President of Berkeley Teachers Union has kid in private preschool

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm always ready to call out hypocrisy, but having your young child in daycare isn't that, even for a labor leader.

If daycare is safe, so is elementary school. Why does he not "care" about the daycare teachers lives the way he cares about his union members lives? Total hypocrite.

Not smart either claiming his and his child's "privacy" was violated. Those walking in public have NO expectation of privacy, and never have.

[Anonymous]

I'm in California. The issue here is that the Berkeley teachers union successfully lobbied (with other unions) to have all their teachers vaccinated, essentially as a requirement for returning. There was community support for this. The unions got that and teachers are prioritized, going ahead of other groups in California.

However, there are a lot of rumors now that the Berkeley union is backing out and will only support limited return for elementary and nothing for middle and high schoolers. If the rumors are true, that means that a lot of teachers without any risk factors got their vaccines and pushed people with risk factors back, and yet will continue DL.

I don't condone the video. I think it was invasive and wrong. But many people are livid at the vaccine prioritization (especially many people who supported teacher vaccination), and that's where the anger is coming from. It doesn't excuse it, but I wanted to share the background context.

[Anonymous]

PP here. I forgot one more thing. The Berkeley Union is rumored to also be pushing for "monitors" in the classrooms of HS and MS schools, where the students would go in and watch Zoom while the teacher is remote, but the monitors aren't vaccine eligible. So, essentially, the perception is that the teacher union lobbied and took vaccines from vulnerable populations (including low paid, in-person monitors) but are now walking back from the promise to go back. From what I have heard they are losing support rapidly from people who up until now have been on board with DL, because of this perception of taking vaccines from vulnerable populations. Grocery workers aren't eligible in CA for instance. Neither are most high risk people.

Again, I don't condone this, just giving background context about just how livid people are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I forgot one more thing. The Berkeley Union is rumored to also be pushing for "monitors" in the classrooms of HS and MS schools, where the students would go in and watch Zoom while the teacher is remote, but the monitors aren't vaccine eligible. So, essentially, the perception is that the teacher union lobbied and took vaccines from vulnerable populations (including low paid, in-person monitors) but are now walking back from the promise to go back. From what I have heard they are losing support rapidly from people who up until now have been on board with DL, because of this perception of taking vaccines from vulnerable populations. Grocery workers aren't eligible in CA for instance. Neither are most high risk people.

Again, I don't condone this, just giving background context about just how livid people are.

Well after learning this I fully , 100% condone the video. What a disgusting hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

PP here. Yes, it's pretty bad. In my district (not Berkeley) teachers got vaccine priority but are pushing for a model of monitors with DL teachers for HS students. People are angry, even people who supported the union position on DL originally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I forgot one more thing. The Berkeley Union is rumored to also be pushing for "monitors" in the classrooms of HS and MS schools, where the students would go in and watch Zoom while the teacher is remote, but the monitors aren't vaccine eligible. So, essentially, the perception is that the teacher union lobbied and took vaccines from vulnerable populations (including low paid, in-person monitors) but are now walking back from the promise to go back. From what I have heard they are losing support rapidly from people who up until now have been on board with DL, because of this perception of taking vaccines from vulnerable populations. Grocery workers aren't eligible in CA for instance. Neither are most high risk people.

Again, I don't condone this, just giving background context about just how livid people are.

This was brought up when teachers in Maryland were pushing to be prioritized ahead of other essential workers and elderly for vaccines. The concern was that they would vaccinate teachers and then they would not go back after all. A stalling tactic for return to buildings.

I can't imagine being a teacher and having to choose between a union which was acting unethical and my own ethics. The union is fighting for a safer workplace but when it crosses ethical lines like taking vaccines from those who are more at risk, I would have a difficult time supporting that tactic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I forgot one more thing. The Berkeley Union is rumored to also be pushing for "monitors" in the classrooms of HS and MS schools, where the students would go in and watch Zoom while the teacher is remote, but the monitors aren't vaccine eligible. So, essentially, the perception is that the teacher union lobbied and took vaccines from vulnerable populations (including low paid, in-person monitors) but are now walking back from the promise to go back. From what I have heard they are losing support rapidly from people who up until now have been on board with DL, because of this perception of taking vaccines from vulnerable populations. Grocery workers aren't eligible in CA for instance. Neither are most high risk people.

Again, I don't condone this, just giving background context about just how livid people are.

Well after learning this I fully , 100% condone the video. What a disgusting hypocrite.

After learning about rumors, you fully 100% condone something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I forgot one more thing. The Berkeley Union is rumored to also be pushing for "monitors" in the classrooms of HS and MS schools, where the students would go in and watch Zoom while the teacher is remote, but the monitors aren't vaccine eligible. So, essentially, the perception is that the teacher union lobbied and took vaccines from vulnerable populations (including low paid, in-person monitors) but are now walking back from the promise to go back. From what I have heard they are losing support rapidly from people who up until now have been on board with DL, because of this perception of taking vaccines from vulnerable populations. Grocery workers aren't eligible in CA for instance. Neither are most high risk people.

Again, I don't condone this, just giving background context about just how livid people are.

This was brought up when teachers in Maryland were pushing to be prioritized ahead of other essential workers and elderly for vaccines. The concern was that they would vaccinate teachers and then they would not go back after all. A stalling tactic for return to buildings.

I can't imagine being a teacher and having to choose between a union which was acting unethical and my own ethics. The union is fighting for a safer workplace but when it crosses ethical lines like taking vaccines from those who are more at risk, I would have a difficult time supporting that tactic.

It's definitely unethical behavior from the union.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys don’t seem to understand that he is the president of the teachers union. His job is to represent his dues paying members. He isn’t a teacher. He is a labor leader.

And, a hypocrite.

There is no reason for schools not to be open and him taking his daughter to preschool just exemplifies that.
The unions represent teachers - not students. This is important to remember. They don't have students' best interests in mind. Individual teachers might, but the unions don't.
The public is right to be calling him out.

~A retired teacher

Why would a labor union represent anyone other than their members? Their job is to represent the interest of their members. This year, that means advocating for the most stringent safety standards. Some years, the union focuses on the school budget or other issues. Expecting a teachers union to put in school learning ahead of their members’ health and safety is like expecting a trade union to advocate for their customers and lower the cost of labor.

It’s very strange that people think teachers don’t need any advocacy to protect their working conditions, which are also children’s learning conditions. If my union didn’t exist I know schools would be happy to put 40 kids in a class. There is extensive data that shows that public schools are better funded and there are better educational outcomes in states with strong teachers unions. It’s almost like organized labor is a good thing, and republicans have been trying to destroy it to drive down wages, eliminate safety protocols, and reap massive profits! But no, must be that teachers are evil and want to sabotage the children.

^^said the person who doesn't understand why AFSCME is liked and police unions are hated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys don’t seem to understand that he is the president of the teachers union. His job is to represent his dues paying members. He isn’t a teacher. He is a labor leader.

And, a hypocrite.

There is no reason for schools not to be open and him taking his daughter to preschool just exemplifies that.
The unions represent teachers - not students. This is important to remember. They don't have students' best interests in mind. Individual teachers might, but the unions don't.
The public is right to be calling him out.

~A retired teacher

- wait. They don’t represent the students?

[Anonymous]

There is nothing wrong with the video. People in public have no expectation of privacy. Her face was blurred and they weren’t being heckled.

If he doesn’t want to be filmed taking her to preschool, oh well!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys don’t seem to understand that he is the president of the teachers union. His job is to represent his dues paying members. He isn’t a teacher. He is a labor leader.

And, a hypocrite.

There is no reason for schools not to be open and him taking his daughter to preschool just exemplifies that.
The unions represent teachers - not students. This is important to remember. They don't have students' best interests in mind. Individual teachers might, but the unions don't.
The public is right to be calling him out.

~A retired teacher

Why would a labor union represent anyone other than their members? Their job is to represent the interest of their members. This year, that means advocating for the most stringent safety standards. Some years, the union focuses on the school budget or other issues. Expecting a teachers union to put in school learning ahead of their members’ health and safety is like expecting a trade union to advocate for their customers and lower the cost of labor.

It’s very strange that people think teachers don’t need any advocacy to protect their working conditions, which are also children’s learning conditions. If my union didn’t exist I know schools would be happy to put 40 kids in a class. There is extensive data that shows that public schools are better funded and there are better educational outcomes in states with strong teachers unions. It’s almost like organized labor is a good thing, and republicans have been trying to destroy it to drive down wages, eliminate safety protocols, and reap massive profits! But no, must be that teachers are evil and want to sabotage the children.

There is also extensive data that the safest place for students is in school. Not to mention the consequences of them not being in school (depression, lack of reporting of child abuse, etc. etc.)
The data also indicate that opening schools is safe. Even if teachers are not vaccinated.
The unions are not following the science. THAT is the problem here.

About those consequences.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys don’t seem to understand that he is the president of the teachers union. His job is to represent his dues paying members. He isn’t a teacher. He is a labor leader.

And, a hypocrite.

There is no reason for schools not to be open and him taking his daughter to preschool just exemplifies that.
The unions represent teachers - not students. This is important to remember. They don't have students' best interests in mind. Individual teachers might, but the unions don't.
The public is right to be calling him out.

~A retired teacher

Why would a labor union represent anyone other than their members? Their job is to represent the interest of their members. This year, that means advocating for the most stringent safety standards. Some years, the union focuses on the school budget or other issues. Expecting a teachers union to put in school learning ahead of their members’ health and safety is like expecting a trade union to advocate for their customers and lower the cost of labor.

It’s very strange that people think teachers don’t need any advocacy to protect their working conditions, which are also children’s learning conditions. If my union didn’t exist I know schools would be happy to put 40 kids in a class. There is extensive data that shows that public schools are better funded and there are better educational outcomes in states with strong teachers unions. It’s almost like organized labor is a good thing, and republicans have been trying to destroy it to drive down wages, eliminate safety protocols, and reap massive profits! But no, must be that teachers are evil and want to sabotage the children.

There is also extensive data that the safest place for students is in school. Not to mention the consequences of them not being in school (depression, lack of reporting of child abuse, etc. etc.)
The data also indicate that opening schools is safe. Even if teachers are not vaccinated.
The unions are not following the science. THAT is the problem here.

About those consequences.....

Waiting for the DL posters who are will say this is the parents' fault to come in.

[Anonymous]

He needs to resign.

Like, yesterday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He needs to resign.

Like, yesterday.

I'm the PP from California. I do not think he is going to resign.