shot -CVS, Walgreens etc.- are open very late, some open 24 hours. Get it now or get your resume together because you will no longer be employed.

The city should have zero tolerance for employees who refuse to get vaccinated.

[Anonymous]

I just wanted to include clarification because I did re-watch the press conference, particularly the Q&A section

At the 18:28 mark a reporter asked "If you're a current employee and you do not want the vaccine and do not have a religious or health exemption you can still stay employed providing you get weekly testing?"

Kevin Donahue responded that that is correct, only weekly testing and a negative test result would be required. He said that he didn't feel a mandate for vaccination was needed and that they are confident rates will rise with union support and increased education.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people are confused about Weingarten’s statement, apparently made on a TV show. unclear what AFT’s position actually is about mandatory vax.

https://mobile.twitter.com/crampell/status/1424392084472094722

Only you are confused. As I just said, the AFT supports negotiating mandates. This has been the case all along.

A mandate involves more than just shots in arms. What are the ramifications for those who can't or won't vaccinate? Will vaccination status be made public? Will sick leave be allowed for anyone who suffers from vaccine side effects? Will the mandate apply to potential booster shots? Etc. etc. All of that has to be worked out.

But a mandate is black and white, there should be zero negotiation. If you can’t or won’t get vaccinated, you no longer have employment in education. By throwing in “… we’ll what about people that…” isn’t a mandate, it’s a choice. And considering that teachers in this area were pushed to the front of the line in February, if they don’t have vaccines now, they need to drop everything and get a shot -CVS, Walgreens etc.- are open very late, some open 24 hours. Get it now or get your resume together because you will no longer be employed.

Sadly for you, I guess, life is a bit more complex than your imagination. In reality, some folks have medical reasons not to be vaccinated. Moreover, employment contracts cannot simply be broken on a whim. Thankfully, both the Bowser administration and the WTU took a more serious approach than what you are advocating and were able to reach a mutually-acceptable agreement.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people are confused about Weingarten’s statement, apparently made on a TV show. unclear what AFT’s position actually is about mandatory vax.

https://mobile.twitter.com/crampell/status/1424392084472094722

Only you are confused. As I just said, the AFT supports negotiating mandates. This has been the case all along.

A mandate involves more than just shots in arms. What are the ramifications for those who can't or won't vaccinate? Will vaccination status be made public? Will sick leave be allowed for anyone who suffers from vaccine side effects? Will the mandate apply to potential booster shots? Etc. etc. All of that has to be worked out.

But a mandate is black and white, there should be zero negotiation. If you can’t or won’t get vaccinated, you no longer have employment in education. By throwing in “… we’ll what about people that…” isn’t a mandate, it’s a choice. And considering that teachers in this area were pushed to the front of the line in February, if they don’t have vaccines now, they need to drop everything and get a shot -CVS, Walgreens etc.- are open very late, some open 24 hours. Get it now or get your resume together because you will no longer be employed.

Sadly for you, I guess, life is a bit more complex than your imagination. In reality, some folks have medical reasons not to be vaccinated. Moreover, employment contracts cannot simply be broken on a whim. Thankfully, both the Bowser administration and the WTU took a more serious approach than what you are advocating and were able to reach a mutually-acceptable agreement.

Hi Jeff. Can we get some sources on your assertions? Can you point us to the specific language in WTU's collective bargaining agreement that prevents the city from imposing a vaccine mandate on teachers? Also, doctors will tell you that almost no one has a valid medical reason for not getting vaccinated. Those are rare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people are confused about Weingarten’s statement, apparently made on a TV show. unclear what AFT’s position actually is about mandatory vax.

https://mobile.twitter.com/crampell/status/1424392084472094722

Only you are confused. As I just said, the AFT supports negotiating mandates. This has been the case all along.

A mandate involves more than just shots in arms. What are the ramifications for those who can't or won't vaccinate? Will vaccination status be made public? Will sick leave be allowed for anyone who suffers from vaccine side effects? Will the mandate apply to potential booster shots? Etc. etc. All of that has to be worked out.

But a mandate is black and white, there should be zero negotiation. If you can’t or won’t get vaccinated, you no longer have employment in education. By throwing in “… we’ll what about people that…” isn’t a mandate, it’s a choice. And considering that teachers in this area were pushed to the front of the line in February, if they don’t have vaccines now, they need to drop everything and get a shot -CVS, Walgreens etc.- are open very late, some open 24 hours. Get it now or get your resume together because you will no longer be employed.

Sadly for you, I guess, life is a bit more complex than your imagination. In reality, some folks have medical reasons not to be vaccinated. Moreover, employment contracts cannot simply be broken on a whim. Thankfully, both the Bowser administration and the WTU took a more serious approach than what you are advocating and were able to reach a mutually-acceptable agreement.

Hi Jeff. Can we get some sources on your assertions? Can you point us to the specific language in WTU's collective bargaining agreement that prevents the city from imposing a vaccine mandate on teachers? Also, doctors will tell you that almost no one has a valid medical reason for not getting vaccinated. Those are rare.

Funny how the coronavirus epidemic is supposedly serious enough to cancel school for a year and a half, but not serious enough to require teachers to get vaccinated.

[Anonymous]

The devil is in the details though. It is nice to have a mandate but who is going to follow up with teachers and staff. Will vaccine cards be checked or do folks just have to say whether they are vaccinated or not. Who is going to be checking in weekly regarding unvaccinated folks getting their tests, etc. That is a lot of follow up work. And principals will be reluctant to fire teachers mid-year given the teacher shortage. They will be stuck with a substitute all year. Not saying it isn’t a good first step though

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post link to text of mandate?

I haven't seen in it writing yet, but I am listening to the press conference. The mandate is for all government employees and anyone hired in the future. There are religious and medial exemptions and those folks have to provide weekly negative tests. Employees have until September 19 to get their vaccinations (I am not sure if this is for both or just the first).

For the person asking about charter schools, charter employees are not DC employees. Therefore, the mandate does not cover them.

Thanks. So is this not the "vax or test" that was described earlier, but "vax or you'd better have an exemption and test"? What I am understanding is that this policy leaves no room for antivaxxers. Is that correct?

Lol, giving choice to exempt people is giving into anti-vaxxers.

My first understanding was that exemptions were for documented medical or religious reasons, which would have made a modicum of sense to me, but yeah, if the exemption can go to anyone, then I agree.