Mandatory vaccines for teachers/staff and eligible students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I am quite sure that the DC government could have imposed a mandate. I am similarly sure that if the mandate included penalties affecting employment, it would have been challenged in court and would have been essentially worthless. But, not having a copy of the contract on hand, I can't provide you the specific language. This reality has been clear to anyone paying attention to the ongoing discussions.

I have no idea how common medical exemptions are and I really don't care. Nor do I care about religious exemptions which I personally find even more absurd. But just about every mandate includes such exemptions so there is no reason for DC to be different. If those claiming exemptions want to get tested weekly for the indefinite future, that's their choice I guess. Personally, I'd do a different cost-benefit analysis.

Cool, cool. So tell me this, Loudoun County is trying to mandate that staff have to use a student's preferred pronouns, so I'm going to guess you are fine with exemptions to that mandate since the world is far more nuanced. I would say protecting the public with vaccines is far more important that pronouns, but maybe that is just me.
What has been lost in all of this is that schools are there to teach students, not be an employment agency. Get vaxxed or get a new job.

Why do you believe that schools should have an exemption from basic employment rights? I’m fine with the vax and pronoun mandates you’ve referenced, but take major issue with your presupposition that anyone who chooses to go into education should expect to abdicate all workers rights

Mandatory vaccination, as happens in many places (and for schoolchildren) is not the equivalent of "all workers rights." Don't be dramatic.

I don’t think it’s dramatic to bring up that once again people are asking teachers to not expect the same workplace protections that any other company would have. Did you know that DCPS has a full HR department, like any other employment agency. I’m not sure why people have the attitude on this site that teachers should be exempt from basic rights bc they choose to work with children

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Cool, cool. So tell me this, Loudoun County is trying to mandate that staff have to use a student's preferred pronouns, so I'm going to guess you are fine with exemptions to that mandate since the world is far more nuanced. I would say protecting the public with vaccines is far more important that pronouns, but maybe that is just me.
What has been lost in all of this is that schools are there to teach students, not be an employment agency. Get vaxxed or get a new job.

Let's talk about Loudoun since you brought it up. They mandated that students' preferred pronouns should be used. A teacher violated the mandate and was fired. But, then he went to court and a judge ordered him reinstated. It turned out that the mandate was not worth the paper on which it as written. Probably not such a good example for you to use after all.

As your example illustrates, we don't yet live in a dictatorship. You can jump up and down as much as you want yelling that teachers who don't bow to your will should be fired, but that won't get you too far in reality. Rather than the losing strategy that you propose, the Mayor and the labor unions worked together to agree on a workable, effective plan. You should be happy about that if health and safety were really your true priorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I am quite sure that the DC government could have imposed a mandate. I am similarly sure that if the mandate included penalties affecting employment, it would have been challenged in court and would have been essentially worthless. But, not having a copy of the contract on hand, I can't provide you the specific language. This reality has been clear to anyone paying attention to the ongoing discussions.

I have no idea how common medical exemptions are and I really don't care. Nor do I care about religious exemptions which I personally find even more absurd. But just about every mandate includes such exemptions so there is no reason for DC to be different. If those claiming exemptions want to get tested weekly for the indefinite future, that's their choice I guess. Personally, I'd do a different cost-benefit analysis.

Cool, cool. So tell me this, Loudoun County is trying to mandate that staff have to use a student's preferred pronouns, so I'm going to guess you are fine with exemptions to that mandate since the world is far more nuanced. I would say protecting the public with vaccines is far more important that pronouns, but maybe that is just me.
What has been lost in all of this is that schools are there to teach students, not be an employment agency. Get vaxxed or get a new job.

Why do you believe that schools should have an exemption from basic employment rights? I’m fine with the vax and pronoun mandates you’ve referenced, but take major issue with your presupposition that anyone who chooses to go into education should expect to abdicate all workers rights

Mandatory vaccination, as happens in many places (and for schoolchildren) is not the equivalent of "all workers rights." Don't be dramatic.

I don’t think it’s dramatic to bring up that once again people are asking teachers to not expect the same workplace protections that any other company would have. Did you know that DCPS has a full HR department, like any other employment agency. I’m not sure why people have the attitude on this site that teachers should be exempt from basic rights bc they choose to work with children

It is not a workplace protection that everyone has. That's the dramatic part. Being free of vaccination and holding a particular job is not a "basic right." This has already been decided in courts. And I can't see any reason why adults holding a position voluntarily would deserve "more" protection than a child who is required to be vaccinated to go to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I am quite sure that the DC government could have imposed a mandate. I am similarly sure that if the mandate included penalties affecting employment, it would have been challenged in court and would have been essentially worthless. But, not having a copy of the contract on hand, I can't provide you the specific language. This reality has been clear to anyone paying attention to the ongoing discussions.

I have no idea how common medical exemptions are and I really don't care. Nor do I care about religious exemptions which I personally find even more absurd. But just about every mandate includes such exemptions so there is no reason for DC to be different. If those claiming exemptions want to get tested weekly for the indefinite future, that's their choice I guess. Personally, I'd do a different cost-benefit analysis.

Cool, cool. So tell me this, Loudoun County is trying to mandate that staff have to use a student's preferred pronouns, so I'm going to guess you are fine with exemptions to that mandate since the world is far more nuanced. I would say protecting the public with vaccines is far more important that pronouns, but maybe that is just me.
What has been lost in all of this is that schools are there to teach students, not be an employment agency. Get vaxxed or get a new job.

Why do you believe that schools should have an exemption from basic employment rights? I’m fine with the vax and pronoun mandates you’ve referenced, but take major issue with your presupposition that anyone who chooses to go into education should expect to abdicate all workers rights

Mandatory vaccination, as happens in many places (and for schoolchildren) is not the equivalent of "all workers rights." Don't be dramatic.

I don’t think it’s dramatic to bring up that once again people are asking teachers to not expect the same workplace protections that any other company would have. Did you know that DCPS has a full HR department, like any other employment agency. I’m not sure why people have the attitude on this site that teachers should be exempt from basic rights bc they choose to work with children

So now allowing anti-vaxxers to reject vaccines needed to end a public health emergency is now a "workplace protection"? That is some Alice in Wonderland sh*t. These people are endangering everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I am quite sure that the DC government could have imposed a mandate. I am similarly sure that if the mandate included penalties affecting employment, it would have been challenged in court and would have been essentially worthless. But, not having a copy of the contract on hand, I can't provide you the specific language. This reality has been clear to anyone paying attention to the ongoing discussions.

I have no idea how common medical exemptions are and I really don't care. Nor do I care about religious exemptions which I personally find even more absurd. But just about every mandate includes such exemptions so there is no reason for DC to be different. If those claiming exemptions want to get tested weekly for the indefinite future, that's their choice I guess. Personally, I'd do a different cost-benefit analysis.

Cool, cool. So tell me this, Loudoun County is trying to mandate that staff have to use a student's preferred pronouns, so I'm going to guess you are fine with exemptions to that mandate since the world is far more nuanced. I would say protecting the public with vaccines is far more important that pronouns, but maybe that is just me.
What has been lost in all of this is that schools are there to teach students, not be an employment agency. Get vaxxed or get a new job.

Why do you believe that schools should have an exemption from basic employment rights? I’m fine with the vax and pronoun mandates you’ve referenced, but take major issue with your presupposition that anyone who chooses to go into education should expect to abdicate all workers rights

Mandatory vaccination, as happens in many places (and for schoolchildren) is not the equivalent of "all workers rights." Don't be dramatic.

I don’t think it’s dramatic to bring up that once again people are asking teachers to not expect the same workplace protections that any other company would have. Did you know that DCPS has a full HR department, like any other employment agency. I’m not sure why people have the attitude on this site that teachers should be exempt from basic rights bc they choose to work with children

So now allowing anti-vaxxers to reject vaccines needed to end a public health emergency is now a "workplace protection"? That is some Alice in Wonderland sh*t. These people are endangering everyone else.

+1

And treating it as though no one has ever been under a vaccine mandate before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I am quite sure that the DC government could have imposed a mandate. I am similarly sure that if the mandate included penalties affecting employment, it would have been challenged in court and would have been essentially worthless. But, not having a copy of the contract on hand, I can't provide you the specific language. This reality has been clear to anyone paying attention to the ongoing discussions.

I have no idea how common medical exemptions are and I really don't care. Nor do I care about religious exemptions which I personally find even more absurd. But just about every mandate includes such exemptions so there is no reason for DC to be different. If those claiming exemptions want to get tested weekly for the indefinite future, that's their choice I guess. Personally, I'd do a different cost-benefit analysis.

Cool, cool. So tell me this, Loudoun County is trying to mandate that staff have to use a student's preferred pronouns, so I'm going to guess you are fine with exemptions to that mandate since the world is far more nuanced. I would say protecting the public with vaccines is far more important that pronouns, but maybe that is just me.
What has been lost in all of this is that schools are there to teach students, not be an employment agency. Get vaxxed or get a new job.

Why do you believe that schools should have an exemption from basic employment rights? I’m fine with the vax and pronoun mandates you’ve referenced, but take major issue with your presupposition that anyone who chooses to go into education should expect to abdicate all workers rights

Mandatory vaccination, as happens in many places (and for schoolchildren) is not the equivalent of "all workers rights." Don't be dramatic.

I don’t think it’s dramatic to bring up that once again people are asking teachers to not expect the same workplace protections that any other company would have. Did you know that DCPS has a full HR department, like any other employment agency. I’m not sure why people have the attitude on this site that teachers should be exempt from basic rights bc they choose to work with children

It is not a workplace protection that everyone has. That's the dramatic part. Being free of vaccination and holding a particular job is not a "basic right." This has already been decided in courts. And I can't see any reason why adults holding a position voluntarily would deserve "more" protection than a child who is required to be vaccinated to go to school.

Did you miss where I said I fully support the vax mandate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I am quite sure that the DC government could have imposed a mandate. I am similarly sure that if the mandate included penalties affecting employment, it would have been challenged in court and would have been essentially worthless. But, not having a copy of the contract on hand, I can't provide you the specific language. This reality has been clear to anyone paying attention to the ongoing discussions.

I have no idea how common medical exemptions are and I really don't care. Nor do I care about religious exemptions which I personally find even more absurd. But just about every mandate includes such exemptions so there is no reason for DC to be different. If those claiming exemptions want to get tested weekly for the indefinite future, that's their choice I guess. Personally, I'd do a different cost-benefit analysis.

Cool, cool. So tell me this, Loudoun County is trying to mandate that staff have to use a student's preferred pronouns, so I'm going to guess you are fine with exemptions to that mandate since the world is far more nuanced. I would say protecting the public with vaccines is far more important that pronouns, but maybe that is just me.
What has been lost in all of this is that schools are there to teach students, not be an employment agency. Get vaxxed or get a new job.

Why do you believe that schools should have an exemption from basic employment rights? I’m fine with the vax and pronoun mandates you’ve referenced, but take major issue with your presupposition that anyone who chooses to go into education should expect to abdicate all workers rights

Mandatory vaccination, as happens in many places (and for schoolchildren) is not the equivalent of "all workers rights." Don't be dramatic.

I don’t think it’s dramatic to bring up that once again people are asking teachers to not expect the same workplace protections that any other company would have. Did you know that DCPS has a full HR department, like any other employment agency. I’m not sure why people have the attitude on this site that teachers should be exempt from basic rights bc they choose to work with children

So now allowing anti-vaxxers to reject vaccines needed to end a public health emergency is now a "workplace protection"? That is some Alice in Wonderland sh*t. These people are endangering everyone else.

+1

And treating it as though no one has ever been under a vaccine mandate before.

Children had a right to an education, but teachers trampled all over that (even as schools elsewhere stayed open). Strange how the pandemic is serious enough to cancel school for more than a year, but not serious enough to require nutty anti-vaxxers to stop putting everyone else at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I am quite sure that the DC government could have imposed a mandate. I am similarly sure that if the mandate included penalties affecting employment, it would have been challenged in court and would have been essentially worthless. But, not having a copy of the contract on hand, I can't provide you the specific language. This reality has been clear to anyone paying attention to the ongoing discussions.

I have no idea how common medical exemptions are and I really don't care. Nor do I care about religious exemptions which I personally find even more absurd. But just about every mandate includes such exemptions so there is no reason for DC to be different. If those claiming exemptions want to get tested weekly for the indefinite future, that's their choice I guess. Personally, I'd do a different cost-benefit analysis.

Cool, cool. So tell me this, Loudoun County is trying to mandate that staff have to use a student's preferred pronouns, so I'm going to guess you are fine with exemptions to that mandate since the world is far more nuanced. I would say protecting the public with vaccines is far more important that pronouns, but maybe that is just me.
What has been lost in all of this is that schools are there to teach students, not be an employment agency. Get vaxxed or get a new job.

Why do you believe that schools should have an exemption from basic employment rights? I’m fine with the vax and pronoun mandates you’ve referenced, but take major issue with your presupposition that anyone who chooses to go into education should expect to abdicate all workers rights

Mandatory vaccination, as happens in many places (and for schoolchildren) is not the equivalent of "all workers rights." Don't be dramatic.

I don’t think it’s dramatic to bring up that once again people are asking teachers to not expect the same workplace protections that any other company would have. Did you know that DCPS has a full HR department, like any other employment agency. I’m not sure why people have the attitude on this site that teachers should be exempt from basic rights bc they choose to work with children

So now allowing anti-vaxxers to reject vaccines needed to end a public health emergency is now a "workplace protection"? That is some Alice in Wonderland sh*t. These people are endangering everyone else.

It’s almost like reading is too hard for you all. Get worked up over something else

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I am quite sure that the DC government could have imposed a mandate. I am similarly sure that if the mandate included penalties affecting employment, it would have been challenged in court and would have been essentially worthless. But, not having a copy of the contract on hand, I can't provide you the specific language. This reality has been clear to anyone paying attention to the ongoing discussions.

I have no idea how common medical exemptions are and I really don't care. Nor do I care about religious exemptions which I personally find even more absurd. But just about every mandate includes such exemptions so there is no reason for DC to be different. If those claiming exemptions want to get tested weekly for the indefinite future, that's their choice I guess. Personally, I'd do a different cost-benefit analysis.

Cool, cool. So tell me this, Loudoun County is trying to mandate that staff have to use a student's preferred pronouns, so I'm going to guess you are fine with exemptions to that mandate since the world is far more nuanced. I would say protecting the public with vaccines is far more important that pronouns, but maybe that is just me.
What has been lost in all of this is that schools are there to teach students, not be an employment agency. Get vaxxed or get a new job.

Why do you believe that schools should have an exemption from basic employment rights? I’m fine with the vax and pronoun mandates you’ve referenced, but take major issue with your presupposition that anyone who chooses to go into education should expect to abdicate all workers rights

Mandatory vaccination, as happens in many places (and for schoolchildren) is not the equivalent of "all workers rights." Don't be dramatic.

I don’t think it’s dramatic to bring up that once again people are asking teachers to not expect the same workplace protections that any other company would have. Did you know that DCPS has a full HR department, like any other employment agency. I’m not sure why people have the attitude on this site that teachers should be exempt from basic rights bc they choose to work with children

It is not a workplace protection that everyone has. That's the dramatic part. Being free of vaccination and holding a particular job is not a "basic right." This has already been decided in courts. And I can't see any reason why adults holding a position voluntarily would deserve "more" protection than a child who is required to be vaccinated to go to school.

Did you miss where I said I fully support the vax mandate?

And that's fine, great even. The rest of your arguments were not based in reality.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Well, actually, scientists have consistently found, throughout the pandemic, that schools have far lower coronavirus transmission rates than the surrounding communities. If you're somewhere where there's a lot of coronavirus, it turns out that schools are about the safest places you can be.

Also, not to point out the obvious, but kids and teachers and school staffs interact with adults outside their schools all the time so, yes, the fact that there is a huge number of unvaccinated adults in the area does matter, even if those people themselves don't physically step into a school.

You are clearly arguing just for the sake of arguing and you have long since passed the point of making any sense at all. Just think for a minute. All adults in schools will either be vaccinated or tested weekly. None of the under 12s will be vaccinated -- at least in the beginning -- and we will be lucky if even half of the 12 and overs are vaxxed. Moreover, there are considerably more children than adults in schools. So it is obvious to everyone other than you that children will be the most likely vector for the virus in schools.

Yes, it would be nice if adults in all wards, not just 7 and 8, were vaxxed at higher rates. But trying to argue that the problem facing DC schools is the vax rate of adults in wards where only 10% of the children are vaxxed is really being obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I am quite sure that the DC government could have imposed a mandate. I am similarly sure that if the mandate included penalties affecting employment, it would have been challenged in court and would have been essentially worthless. But, not having a copy of the contract on hand, I can't provide you the specific language. This reality has been clear to anyone paying attention to the ongoing discussions.

I have no idea how common medical exemptions are and I really don't care. Nor do I care about religious exemptions which I personally find even more absurd. But just about every mandate includes such exemptions so there is no reason for DC to be different. If those claiming exemptions want to get tested weekly for the indefinite future, that's their choice I guess. Personally, I'd do a different cost-benefit analysis.

Cool, cool. So tell me this, Loudoun County is trying to mandate that staff have to use a student's preferred pronouns, so I'm going to guess you are fine with exemptions to that mandate since the world is far more nuanced. I would say protecting the public with vaccines is far more important that pronouns, but maybe that is just me.
What has been lost in all of this is that schools are there to teach students, not be an employment agency. Get vaxxed or get a new job.

Why do you believe that schools should have an exemption from basic employment rights? I’m fine with the vax and pronoun mandates you’ve referenced, but take major issue with your presupposition that anyone who chooses to go into education should expect to abdicate all workers rights

Mandatory vaccination, as happens in many places (and for schoolchildren) is not the equivalent of "all workers rights." Don't be dramatic.

I don’t think it’s dramatic to bring up that once again people are asking teachers to not expect the same workplace protections that any other company would have. Did you know that DCPS has a full HR department, like any other employment agency. I’m not sure why people have the attitude on this site that teachers should be exempt from basic rights bc they choose to work with children

So now allowing anti-vaxxers to reject vaccines needed to end a public health emergency is now a "workplace protection"? That is some Alice in Wonderland sh*t. These people are endangering everyone else.

+1

And treating it as though no one has ever been under a vaccine mandate before.

Children had a right to an education, but teachers trampled all over that (even as schools elsewhere stayed open). Strange how the pandemic is serious enough to cancel school for more than a year, but not serious enough to require nutty anti-vaxxers to stop putting everyone else at risk.

How have there been five separate comments re: the vaccine mandate when I explicitly stated I take no issue with the vax mandate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I am quite sure that the DC government could have imposed a mandate. I am similarly sure that if the mandate included penalties affecting employment, it would have been challenged in court and would have been essentially worthless. But, not having a copy of the contract on hand, I can't provide you the specific language. This reality has been clear to anyone paying attention to the ongoing discussions.

I have no idea how common medical exemptions are and I really don't care. Nor do I care about religious exemptions which I personally find even more absurd. But just about every mandate includes such exemptions so there is no reason for DC to be different. If those claiming exemptions want to get tested weekly for the indefinite future, that's their choice I guess. Personally, I'd do a different cost-benefit analysis.

Cool, cool. So tell me this, Loudoun County is trying to mandate that staff have to use a student's preferred pronouns, so I'm going to guess you are fine with exemptions to that mandate since the world is far more nuanced. I would say protecting the public with vaccines is far more important that pronouns, but maybe that is just me.
What has been lost in all of this is that schools are there to teach students, not be an employment agency. Get vaxxed or get a new job.

Why do you believe that schools should have an exemption from basic employment rights? I’m fine with the vax and pronoun mandates you’ve referenced, but take major issue with your presupposition that anyone who chooses to go into education should expect to abdicate all workers rights

Mandatory vaccination, as happens in many places (and for schoolchildren) is not the equivalent of "all workers rights." Don't be dramatic.

I don’t think it’s dramatic to bring up that once again people are asking teachers to not expect the same workplace protections that any other company would have. Did you know that DCPS has a full HR department, like any other employment agency. I’m not sure why people have the attitude on this site that teachers should be exempt from basic rights bc they choose to work with children

It is not a workplace protection that everyone has. That's the dramatic part. Being free of vaccination and holding a particular job is not a "basic right." This has already been decided in courts. And I can't see any reason why adults holding a position voluntarily would deserve "more" protection than a child who is required to be vaccinated to go to school.

Did you miss where I said I fully support the vax mandate?

And that's fine, great even. The rest of your arguments were not based in reality.

Have you seen the thread on lunches where parents told teachers they were breaking the education system bc they wouldn’t give up their lunch breaks? The general vibe on this site is that teachers should do whatever parents want bc kids and that’s just a recipe for burnout and turnover. Start treating them with respect and you might get a partnership instead of this antagonistic relationship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I am quite sure that the DC government could have imposed a mandate. I am similarly sure that if the mandate included penalties affecting employment, it would have been challenged in court and would have been essentially worthless. But, not having a copy of the contract on hand, I can't provide you the specific language. This reality has been clear to anyone paying attention to the ongoing discussions.

I have no idea how common medical exemptions are and I really don't care. Nor do I care about religious exemptions which I personally find even more absurd. But just about every mandate includes such exemptions so there is no reason for DC to be different. If those claiming exemptions want to get tested weekly for the indefinite future, that's their choice I guess. Personally, I'd do a different cost-benefit analysis.

Cool, cool. So tell me this, Loudoun County is trying to mandate that staff have to use a student's preferred pronouns, so I'm going to guess you are fine with exemptions to that mandate since the world is far more nuanced. I would say protecting the public with vaccines is far more important that pronouns, but maybe that is just me.
What has been lost in all of this is that schools are there to teach students, not be an employment agency. Get vaxxed or get a new job.

Why do you believe that schools should have an exemption from basic employment rights? I’m fine with the vax and pronoun mandates you’ve referenced, but take major issue with your presupposition that anyone who chooses to go into education should expect to abdicate all workers rights

Mandatory vaccination, as happens in many places (and for schoolchildren) is not the equivalent of "all workers rights." Don't be dramatic.

I don’t think it’s dramatic to bring up that once again people are asking teachers to not expect the same workplace protections that any other company would have. Did you know that DCPS has a full HR department, like any other employment agency. I’m not sure why people have the attitude on this site that teachers should be exempt from basic rights bc they choose to work with children

So now allowing anti-vaxxers to reject vaccines needed to end a public health emergency is now a "workplace protection"? That is some Alice in Wonderland sh*t. These people are endangering everyone else.

+1

And treating it as though no one has ever been under a vaccine mandate before.

Children had a right to an education, but teachers trampled all over that (even as schools elsewhere stayed open). Strange how the pandemic is serious enough to cancel school for more than a year, but not serious enough to require nutty anti-vaxxers to stop putting everyone else at risk.

How have there been five separate comments re: the vaccine mandate when I explicitly stated I take no issue with the vax mandate.

Because you also made comments about giving up "basic rights" and "all workers rights." Those are the parts people are taking issue with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I am quite sure that the DC government could have imposed a mandate. I am similarly sure that if the mandate included penalties affecting employment, it would have been challenged in court and would have been essentially worthless. But, not having a copy of the contract on hand, I can't provide you the specific language. This reality has been clear to anyone paying attention to the ongoing discussions.

I have no idea how common medical exemptions are and I really don't care. Nor do I care about religious exemptions which I personally find even more absurd. But just about every mandate includes such exemptions so there is no reason for DC to be different. If those claiming exemptions want to get tested weekly for the indefinite future, that's their choice I guess. Personally, I'd do a different cost-benefit analysis.

Cool, cool. So tell me this, Loudoun County is trying to mandate that staff have to use a student's preferred pronouns, so I'm going to guess you are fine with exemptions to that mandate since the world is far more nuanced. I would say protecting the public with vaccines is far more important that pronouns, but maybe that is just me.
What has been lost in all of this is that schools are there to teach students, not be an employment agency. Get vaxxed or get a new job.

Why do you believe that schools should have an exemption from basic employment rights? I’m fine with the vax and pronoun mandates you’ve referenced, but take major issue with your presupposition that anyone who chooses to go into education should expect to abdicate all workers rights

Mandatory vaccination, as happens in many places (and for schoolchildren) is not the equivalent of "all workers rights." Don't be dramatic.

I don’t think it’s dramatic to bring up that once again people are asking teachers to not expect the same workplace protections that any other company would have. Did you know that DCPS has a full HR department, like any other employment agency. I’m not sure why people have the attitude on this site that teachers should be exempt from basic rights bc they choose to work with children

It is not a workplace protection that everyone has. That's the dramatic part. Being free of vaccination and holding a particular job is not a "basic right." This has already been decided in courts. And I can't see any reason why adults holding a position voluntarily would deserve "more" protection than a child who is required to be vaccinated to go to school.

Did you miss where I said I fully support the vax mandate?

And that's fine, great even. The rest of your arguments were not based in reality.

Have you seen the thread on lunches where parents told teachers they were breaking the education system bc they wouldn’t give up their lunch breaks? The general vibe on this site is that teachers should do whatever parents want bc kids and that’s just a recipe for burnout and turnover. Start treating them with respect and you might get a partnership instead of this antagonistic relationship

Whataboutism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I am quite sure that the DC government could have imposed a mandate. I am similarly sure that if the mandate included penalties affecting employment, it would have been challenged in court and would have been essentially worthless. But, not having a copy of the contract on hand, I can't provide you the specific language. This reality has been clear to anyone paying attention to the ongoing discussions.

I have no idea how common medical exemptions are and I really don't care. Nor do I care about religious exemptions which I personally find even more absurd. But just about every mandate includes such exemptions so there is no reason for DC to be different. If those claiming exemptions want to get tested weekly for the indefinite future, that's their choice I guess. Personally, I'd do a different cost-benefit analysis.

Cool, cool. So tell me this, Loudoun County is trying to mandate that staff have to use a student's preferred pronouns, so I'm going to guess you are fine with exemptions to that mandate since the world is far more nuanced. I would say protecting the public with vaccines is far more important that pronouns, but maybe that is just me.
What has been lost in all of this is that schools are there to teach students, not be an employment agency. Get vaxxed or get a new job.

Why do you believe that schools should have an exemption from basic employment rights? I’m fine with the vax and pronoun mandates you’ve referenced, but take major issue with your presupposition that anyone who chooses to go into education should expect to abdicate all workers rights

Mandatory vaccination, as happens in many places (and for schoolchildren) is not the equivalent of "all workers rights." Don't be dramatic.

I don’t think it’s dramatic to bring up that once again people are asking teachers to not expect the same workplace protections that any other company would have. Did you know that DCPS has a full HR department, like any other employment agency. I’m not sure why people have the attitude on this site that teachers should be exempt from basic rights bc they choose to work with children

So now allowing anti-vaxxers to reject vaccines needed to end a public health emergency is now a "workplace protection"? That is some Alice in Wonderland sh*t. These people are endangering everyone else.

+1

And treating it as though no one has ever been under a vaccine mandate before.

Children had a right to an education, but teachers trampled all over that (even as schools elsewhere stayed open). Strange how the pandemic is serious enough to cancel school for more than a year, but not serious enough to require nutty anti-vaxxers to stop putting everyone else at risk.

How have there been five separate comments re: the vaccine mandate when I explicitly stated I take no issue with the vax mandate.

Because you also made comments about giving up "basic rights" and "all workers rights." Those are the parts people are taking issue with.

I take umbrage with someone saying schools are not an employment agency when of course they are. They have pay scales, performance reviews, contracted hours, job descriptions, etc…
The indoctrination of the martyr complex didn’t start here (thanks TFA), but the parents of DCUM do an excellent job of promoting the idea that teachers should treat their job as life 24/7/365 rather than the 8 hr day it actually is