I'm not taking sides here. But I am looking for context. And what I have read and seen suggests questions that, insofar as I can tell, have not been answsered by the public reporting to date.
Let's start with what I think we can all agree on:
Within a short time after COVID-19 vaccines became widely available, the push began for mandatory vaccinations.
Some public unions have been reported to be in favor of mandates. Some have been reported as not being in favor of mandates.
That's about as much as I think is entirely undisputed.
(Let me also make this full disclosure, so there's no doubt about where I'm coming from: I am as vaccinated as I can be at the present time. When the Moderna booster shot becomes available, and when I am permitted so to do, I will rush out and get that third shot.)
Now, then. Take a deep breath and let's look together at some prior reporting on the issue.
In August, the Chicago Public Schools announced that all employees, including all teachers, would have to be vaccinated by October 15. An article by Maia Spoto, on Chalkbeat Chicago, last updated August 13, entitled, "Chicago says teachers must get vaccinated by Oct. 15 or be ineligible for work," states that the Chicago Teachers Union "welcomed the mandate urged the district to commit to additional safety and recovery measures before schools reopen, such as strengthening and expanding the school vaccination program."
The Chalkbeat Chicago story provided a summary of the then-ongoing negotiations with the CTU over conditions for reopening the schools. It also contained this paragraph about the response of national teachers' unions to vaccination mandates generally:
The leaders of the country’s two national teachers unions have also voiced support for vaccine mandates. The National Education Association’s president called the requirements an “appropriate, responsible, and necessary step” on Thursday, while the American Federation of Teachers’ president personally backed mandates earlier this week. The official position of the AFT, of which the Chicago Teachers Union is an affiliate, is that unions and districts should collaborate on requirements before they are decided.
In September, after President Biden announced a vaccine mandate for federal employees, Ballotpedia ran an article, by Jerrick Adams, entitled "Public-sector union responses to COVID-19 vaccine mandates," providing a roundup of how various public sector unions around the country responded to the President's directive in particular and how other vaccine mandates had been received in several states.
This is a fairly lengthy article, and I urge the skeptical reader to read it in its entirety. But, to summarize, most public sector unions, even those welcoming a mandate, expected to bargain over any implementation. Thus, AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler is quoted as saying on September 10 that, while the organization 'commends' President Biden for his actions, "Workers and unions should have a voice in shaping these policies."
American Federation of Government Employees President Everett Kelley was quoted as saying that, while the union has strongly supported vaccination efforts, "we have said that [vaccine mandates] should be negotiated with our bargaining units where appropriate. * * * We expect to bargain over this change prior to implementation, and we urge everyone who is able to get vaccinated as soon as they can do so."
It also turns out the Chicago FOP is not the only law enforcement union that does not welcome vaccine mandates. Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association President Larry Cosme is quoted in Adams's article as saying, "The Biden-Harris Administration’s action to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine for all federal employees is ill conceived. … This executive order villainizes employees for reasonable concerns and hesitancies and inserts the federal government into individual medical decisions. People should not be made to feel uncomfortable for making a reasonable medical choice."
The state-by-state roundup was similar (Illinois was not included). This paragraph of the California roundup caught my eye in particular:
Some [California] unions, including SEIU Local 1000, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and Cal Fire Local 2881, filed complaints following the mandate. SEIU Local 1000 sent a cease and desist letter to the California Department of Human Resources that said, "This is a change in the terms and working conditions of our represented employees and requires meeting and conferring with the union prior to implementing the change." Tim Edwards, president of Cal Fire Local 2881, said, "We oppose mandating vaccinations and believe the state has a contractual obligation to meet and confer with labor over any possible impacts to the employees."
A September 23 article on Government Executive, by Courtney Bublé, entitled "Will Federal Employee Unions Challenge Biden’s Vaccine Mandate in Court?" answered the question in the headline largely in the negative -- but indicated that unions, even those favoring the mandate, expected to bargain over its implementation, even if the scope of bargaining was limited.
An August article on the website of the Society for Human Resource Management entitled, "Must Employers Bargain with Unions over Mandatory Vaccines?" explained why, in general, unions, even those welcoming vaccine mandates, might nevertheless insist on the right to bargain over their implementation.
Just this past weekend, ABC-7 published a post entitled, "IL Governor JB Pritzker delays COVID vaccine deadline for some state workers." The printed article states, in pertinent part:
Pritzker's administration has reached agreements with several unions representing state workers. But negotiations continue with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31 and Teamsters Local 700. AFSCME, which represents some 15,000 state workers affected by the requirement, objected to what it called "rigid mandates."
* * * * * *
Under the agreements reached so far, workers who don't comply with the mandate will face "progressive disciplinary measures" that could result in termination. The agreements provide an alternative COVID-19 testing option only for people with an approved religious or medical objection.
There is no question that it is easier to negotiate with someone who is inclined to agree with you on the subject of the negotiation. One need not be a labor lawyer to know that. It would obviously be far easier for the Mayor to negotiate the implementation of a vaccine mandate with a union that supports vaccination than with one that does not. But it sure seems like our elected officials, probably including the Mayor but certainly including the Governor, have been negotiating implementation of the vaccine mandates with at least some public employee unions.
Another takeaway from all these articles is that, at some point, if negotiations fail, the unilateral implementation of a vaccine mandate may well be upheld, the language of the union contract notwithstanding. However, negotations may have to be given the opportunity to succeed before unilateral action can be taken. (That's not a prediction of likely judicial outcomes based on case by case research, just a conclusion reached after reading published accounts on the subject.)
So the questions I'd be asking my reporters to follow up on, were I the editor of a newspaper with the resources to investigate answers, are as follows:
- Did the City of Chicago bargain the implementation of the vaccine mandate with its unions other than the FOP?
- If so, what did the other unions agree to?
- Were these terms, or similar terms, offered to the FOP?
- If not, why not?
Answers to these questions might be helpful in understanding the merits, if any, of the parties' respective positions.
Posts
