Poster 1: “mandatory bargaining has a legal meaning!!!”

Jeff: “Yes, it does. The mandatory bargaining that DCPS engaged in resulted in a vaccine mandate.”

Poster 1: “You don’t know what “mandate” means!! mandatory bargaining has a legal meaning!!!

Jeff: “There are two things here: mandatory bargaining and the vaccine mandate. Stop confusing them. On mandatory bargaining, we agree.”

Poster 1: “mandatory bargaining has a legal meaning!!!

Jeff: “Yes. We agree. But I’m talking about the mandate.”

Poster 1: “mandatory bargaining has a legal meaning!!!

Everyone else: wtf, poster 1??

Anonymous wrote:Subject of mandatory bargaining has a real legal meaning! It’s not just what “common sense” is that you’re using here.

Agree. I just don't know the relevance to this discussion. If you disagree that a mandate is subject to mandatory bargaining, your argument is with the WTU, not with me. My argument was one whether the WTU would approach the bargaining in good faith. I thought that they would and ultimately they did. What is your issue with this?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I can’t accept it because you are legally and factually wrong.

In what way? You said that saying mandates were subject to mandatory bargaining was an effort by the WTU to opposed mandates. I said the WTU did want to negotiate would would bargain in good faith. Ultimately, the WTU negotiated in good faith and agreed to a mandate. If that means I am wrong, I would like to be wrong more often.

There is no vaccine mandate on teachers. You know this. Everyone knows this. There are vaccine mandates on DC health care workers and firefighters and paramedics and lots of other public employees, but not teachers. It's why the city council is asking Bowser to expand that same mandate to teachers. You can read about it here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-covid-vaccine-mandate-teachers-child-care/2021/08/24/d84dc2aa-050b-11ec-a654-900a78538242_story.html

If this is not a place for parents to express that hurt, have the decency to make it a rule. Sticky it somewhere.

Anonymous wrote:
We've told you a thousand times how you are wrong. People have explained it SO many different ways. You just refuse to listen. You're like a mini Donald Trump.

No, you have not explained why I am wrong. You have tried to say that the WTU was wrong to describe a mandate as being subject to mandatory bargaining. That's neither here nor there. My argument has been that the WTU wanted to negotiate while you argued that they didn't want to and it was only a tactic to oppose a mandate. What actually happened what in line with my prediction and contrary to yours. Please explain how this makes me wrong?

Jeff, some people are mad at the WTU. They have valid reasons, even though you don’t think so. It’s not some shady plot. It’s just parents hurt after the last year.

Subject of mandatory bargaining has a real legal meaning! It’s not just what “common sense” is that you’re using here.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I can’t accept it because you are legally and factually wrong.

In what way? You said that saying mandates were subject to mandatory bargaining was an effort by the WTU to opposed mandates. I said the WTU did want to negotiate would would bargain in good faith. Ultimately, the WTU negotiated in good faith and agreed to a mandate. If that means I am wrong, I would like to be wrong more often.

This entire thread needs to be deleted. At this point, it's just Jeff saying bizarre things, people trying to explain to him why he's wrong, and him plugging his fingers in his ears. Just when you thought DCUM couldn't get any worse...

I asked in what way was I wrong. I am not surprised that you didn't answer.

If you don't like this thread, there are plenty of other threads. If you don't like DCUM, there are plenty of other websites.

We've told you a thousand times how you are wrong. People have explained it SO many different ways. You just refuse to listen. You're like a mini Donald Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I can’t accept it because you are legally and factually wrong.

In what way? You said that saying mandates were subject to mandatory bargaining was an effort by the WTU to opposed mandates. I said the WTU did want to negotiate would would bargain in good faith. Ultimately, the WTU negotiated in good faith and agreed to a mandate. If that means I am wrong, I would like to be wrong more often.

This entire thread needs to be deleted. At this point, it's just Jeff saying bizarre things, people trying to explain to him why he's wrong, and him plugging his fingers in his ears. Just when you thought DCUM couldn't get any worse...

I asked in what way was I wrong. I am not surprised that you didn't answer.

If you don't like this thread, there are plenty of other threads. If you don't like DCUM, there are plenty of other websites.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I can’t accept it because you are legally and factually wrong.

In what way? You said that saying mandates were subject to mandatory bargaining was an effort by the WTU to opposed mandates. I said the WTU did want to negotiate would would bargain in good faith. Ultimately, the WTU negotiated in good faith and agreed to a mandate. If that means I am wrong, I would like to be wrong more often.

Agreed, Jeff. You’re being clear.

I’m not even sure what the other poster is arguing.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I can’t accept it because you are legally and factually wrong.

In what way? You said that saying mandates were subject to mandatory bargaining was an effort by the WTU to opposed mandates. I said the WTU did want to negotiate would would bargain in good faith. Ultimately, the WTU negotiated in good faith and agreed to a mandate. If that means I am wrong, I would like to be wrong more often.

This entire thread needs to be deleted. At this point, it's just Jeff saying bizarre things, people trying to explain to him why he's wrong, and him plugging his fingers in his ears. Just when you thought DCUM couldn't get any worse...

Anonymous wrote:
I can’t accept it because you are legally and factually wrong.

In what way? You said that saying mandates were subject to mandatory bargaining was an effort by the WTU to opposed mandates. I said the WTU did want to negotiate would would bargain in good faith. Ultimately, the WTU negotiated in good faith and agreed to a mandate. If that means I am wrong, I would like to be wrong more often.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can’t accept it because you are legally and factually wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You said vaccines are subject to mandatory bargaining. Source?

The source was the WTU and ATF stating as such. You might want to reread the other thread if you are confused about "mandatory bargaining".

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

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

Again, I basically agree with you and I really don't understand why you continue to be so argumentative about this. As I am sure you know, all contracts and statutes are subject to interpretation. Different parties can and do view such things differently. The WTU clearly believed that vaccine mandates were subject to mandatory bargaining. Perhaps you disagree, I don't know. Perhaps the Bowser Administration disagreed, again, I don't know. But, in other cases in which the Bowser Administration and the WTU disagreed about legal matters, they went to court (or arbitration). In this case, the Bowser Administration agreed to negotiate.

You repeatedly argued that the WTU would not negotiate in good faith -- despite arguing at the same time that the law required that the union do so. I argued that the WTU did plan to negotiate in good faith and, would not have demanded negotiations if it opposed a mandate. In the end, the Union negotiated in good faith and agreed to a mandate -- just as I had argued it would

Given that we are in basic agreement about "mandatory bargaining" and events developed consistent with my predictions, I have a difficult time understanding your insistence that I lack understanding and am wrong about this.

jsteele wrote:

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

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

Are you sure this poster has children in public school?

It seems too coincidental that there is a major political push by the Republican leadership and elite to demonize teachers’ unions, and this poster is here on a DC-centered site repeatedly demonizing teachers’ unions.
It could be authentic. I’m not even saying it’s organized astroturfing, it could also be an angry partisan driven by the rights’ messaging and media.