May 12, 2022 at 11:38 am #1239
Valerie Herrera-Garcia, JJ Hewitt and Jill Coert spent a very long day (12:30 to 9 pm!) bargaining an extension to the Covid MOU yesterday with CSO and CTA. We did manage to reach a verbal TA.
CSO was very intent on keeping the language regarding verification of vaccinations for meetings. Our survey did not agree with that. Only 36 people responded to our survey, but our team discussed that may be because the CAS who work in our field offices are those most affected by this MOU, and have the most interaction with CTA members, so they may be the ones who are responding. The CAS survey was most clear that your bargaining team could move ahead with getting rid of masking.
CSO and CAS started out by proposing an extension of the current MOU to August 31, 2022.
CTA countered with a proposal including:
• Removal of article 13, which is the accommodation for employees who live with or provide care for household members who are ineligible for vaccination.
• Removal of article 14, which is the flexible access to leave provisions for childcare needs, and the ability of supervisors to allow work from home due to childcare needs.
• Removal of all masking requirements and vaccine verification requirements
• Language that reduces the disinfection requirements for offices to more closely align with government guidance
• Language that mirrors government guidance for handling Covid exposures
• Extension date to August 31, 2023
CAS and CSO countered with a proposal that included:
• Keeping article 13
• Keeping article 14
• Removing masking requirements for everyone except unvaccinated employees
• Maintaining the vaccination verification requirements
• Agreeing to the updated disinfection requirements and Covid exposure requirements
• Extension of MOU to August 31, 2023
CTA returned a proposal including:
• Keeping article 13
• Keeping the portion of article 14 that says that childcare has been negatively affected by the pandemic and that supervisors will have the discretion to allow work from home in certain situation. CAS had extensive conversations about how some supervisors were not allowing this, and Tom Kaiser agreed to strongly advocate for CAS to be allowed this provision.
• The rest of their proposal was pretty much the same.
CAS and CSO countered with their same proposal, but with an end date of August 31, 2022.
CTA verbally that they would change their proposal to accept the vaccine verification for meeting attendees and masking of unvaccinated individuals & accept an end date of July 31, 2022 if Labor accepted the rest of CTA’s proposal.
Labor agreed, so we had a tentative agreement (TA). CAS will send the copy of the (TA) when it becomes available.
- This topic was modified 8 months, 3 weeks ago by Jill Coert.
May 12, 2022 at 11:48 am #1241Chelsea LinParticipant
Wait, so after all this arguing from CAS leaders about how CTA would make us keep getting the vaccine so we might as well make it mandatory, even though 45% of the CAS members who voted didn’t want to make it mandatory, CTA finally agrees to NOT make it mandatory and CAS COUNTERS THAT?? Is anyone listening to CAS members at all? This is why no one voted in the survey, because everyone knew they wouldn’t be listened to anyway.
May 12, 2022 at 12:18 pm #1242
So it isn’t the employee vaccination that CTA is ceasing to make mandatory. It is the vaccine verification for meetings.
May 12, 2022 at 12:18 pm #1243Lance ChihParticipant
The way I read what Jill wrote, the dropping of verification was not for staff, but for folks coming into our offices for meetings/visits. It doesn’t look like CTA was removing the vaccine requirements for staff.
May 12, 2022 at 1:24 pm #1244Sara MorellParticipant
Could we get an update on the employee vaccine requirement?
May 12, 2022 at 1:39 pm #1245Jazmin SandovalParticipant
Everyone is affected by this MOU, but only one side is being catered to. The rest have been hung out to dry. I’m going out on a limb here but perhaps only 36 people responded to the survey because no matter what we vote on, CAS does as they please. Here is a perfect example, “We did the survey about where to hold the GMM, and Las Vegas came in a first by a strong margin. Due to Covid still being an issue, we decided to hold it in Burlingame this year.” So why vote/respond if we are not heard. Or better yet, why pay dues for a union that lacks representation?
May 12, 2022 at 2:03 pm #1246Joan SingletonParticipant
Thank you Valerie, JJ, and Jill for your long day bargaining and the update.
May 12, 2022 at 2:08 pm #1247
May 12, 2022 at 3:04 pm #1249Gina DomeniciParticipant
I can’t for the life of me figure out why we keep taking all these surveys just to be ignored. I have been advocating for our GMM to be held in Vegas FOR YEARS! To find out that Las Vegas was the top selected location but the union chose to override our collective voice pisses me off.
We are all adults and can make our own decision on what is best for our health. We don’t pay Union dues so those elected can tell us what’s best for us. I’m sick of the MOU’s, I’m sick of the fake surveys, and I’m disgusted at how the “Union” keeps on doing whatever the flip they want.
If leadership is going to flat-out ignore the responses, then don’t do a survey. It’s a slap in the face.
May 12, 2022 at 5:18 pm #1250
The employee vaccination requirement hasn’t changed. Getting to Las Vegas is still in the works for next time.
May 13, 2022 at 2:33 pm #1251
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.