Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Let me explain again. A union’s assertion that a workplace action is a “subject for mandatory bargaining” does NOT mean they support that action. It means that they are demanding the opportunity to bargain over it if the employer intends to take the action. We have plenty of evidence including in the form of express statements from AFT and other unions that WTU most likely opposes mandatory vaccination. And of course they NEVER mention mandatory vaccination in their demands - just masking etc. The overwhelming inference here is that WTU opposes/would oppose mandatory vaccination.

You are simply not telling the truth. The statement from the AFT could not be more clear in stating that it supports a mandate being subject to negotiations. That does not mean the organization opposes a mandate. You are welcome to state your opinion on the subject, but when you claim that you are providing facts instead of opinion you are wrong.

It is obvious that the WTU strongly supports vaccination. The anecdotal evidence we have seen posted by teachers in this forum is that teachers are being vaccinated at a very high rate. If or when DCPS proposes a mandate, the WTU is clearly open to negotiating it. Those are the facts.

If WTU "strongly supports vaccination," as you suggest, then they could easily ask their members (privately) if they have or have not been vaccinated, then report an overall percentage of how many teachers have been vaccinated to the public so that parents who have now been told our vaccinated kids now have to mask up in school in the fall will not assume it's to protect unvaxxed teachers. We simply have no idea how many DCPS teachers have been vaccinated. None. And after a year of dissembling and bad faith arguing by the Mayor and WTU, and with some of our kids having gone more than a year without a single in-person class at their DCPS school, parents don't trust any of them. Nor should we.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Let me explain again. A union’s assertion that a workplace action is a “subject for mandatory bargaining” does NOT mean they support that action. It means that they are demanding the opportunity to bargain over it if the employer intends to take the action. We have plenty of evidence including in the form of express statements from AFT and other unions that WTU most likely opposes mandatory vaccination. And of course they NEVER mention mandatory vaccination in their demands - just masking etc. The overwhelming inference here is that WTU opposes/would oppose mandatory vaccination.

You are simply not telling the truth. The statement from the AFT could not be more clear in stating that it supports a mandate being subject to negotiations. That does not mean the organization opposes a mandate. You are welcome to state your opinion on the subject, but when you claim that you are providing facts instead of opinion you are wrong.

It is obvious that the WTU strongly supports vaccination. The anecdotal evidence we have seen posted by teachers in this forum is that teachers are being vaccinated at a very high rate. If or when DCPS proposes a mandate, the WTU is clearly open to negotiating it. Those are the facts.

Anonymous wrote:
The definition of spin is trying to claim that WTU silently supports mandatory vaccination. I mean, really. Is that what you believe?

Anonymous wrote:
Let me explain again. A union’s assertion that a workplace action is a “subject for mandatory bargaining” does NOT mean they support that action. It means that they are demanding the opportunity to bargain over it if the employer intends to take the action. We have plenty of evidence including in the form of express statements from AFT and other unions that WTU most likely opposes mandatory vaccination. And of course they NEVER mention mandatory vaccination in their demands - just masking etc. The overwhelming inference here is that WTU opposes/would oppose mandatory vaccination.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think for reasons that are not clear to me, you are really invested in conveying that WTU is not against mandatory vaccination.

I am invested in a factual discussion. You, on the other hand, are invested in maligning the WTU and are happy to use falsehoods and misinformation to do it. Your initial claim was that the WTU opposes mandatory vaccination. Yet, you have no factual basis for that suggestion. You claim that a willingness to negotiate a mandate is actually opposition to a mandate -- again, with no factual basis. DCPS has not even proposed a mandate so the WTU's position doesn't even matter at this point. Yet, here you are spending page after page attacking the WTU when the WTU hasn't even been asked to do what you want them to do.

If your concern was about our children having a safe environment for learning, there are a lot of other things on which you could focus. But, it appears your concerns are limited to criticizing the WTU.

ok Jeff. It seems like no matter how many times I give my actually informed interpretation of what “mandatory subject for bargaining” means - you refuse to listen. And you also refuse to listen to other posters who have explained the same thing to you. And you refuse to engage with all the published sources on labor opposition to vacine mandates, including AFT. Instead you demand that the only thing that I should do is make a counter factual positive inference of WTU’s position.

You have not been claiming to be giving your interpretation. You have been claiming to state facts when you have not been. The WTU's publicly stated position is that the union wants to negotiate. If you can find another publicly stated position, please post it. Short of that, I have been stating facts and you have been posting anti-union spin.

Let me explain again. A union’s assertion that a workplace action is a “subject for mandatory bargaining” does NOT mean they support that action. It means that they are demanding the opportunity to bargain over it if the employer intends to take the action. We have plenty of evidence including in the form of express statements from AFT and other unions that WTU most likely opposes mandatory vaccination. And of course they NEVER mention mandatory vaccination in their demands - just masking etc. The overwhelming inference here is that WTU opposes/would oppose mandatory vaccination.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think for reasons that are not clear to me, you are really invested in conveying that WTU is not against mandatory vaccination.

I am invested in a factual discussion. You, on the other hand, are invested in maligning the WTU and are happy to use falsehoods and misinformation to do it. Your initial claim was that the WTU opposes mandatory vaccination. Yet, you have no factual basis for that suggestion. You claim that a willingness to negotiate a mandate is actually opposition to a mandate -- again, with no factual basis. DCPS has not even proposed a mandate so the WTU's position doesn't even matter at this point. Yet, here you are spending page after page attacking the WTU when the WTU hasn't even been asked to do what you want them to do.

If your concern was about our children having a safe environment for learning, there are a lot of other things on which you could focus. But, it appears your concerns are limited to criticizing the WTU.

ok Jeff. It seems like no matter how many times I give my actually informed interpretation of what “mandatory subject for bargaining” means - you refuse to listen. And you also refuse to listen to other posters who have explained the same thing to you. And you refuse to engage with all the published sources on labor opposition to vacine mandates, including AFT. Instead you demand that the only thing that I should do is make a counter factual positive inference of WTU’s position.

You have not been claiming to be giving your interpretation. You have been claiming to state facts when you have not been. The WTU's publicly stated position is that the union wants to negotiate. If you can find another publicly stated position, please post it. Short of that, I have been stating facts and you have been posting anti-union spin.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think for reasons that are not clear to me, you are really invested in conveying that WTU is not against mandatory vaccination.

I am invested in a factual discussion. You, on the other hand, are invested in maligning the WTU and are happy to use falsehoods and misinformation to do it. Your initial claim was that the WTU opposes mandatory vaccination. Yet, you have no factual basis for that suggestion. You claim that a willingness to negotiate a mandate is actually opposition to a mandate -- again, with no factual basis. DCPS has not even proposed a mandate so the WTU's position doesn't even matter at this point. Yet, here you are spending page after page attacking the WTU when the WTU hasn't even been asked to do what you want them to do.

If your concern was about our children having a safe environment for learning, there are a lot of other things on which you could focus. But, it appears your concerns are limited to criticizing the WTU.

ok Jeff. It seems like no matter how many times I give my actually informed interpretation of what “mandatory subject for bargaining” means - you refuse to listen. And you also refuse to listen to other posters who have explained the same thing to you. And you refuse to engage with all the published sources on labor opposition to vacine mandates, including AFT. Instead you demand that the only thing that I should do is make a counter factual positive inference of WTU’s position.

You have not been claiming to be giving your interpretation. You have been claiming to state facts when you have not been. The WTU's publicly stated position is that the union wants to negotiate. If you can find another publicly stated position, please post it. Short of that, I have been stating facts and you have been posting anti-union spin.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think for reasons that are not clear to me, you are really invested in conveying that WTU is not against mandatory vaccination.

I am invested in a factual discussion. You, on the other hand, are invested in maligning the WTU and are happy to use falsehoods and misinformation to do it. Your initial claim was that the WTU opposes mandatory vaccination. Yet, you have no factual basis for that suggestion. You claim that a willingness to negotiate a mandate is actually opposition to a mandate -- again, with no factual basis. DCPS has not even proposed a mandate so the WTU's position doesn't even matter at this point. Yet, here you are spending page after page attacking the WTU when the WTU hasn't even been asked to do what you want them to do.

If your concern was about our children having a safe environment for learning, there are a lot of other things on which you could focus. But, it appears your concerns are limited to criticizing the WTU.

ok Jeff. It seems like no matter how many times I give my actually informed interpretation of what “mandatory subject for bargaining” means - you refuse to listen. And you also refuse to listen to other posters who have explained the same thing to you. And you refuse to engage with all the published sources on labor opposition to vacine mandates, including AFT. Instead you demand that the only thing that I should do is make a counter factual positive inference of WTU’s position.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think for reasons that are not clear to me, you are really invested in conveying that WTU is not against mandatory vaccination.

I am invested in a factual discussion. You, on the other hand, are invested in maligning the WTU and are happy to use falsehoods and misinformation to do it. Your initial claim was that the WTU opposes mandatory vaccination. Yet, you have no factual basis for that suggestion. You claim that a willingness to negotiate a mandate is actually opposition to a mandate -- again, with no factual basis. DCPS has not even proposed a mandate so the WTU's position doesn't even matter at this point. Yet, here you are spending page after page attacking the WTU when the WTU hasn't even been asked to do what you want them to do.

If your concern was about our children having a safe environment for learning, there are a lot of other things on which you could focus. But, it appears your concerns are limited to criticizing the WTU.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be the points of negotiation if DCPS did mandate a vaccine for DC employees, including teachers? The time frame? I doubt medical exemptions would be a point of contention, and I doubt religious ones would be either.

Money, money, money, money. Money. That and demanding a mandate for students.

And right on cue, Politico is on the case.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/28/vaccine-mandates-labor-biden-501123

I just can’t express how upsetting this is. WHY would organized labor oppose the single most potent weapon we have against covid? They are protecting anti-vax members. That’s all I can conclude.

I think they just want some compensation in return for it. Fot example, the Flight Attendants got three extra days of vacation in exchange for it.

Yeah, which is kind of gross and belies the notion that their goals are covid safety.

This vaccinated teacher thinks our “compensation “ for getting vaccinated is not getting sick. However, as a teacher who volunteered to go back before we knew we would get vaccinated at the tail end of January, it would be nice to be recognized for that. Yes, it was just doing the job we’re paid to do, but we did accept more risk than most of our colleagues who declined to go in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be the points of negotiation if DCPS did mandate a vaccine for DC employees, including teachers? The time frame? I doubt medical exemptions would be a point of contention, and I doubt religious ones would be either.

Money, money, money, money. Money. That and demanding a mandate for students.

And right on cue, Politico is on the case.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/28/vaccine-mandates-labor-biden-501123

I just can’t express how upsetting this is. WHY would organized labor oppose the single most potent weapon we have against covid? They are protecting anti-vax members. That’s all I can conclude.

I think they just want some compensation in return for it. Fot example, the Flight Attendants got three extra days of vacation in exchange for it.

Yeah, which is kind of gross and belies the notion that their goals are covid safety.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

The WTU has made a wide-ranging proposal to DCPS and hopefully that is being negotiated now. There are a host of issues beyond vaccinations that need to be worked out.

Is there any reporting or documentation of what is in this proposal? I ask this more as a parent who is anxious about school not being in-person at the beginning of the school year again -- I realize that there are strong statements it will happen but I'm concerned that we will have an unexpected surprise in August (like we did last year when no agreement could be reached).

I have not seen any reporting (which does not mean there hasn't been any since I don't read everything), but it was discussed in the Council hearing about reopening the schools. The WTU President referenced it several times but declined to go into details in order to protect negotiations. She said that the proposal had been provided several weeks ago and she was upset that DCPS had not responded earlier. She said she believed that it was now being discussed ("now" being the time of the hearing).

Anonymous wrote:
I think for reasons that are not clear to me, you are really invested in conveying that WTU is not against mandatory vaccination.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's clear that AFT wants to negotiate on whether vaccines should be mandated. But beyond that they don't have any statements whether they are for or against a mandate. They certainly don't have a statement that says "we are for a mandate" or "we are against a mandate".

So they are neither for nor against a mandate.

and that does not accord with any of the statements and reporting on the issue.

Of course it does. Did you mistype?

the politico article literally says they are against it; as does the AFT statement reference to protecting hypothetical anti-vax nurses. to believe AFT is neutral on this or in favor but we just don’t know! is REALLY a stretch.

I don't know why you are being so argumentative about this. The Politico article was reporting on the ATF statement. The same statement that I have posted twice in this thread. Why are you relying on Politico than the actual source? The answer, of course, is that you are more interested in spin than facts.

You do not believe that the AFT is neutral, so let me ask you this:

1) if a local union negotiates a deal with its management that includes mandatory vaccinations, do you think the AFT will oppose it or support it?
2) if a local union negotiates a deal with its management that does not include mandatory vaccinations, do you think the AFT will oppose it or support it?

I think the AFT will support both cases, but that is a neutral position that you do not believe AFT has. So, how do you believe the AFT would respond in each case?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

The WTU has made a wide-ranging proposal to DCPS and hopefully that is being negotiated now. There are a host of issues beyond vaccinations that need to be worked out.

Is there any reporting or documentation of what is in this proposal? I ask this more as a parent who is anxious about school not being in-person at the beginning of the school year again -- I realize that there are strong statements it will happen but I'm concerned that we will have an unexpected surprise in August (like we did last year when no agreement could be reached).