sord_n_bored t1_jeegsdh wrote
This is a W, but I wonder what the union's opposition was exactly, was it to avoid possible overreach in what the mayor can do, or was it because the unions, for some reason, didn't trust vaccines?
>A lawyer for Local 718, the Boston firefighters union, also said...
Ah, so it likely was conservative nonsense then...
random12356622 t1_jeeo6dg wrote
It isn't the union's job to do what is right.
It is the union's job to advocate for the rights of the members of the union. This leads unions to take some unpopular stances, but a lot of rights were unpopular at the time the union(s) advocated for them.
Individual_Brick5537 t1_jeep6ho wrote
Gotta pick your battles though. This ain’t it.
swni t1_jegsji9 wrote
> advocate for the rights of the members of the union
Supporting the rights of union members is not synonymous with blindly opposing anything employers support; unions that oppose (useful) safety measures are not helping their members.
reaper527 t1_jefcv29 wrote
> It isn't the union's job to do what is right. > > > > It is the union's job to advocate for the rights of the members of the union.
right, just look at the famous teacher's union quote "When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of children".
of course everyone knows what they REALLY care about is the union leaders rather than the rank and file.
theliontamer37 t1_jeeibde wrote
It all had to do with collective bargaining. It was not a part of the collective bargaining agreement between the city and the union, and they (the city) refused to sit back down at the negotiation table to amend the agreement to include the mandate.
downthewell62 t1_jef0qnk wrote
Health requirements don't need to be part of a collective bargaining thing
theliontamer37 t1_jef247g wrote
If they’re a requirement for employment they ABSOLUTELY need to be in a collective bargaining agreement
pjspin0331 t1_jef6kps wrote
This is just it. There was already an existing memorandum of agreement between Local 718 and the mayors office made during the interim. Mayor Wu went against the existing MOA and then refused to meet with the union to discuss further, which prompted all the legal action to begin with. If there is an existing MOA, one of the two sides can’t just up and dissolve it when they feel like it. Thus making this a labor dispute and not really a CoViD dispute.
theliontamer37 t1_jef82dx wrote
Exactly. It had little to do with the actual vaccine and more to do with the union saying we don’t want to set the precedent where mayors can just come in and set new rules without negotiation.
pjspin0331 t1_jeff981 wrote
Precisely. It was an action made that circumvented an active MoA, thus also circumventing the main power of a union to collectively bargain for its members. If the mayor can just do what she/he wants, including violating an existing MoA, then that’s the end of public safety unions. What recourse would they have if not the right to collectively bargain?
When you don’t honor an existing MoA and then also refuse to meet to come to a mutual solution, then you are no longer acting in good faith and other means will become necessary. This is the real issue, not the CoViD vaccine mandate.
Quincyperson t1_jefe7f4 wrote
Except that the city and the union had already bargained this particular issue
theliontamer37 t1_jefeh7x wrote
Yup, With the previous administration. And mayor wu broke the agreement and refused to renegotiate
downthewell62 t1_jefa2xh wrote
No, because they weren't NEW requirements. Vaccine mandates for these kinds of workers have ALWAYS existed
theliontamer37 t1_jefag2c wrote
Please tell me you realize there’s a difference between existing vaccines, and adding NEW vaccines to the requirements. That makes it NEW. Jesus Christ, do some research my guy
downthewell62 t1_jefdcb4 wrote
> Please tell me you realize there’s a difference between existing vaccines, and adding NEW vaccines
Please tell me you realize that you don't have an itemized like of vaccines you agree to vs ones you don't written into a contract, and any time one is added (like a variant of a flu shot), you have to renegotiate the entire union contract, right?
theliontamer37 t1_jefe7rd wrote
Lmfaooooo what? They absolutely do have a list of vaccines you have to get. That’s how you know which ones are required. I don’t even understand that part of the comment. A flu shot is a flu shot. Covid is not the flu. When you add new health requirements, which an entirely new type of vaccine would fall under, you negotiate. That simple
houligan27 t1_jeepc25 wrote
Since when are unions conservative?
downthewell62 t1_jef0xv8 wrote
Police Unions are notoriously conservative. Because police are notoriously conservative.
The police unions are not the same as unions in private companies
houligan27 t1_jef6kg4 wrote
Who said anything about Police unions? They're a small fraction of all unions. The comment connected unions, in this case the Boston Firefighters, to "conservative nonsense."
You can disagree with their stance on a vaccine mandate during the pandemic (and I do), but there's no need to misrepresent the situation of vilify them for fighting for their member's right to collectively bargain changes. There's quite a bit of irony in calling that conservative.
downthewell62 t1_jef9rs3 wrote
> Who said anything about Police unions? They're a small fraction of all unions.
This entire thread is about Police Unions. That's the point of the thread. So, everyone.
>but there's no need to misrepresent the situation of vilify them for fighting for their member's right to collectively bargain changes.
There weren't changes. There was nothing to bargain. And police Unions are the notorious villains of the country so, plenty of reasons to vilify them.
houligan27 t1_jefdc9n wrote
I'm not talking about vilifying police, Im talking about vilifying unions in general. Of which police make up a small percentage. This thread is about all municipal employees, not just police.
If you bothered to look into the situation more than just commenting on reddit you would understand that the lawsuit wasnt even about the vaccine. It was about whether or not the vaccine could be mandated by the employer without collectively bargaining the change. The irony is that it's far more conservative to enforce a policy like this without collectively bargaining it than it is liberal.
Ultimately, the Courts sided with Mayor Wu. Practically, it makes no difference because the mandate was never enforced due to a previous injunction and a new agreement was made between the two sides. But, police bad for all the updootz you want.
downthewell62 t1_jefgz5o wrote
> I'm not talking about vilifying police, Im talking about vilifying unions in general
Police unions (and other federal/state job unions) are radically different from private sector unions in almost all functions and forms. No one is vilifying unions in general. They're vilifying police unions, which are used almost exclusively to protect police abuses
crapador_dali t1_jefuz11 wrote
>Police unions (and other federal/state job unions) are radically
different from private sector unions in almost all functions and forms.
Sorry, but no.
downthewell62 t1_jeg0jyk wrote
crapador_dali t1_jeg3cs8 wrote
You're going to selectively pull from your own comment? You also said "and other federal/state job unions". As someone who is in one of those unions and has been in a private sector union I know from experience that they're not "radically different in almost all functions and forms".
Also, your proof that police unions are "radically different" are just two opinion pieces.
Swayz t1_jeevf57 wrote
They are not but if you dare to question big pharma than you are a literal Nazi to some people
downthewell62 t1_jef11s1 wrote
We all questioned it. As everyone should. Thankfully there were hundreds of peer reviewed papers and data that showed everything was fine.
mmmnnnthrow t1_jeerqj1 wrote
On this sub liberal means never going past Tremont St., championing condo developers as the heralds of progress, and looking down on people not thriving in the zero-sum corporate hellworld. So yeah, unions BAD if they represent a group we can slap a binary label on.
raven_785 t1_jeewaui wrote
In some cases the union members don't even oppose the mandates, but they want to use it as a bargaining chip anyway. Some teachers unions initially tried to do this but most backed away fairly quickly.
downthewell62 t1_jef0v8g wrote
Teachers unions were protesting being forced back into unventilated classrooms with 40 walking petri dishes, with no PPE gear, no masks required, and no support.
Not anything to do with vaccines.
raven_785 t1_jef398g wrote
Multiple things can be true at once. Some teachers unions wanted to bargain over vaccine mandates when they were first rolling out. You could literally spend 2 seconds googling it before posting wrong shit on Reddit.
downthewell62 t1_jef9y95 wrote
You can google enough to find 1 or 2 idiots saying literally anything. It was a big push or the main reason teachers were protesting
obsoletevernacular9 t1_jefza5a wrote
Seriously, google "vaccine mandate", "collective bargaining", and either Becky Pringle or Randi Weingarten from the NEA and AFT. You'll find a lot of articles about the controversy over vaccine mandates for educators who didn't want to lose local bargaining power or agreed to a mandate in exchange for concessions. Randi fairly consistently said in summer 2021 that they would bargain for a mandate and did not support the idea initially until Delta was raging and the start of school approached.
This was a pretty big controversy in summer 2021. It's normal for a union to not want a mandate imposed on their members without gaining something.
downthewell62 t1_jeg0g97 wrote
So I did look up both of those people, and it does seem like they resisted vaccine mandates. But mainly they said they support everyone getting vaccinated, but that there should be rigorous testing accommodations for those that can't get the vaccine.
obsoletevernacular9 t1_jeg1odz wrote
Which makes sense - they wanted members to voluntarily get vaccinated, but didn't want to mandate it to their members unless they bargained for it.
I just double checked and 94% of the Boston firefighters union was vaccinated by January 2022, but they were still against it being mandated without bargaining for it.
pjspin0331 t1_jef7m4m wrote
This really isn’t a W or a L. There was an existing MOA between the two parties that was then violated. It was a labor dispute, the contents of which happened to pertain to CoViD. Most of the fire department was vaccinated very early when vaccines were offered at Tufts to first responders.
[deleted] t1_jeev7d9 wrote
[removed]
downthewell62 t1_jef14ft wrote
>This vaccine was not approved by the FDA and clearly wasn’t doing as advertised.
So... COVID deaths for the vaccinated drastically went down because magic? What vaccine was everyone taking that wasn't FDA approved?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments