* WBEZ…
As millions of Illinoisans are still waiting for their chance to be vaccinated against COVID-19, and even those who are eligible are scrambling for appointments, at least one group is largely giving up its place at the front of the vaccine line: people who work in Illinois prisons. […]
”I’m appalled because, of course, I think it’s pretty clear now from the science that the only way to stay safe from this deadly disease is to get vaccinated,” [Alan Mills, executive director of the Uptown People’s Law Center] said. “I’m not surprised because up until the vaccines, we also knew the best way to prevent the spread of the COVID virus was to wear masks. And what we hear from [inmates] is that the rate of mask-wearing among … guards was also abysmally low.”
The state started vaccinating most of its prison workers in mid-February and finished the first round of vaccinations at the state’s 25 correctional centers earlier this month. Only 27% of staff took the shot, according to the Illinois Department of Corrections. Experts say because prisons have been coronavirus hotspots, the low vaccination numbers endanger not only prison inmates and correctional officers, but also the families and communities the officers return to when they leave work. […]
Anders Lindall, a spokesman for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said 4% more staff had signed up to be vaccinated this week, which would bring the total number of staff to get the first shot above 30%. AFSCME is the union that represents prison workers.
Go read the rest.
- Candy Dogood - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 11:09 am:
What’s challenging about this issue is that a labor union can encourage it’s members to take a vaccine but doesn’t really have the ability to force it’s members to take a vaccine.
The employer, on the other hand, has both the ability to incentivize and the ability to require a vaccination. If the State does not want to create a policy to make vaccination mandatory and wants to increase participation among it’s employees then they need to look at incentives for receiving the vaccine.
Using DOC as an unappreciated downstate jobs program has it’s draw backs when the predominant culture that takes hold in that region is one that predicates itself on willful and deliberate ignorance and morons that know better thanks to God’s gift to the stupid, the Dunning-Kruger effect.
People just need to sue IDOC if it doesn’t come up with an incentive program to increase participation, or find a means to negotiate a mandatory vaccine policy. Someone shouldn’t have to die in prison because the corrections employee is too stupid to act responsibly in a public health emergency. It also doesn’t help that the line of work they are in self selects for sociopaths.
- Not the Dude - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 11:11 am:
Maybe the State should tell all workers if they don’t get a vaccine (without a medical reason), if they get COVID or need to quarantine, they will need to take sick or vacation days.
- Frank talks - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 11:25 am:
How’s the staff at the Veterans homes? Have they gotten it yet? I remember last month the numbers were horrible.
- Franklin - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 11:25 am:
Huge slap in the face to other essential workers who are still stuck in the que while the unions clouts their way to the top for members who don’t want it.
- Frumpy White Guy - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 11:27 am:
A lot of those folks may be buying the anti vaccine garbage that has been inundating social media.
- Jane T - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 11:29 am:
They are not the only state workers balking at getting the vaccine. Offices that are mostly remote have some workers who simply do not want to return to work. Seems to be a lot of vaccine availability. I was in & out of the drive up for my first dose in just over 30 min.
- Bruce( no not him) - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 11:41 am:
Perhaps they don’t want to waste those golden quarantine days?
- Amalia - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 11:44 am:
Union weak.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 11:47 am:
This is a union failure.
It’s that simple.
- anon2 - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 11:48 am:
Either DOC doesn’t want to require vaccination as a condition of working, or union rules would prevent it. With seven of ten refusing the jab, sooner or later freedom of choice may need to be sacrificed for public employees in order to protect public health.
- Anon62704 - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 11:59 am:
=How’s the staff at the Veterans homes? Have they gotten it yet? I remember last month the numbers were horrible.=
From the Center Square, 3/16/21: “IDVA facilities were able to begin vaccinating residents and staff between Christmas and New Years,” [IDVA Chief of Staff Tony] Kolbeck said. “To date, 96.9% of the residents and 53% of the staff at the homes have been vaccinated.”
Personally, I agree that the vaccine should be required for these staff. However, there are major ethical/legal considerations for requiring a vaccine authorized through EUA.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 12:01 pm:
Vaccine required for employment seems “simple” enough.
I’ll let that sit and ripen.
- AC - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 12:06 pm:
==It’s that simple.==
Starting in January, AFSCME has had virtual town halls, question and answer sessions that have included medical experts. They’ve filled their members email full of information that encourages their members to take the vaccine. On behalf of their members, they negotiated benefit time for vaccinations, and vaccination prioritization for employees they represent. Every time I’ve seen someone in a leadership role in AFSCME over the past few months, they’ve been quite vocal in encouraging their members to take the vaccine. So, no, it isn’t “that simple”.
- EssentialStateEmployeeFromChatham - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 12:10 pm:
Could a case be made for IDOC and other state agencies to require all their employees to get vaccinated, or they will be “disciplined up to and including discharge?” Although the unions may object.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 12:10 pm:
=== So, no, it isn’t “that simple”.===
Yes.
It is.
No vaccine, no work, the union won’t advocate for the non-vaccined.
Rutgers is telling students, no vaccine, no Rutgers.
If you want to say it’s not simple because union leadership is utterly weak on this issue…
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 12:13 pm:
===Although the unions may object.===
And… here is the rub.
Object, labor seems to be anti-vaccine.
Acquiesce, then the “anti-vax” members cause a rift.
Sure, “educate”, “town hall”, “mail”… absolutely… but…
- AC - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 12:25 pm:
==union leadership is utterly weak on this issue…==
For a commenter who I admire, because they understand the complexity and the nuance of a variety of Illinois political issues, your inability to comprehend what I wrote, and what the union has done so far on this is shocking. As I am sure you are well aware, the vaccines are currently under an emergency use authorization. That may not be the case for long, as they have proven themselves to all be quite safe and effective, the data is overwhelming positive. However, until the FDA gives full approval, making it a legal requirement is questionable at best. Even then, it would be the place of management, not the union, to impose such a requirement. Expecting the union to be the one who would issue such a requirement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the union and the role of management. Personally, for the sake of everyone working in a variety of environments, I hope the vaccine is required, but the union wouldn’t be the entity that would make it a requirement.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 12:33 pm:
===your inability to comprehend what I wrote, and what the union has done so far on this is shocking.===
I grasp what you wrote, also in a global pandemic, this idea of optional seems at odds with what is needed, and…
=== I hope the vaccine is required, but the union wouldn’t be the entity that would make it a requirement.===
… is the union prepared for that next step to not advocate for those, when required, unwilling to take the vaccine? I may have missed it if it’s on the record, but am I not feeling a sense of urgency to want that required?
Is membership deciding even when able… their choice is not to be vaccinated… defeating the purpose of stopping the spread?
- WestBurbs - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 12:39 pm:
As much as I want a vax mandate, I agree with Anon62704 that there are “major ethical/legal considerations for requiring a vaccine authorized through EUA.” The EAU statue states that individuals must be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing…”
While I’d like to say that “consequences” includes that you’ll lose your job - I suspect that courts will say that means only health consequences
So, no mandate - at least in public sector - until fully FDA approved. Of course, this doesn’t preclude private biz (airlines, theaters, restaurants, stores) requiring proof of vaccination to enter.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 12:44 pm:
=== While I’d like to say that “consequences” includes that you’ll lose your job - I suspect that courts will say that means only health consequences===
“We’ll see”
Also, if the union supports anti-vax ideas to the mandatory going forward, that’s more telling than any educational or proactive way to get membership vaccinated.
- WestBurbs - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 12:50 pm:
OW - to your “We’ll see” — if “consequences” is read so broadly as to include losing your job, where does that stop? Do consequences include jail, fines, etc? If so, doesn’t that conflict with the explicit “option to accept or refuse?” Is it really an “option” if refusal means jail?
To be clear, I support a mandate and I’d be ok with fines/jail for defying it (similar to other laws intended to protect the public, such as DUI). I just don’t see courts agreeing with me
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 12:54 pm:
=== if “consequences” is read so broadly as to include losing your job===
Prolly right there. There’s no slippery slope.
Take a job away from someone for their choice, it’s their choice. Incarceration is too far.
Vaccinations for education or other life things, it’s not new.
- Less essential worker - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 12:54 pm:
Science clearly shows that union members are more in need of a spot at the front of the line than other workers. Science also shows that union members shouldn’t take the vaccine if they don’t feel like it. Science shows that millions of people who would love the opportunity simply don’t matter as much. Gotta follow the science.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 12:55 pm:
===Science also shows that union members shouldn’t take the vaccine if they don’t feel like it.===
I guessing this is snark?
- AC - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 1:04 pm:
==Acquiesce, then the “anti-vax” members cause a rift.==
But the union taking it on itself to impose such an unprecedented requirement, wouldn’t cause a rift? It looks to me as if vaccine salesmanship is the only tool on AFSCMEs toolbox, and by that measure, at least from what I’ve witnessed, they’ve went well beyond what one would expect from a labor union when it comes to public health education on vaccinations.
- Louis G Atsaves - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 1:05 pm:
Both the union and the employer (State of Illinois) are a little hamstrung here. Shaming never helps.
When a number of employees of nursing homes last month refused or procrastinated when offered vaccines, my solution was simple. Put them at the very end of the line and allow others who want to be vaccinated to step up.
Last I heard Covid-19 is a national emergency, or in reality a world-wide emergency. Too many folks out there aren’t treating it as such. Now that vaccines are becoming more and more available, the push should be to vaccinate as many people as humanly possible, for the sake of humanity.
Wear a mask, keep your social distance, limit personal face to face situations, take your shots when they are available to you and try to act like this is a national or world-wide emergency.
Sheesh.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 1:13 pm:
=== But the union taking it on itself to impose such an unprecedented requirement, wouldn’t cause a rift?===
Probably why I see this as weak in union leadership.
Gotta be honest, if the premise of organized labor is to be the voice for workers to have a safe work environment, including health, passively waiting to hear that it’s required to get a vaccine designed to stop hospitalizations or worse…
I’m going to be far more interested too, as I stated, will labor decide to take on cases for those who refuse if that mandatory aspect is finally in place and accepted as part and parcel.
The urgency to safety versus the worry of the anti-vax voices seems to be far from a resolved thing…
… and it is quite simple… if the mission and charge of a union, any union, is health and safety in a work environment.
It’s a snapshot of today.
Going forward, I don’t know how labor will see it.
- Steve Polite - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 1:26 pm:
In the military you voluntarily give up many of your civil rights, and the military can’t even require its members to get vaccinated because of the EUA. Yet some of you are expecting AFSCME to do just that. It is not any union’s role to “require the vaccine before returning to work”. That’s on management. AFSCME has done yeoman’s work to get out the message to encourage members to get vaccinated. Right now that’s all they can do. We don’t even know yet if the State, as an employer, is even willing to require the vaccine once it is fully approved. If management does propose a new vaccine policy, will AFSCME accept it, negotiate the terms, or fight it? My prediction is they would negotiate the terms in a supplemental agreement.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 1:32 pm:
===It is not any union’s role to “require the vaccine before returning to work”.===
You’d think a labor organization with the mission to have a safe and healthy work environment would demand it?
Why aren’t they?
That’s my only thought to this and why I believe it is weak.
As to the required or later, indeed, every aspect, all of it will be collectively bargained… as things should be when health and safety are at play in the workplace.
I’ll be far more interested to that aspect as to the choice to fight vaccinations
- Steve Polite - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 1:39 pm:
“Gotta be honest, if the premise of organized labor is to be the voice for workers to have a safe work environment, including health, passively waiting to hear that it’s required to get a vaccine designed to stop hospitalizations or worse…”
Personally, as an AFSCME member, I agree with you on this. It is a health and safety issue on which AFSCME should take a proactive approach. My hope is AFSCME and management are already in discussions on a future vaccination policy to be implemented once covid vaccines are fully authorized. We have no way of knowing if they are or not.
- Honeybear - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 1:40 pm:
OW- with respect, can the union fire an employee?
No, they cannot.
They are not the employer.
OW- with respect, can the union deny their services or representation to a member?
Yes, but only under certain conditions as stipulated by the contract with the employer.
OW- with respect, post Janus can a union member just not just quit the union if they don’t want to be harassed for choosing to not take the vaccine?
Yup, they can. No more fairshare dues.
Practically the only union leader that I haven’t seen a proud picture of themselves getting their Fauci Ouchie is Roberta. I don’t know if she’s gotten hers yet. But all the AFSCME leadership I know, I’ve seen their pic on getting their shot on Facebook. I’ve got the “I got vaccinated AFSCME frame on my facebook profile pic. I’m not the only one. Every single leadership person I know has gotten the shot.
I know that the problem is in my rural corrections siblings. A lot of them are conservative. It’s a hard coalition to keep together. I also know a lot are my African American union siblings. Both groups have a lot of reason to distrust government.
I’ve personally talked to so many of them about getting it.
I hope they’ll get on board.
But honestly and with deep deep deep respect.
It’s totally incorrect to say that the union can deny members or non members the benefits of collective bargaining with the employer, the state of illinois. It’s illegal OW
Hiring and Firing and discipline are management rights, not labor rights.
Can we do more? I really honestly don’t know what more we could do.
- Honeybear - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 1:45 pm:
Steve Polite- Did you get your “On the Move” this month? Do you have an email address? I don’t know about you but, frankly I can’t wait till there is another issue that doesn’t talk about the pandemic and getting vaccinated.
- EssentialStateEmployeeFromChatham - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 1:46 pm:
If the Governor has to AV the GA’s FY22 budget and impose cuts to some or all state agencies, would it be a good idea–and a motivation for other state employees to get vaccinated if they haven’t been already–to take percentage of Vaccinated employees at agencies into account when determining the cuts? With agencies having the lowest percentages of vaccinated workers targeted for deeper cuts than others.
- Rasselas - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 1:55 pm:
The inmates are overwhelming Black and Latino, have zero opportunity to social distance, have inadequate access to PPP. The correctional officers are overwhelming white, largely refusing to wear masks, largely refusing to be vaccinated.
This is a civil rights violation happening in real time.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 2:34 pm:
=== I hope they’ll get on board.===
Hope is not a plan in a pandemic.
===They are not the employer.===
Your union seems to be going about this passively for the safety and health of its members.
Once collectively bargained, what will it look like? Will it still be as low as it won’t be mandatory, or will terms of employment be the vaccination with labor on board?
This is barely the first at-bat of the ball game.
=== can the union deny their services or representation to a member?===
Again, collectively bargained, is this vaccine going to be an optional aspect, further, this idea another member decides no vaccine for me, don’t they put other members at risk, so in reality any argument towards support for members not wanting to be vaccinated is kinda putting others members at risk.
Also the first at-bat of the ball game kinda thing.
To this;
===Janus can a union member just not just quit the union if they don’t want to be harassed for choosing to not take the vaccine? Yup, they can. No more fairshare dues.===
So… it’s about the money?
Don’t alienate the anti-vax, we need the dues?
The towns with prisons, those incarcerated, all might see that as a bit grim.
=== But honestly and with deep deep deep respect.
It’s totally incorrect to say that the union can deny members or non members the benefits of collective bargaining with the employer, the state of illinois.===
What I wrote;
=== I’m going to be far more interested too, as I stated, will labor decide to take on cases for those who refuse if that mandatory aspect is finally in place and accepted as part and parcel.===
If it’s collectively bargained to be vaccinated, what I wrote above;
“… this idea another member decides no vaccine for me, don’t they put other members at risk, so in reality any argument towards support for members not wanting to be vaccinated is kinda putting others members at risk.”
I’ll be interested how that’ll fly.
- Excitable Boy - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 2:37 pm:
What a joke. These guards get cushy zero skill taxpayer funded jobs that allow their talentless selves to live better than most of their neighbors, yet they can’t be bothered to get a simple stick in the arm for the public good. It’s time to dramatically start reshaping incarceration practices and get rid of several of these jokers.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 2:42 pm:
=== These guards get cushy zero skill taxpayer funded jobs that allow their talentless selves to live better than most of their neighbors===
Your willing to trade places with them?
I mean, “cushy”, “zero skill” is not how I’d see them.
Oh. Ah. Oh.
===taxpayer funded jobs===
I took you *seriously*
That’s on me. My bad.
- Just me - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 2:46 pm:
The majority of inmates are also refusing the vaccine , but as usual, this is one-sided reporting.
- Excitable Boy - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 2:48 pm:
- Your willing to trade places with them? -
No, I have self respect. And I don’t have a problem with public employees until they can’t be bothered to do a simple thing to protect the public.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 2:49 pm:
=== inmates===
Inmates aren’t taking it home, into the community, or possibly spreading it to others who will go beyond the region.
Keep up, please.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 2:52 pm:
=== I have self respect===
And lack the respect for those who are doing a job others won’t… like you.
But it’s about the “taxpayers” ain’t it? Of course it is, you made that clear.
===I don’t have a problem with public employees until they can’t be bothered to do a simple thing to protect the public.===
Your written word says otherwise.
What, if they were a private prison (which these are not) you’d feel different? Hmm.
- Honeybear - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 3:00 pm:
OW in honesty I don’t know what they are doing about a supplement to the agreement or a MOU. I can’t imagine that they are not working on that diligently. I just know that at my level everything is being done to try to get folks to get the vaccine. I’m up for my second Pfizer next month and I feel very fortunate to get it. Finally the State just came out this week (for DHS at least) with sites where we can get the shots. I got my first by being tipped off by a union sister who saw my rant about not being able to get an appointment. She new where there were some appointments in my county available and I got in. But if it hadn’t been for her I would have had to wait till this week to get my first provided by the state.
- ComeTogether - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 3:01 pm:
Never thought of Rauner as an, “excitable boy.”
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 3:04 pm:
===I’m up for my second Pfizer next month and I feel very fortunate to get it.===
Congratulations, glad you are getting the vaccine, be safe out there.
- cermak_rda - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 3:34 pm:
It seems to me once the FDA has approved the vaccine generally then DOC should require it for employment. But I would add a small incentive for folks to get immunized now. If they accept the vaccine under emergency approval then it is paid for by the state/feds/whoever. If you wait until its authorized, the employee pays for it.
That seems fair. The taxpayers don’t pay for people to get their MMR shots after all.
- Candy Dogood - Friday, Mar 26, 21 @ 6:01 pm:
At the risk of derailing the discussion about whether AFSCME could handle this better, I think we might be missing an important detail.
Has the State/Administration even asked or put forward a proposal to make vaccines mandatory?
If they’re unwilling to — then incentives it is which will all around be better received.