State Police union says 12 members face termination for not getting a shot

By adamg on Sat, 10/23/2021 - 11:13am

The State Police Association of Massachusetts reports supervisors have told six troopers and six sergeants they are now on the verge of losing their jobs for refusing to get vaccinated against Covid-19:

Previously these public servants had requested exemptions of either medical or religious reasons, instead of providing reasonable alternatives our state's leadership has chosen to throw our dedicated member’s years of service and sacrifice to the Commonwealth out the window.

If true - last month the union said "dozens" of troopers had vowed to quit over the issue - it comes five days after the state's deadline for employees to show proof of vaccination against the virus.

In addition to the medical and religious-exemption issue, SPAM has argued the state is violating their collective-bargaining rights in ordering what the union says is a change in working conditions without giving up something in exchange.

A state judge, backed by the Supreme Judicial Court, rejected that argument, pointing to public-health concerns. A federal judge rejected similar arguments from state prison guards, although the guards union is appealing that ruling.

Topics:

Work

Free tagging:

Covid-19

State Police

Ad:

Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

All this moaning and it

By DPM on Sat, 10/23/2021 - 11:19am.

All this moaning and it amounts to 12 troopers? Lol

At the end of the tweet

By dvg on Sat, 10/23/2021 - 5:26pm.

At the end of the tweet linked in the post it says "This lack of accommodations will likely result in hundreds of members of the Massachusetts State Police being constructively terminated." So this may not be the end of it.

Time to introduce Public Health-101 to the curriculum, especially for those who work in public safety and should know better. I actually embrace the idea of firing staties who believe that their individual rights are move important than the health of the people who fund their extravagant salaries through their taxes. Good riddance!

So... are they getting fired or not?

By Tim Mc. on Sat, 10/23/2021 - 11:26am.

The deadline has passed, yes?

There's a process...

By FlyingToaster on Sat, 10/23/2021 - 7:53pm.

Which, IIRC, is that any state employee* who hadn't shown their vax card/confirmation or had a exemption-in-progress** was suspended effective Monday Oct. 17.

If they get their act together before 1 Nov, they'll be reinstated w/o further penalty.

If they fail to get vaxxed or demonstrate why not, their employment will be terminated for cause (insubordination) effective 1 Nov; no unemployment, and they can't collect on any accrued pension until they actually retire (age 65-67).

The USSC decided on vaccine mandates in 1906. The court challenges are failing based on that case.

* The Department of Corrections has until December 1, but I'm not at all sure of its status.

** There are a number of autoimmune disorders where the timing of vaccinations has become an issue; also anyone who had a reaction to a particular type of vaccine is likely to get a medical exemption. There are NO religious objections that are likely to work; these vaxxes aren't grown in animals, the Pope has already endorsed them, even the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Christian Scientists think they're a good idea.

Thanks, that makes sense.

By Tim Mc. on Sun, 10/24/2021 - 9:44am.

So at this point they're "off the job" but not yet fired.

This post should include the denominator of 2200+ MSP troops

By NL on Sat, 10/23/2021 - 11:44am.

Adam, I know this isn’t intentional on your part and that you’re good on providing proper context. And of course regardless of the size of the force, 12 intransigent state cops is never going to be a serious personnel issue - in particular it’s a drop in the bucket compared to sick/dead cops.

But I think it’s still worth pointing out just how small this group really is.

Good point

By BostonDog on Sat, 10/23/2021 - 3:00pm.

Also worth asking: What's the average yearly turnover?

Cool

By Will LaTulippe on Sat, 10/23/2021 - 12:34pm.

That'll free up $1.2 million.

Go build some (expletive) shelter with that.

Your bluff

By emac on Sat, 10/23/2021 - 12:53pm.

Has been called. Mandates work.

(Here’s the bluff, in all its blustery, whiny glory: https://liveboston617.org/2021/10/18/vaccine-mandate-is-proof-governor-c...)

Sayonara

By Anon on Sat, 10/23/2021 - 12:59pm.

And don’t think anyone will cry for you on your way out the door.

Now that it is no longer just “approved for emergency use” and just APPROVED I do not have any sympathy.

Also find it humorous that if the other guy won and was in office these 12 would not have concerns and would just have gotten it by now.

Say what you want about 45, but the worst thing he did while in office was politically charge the pandemic. This has nothing to do with Red or Blue or Green, this is about protecting yourself and fellow citizens.

I respect everyone’s right to choose but the people that choose the alternative decision forget that employers have the right to choose as well.

Even the EUA excuse is weak

By tachometer on Sun, 10/24/2021 - 9:19am.

Despite all of the howling prior to full approval there is little difference when it comes to the information presented for safety and efficacy to the FDA for EUA and full approval. It is a well established process to streamline getting drugs to patients as soon as possible when circumstances dictate it (with those circumstances also being approved by the agency).

And the EUA is only a compromise on efficacy, not safety

By Tim Mc. on Sun, 10/24/2021 - 12:43pm.

so it's not like "but what if it's not safe" is a reasonable excuse when looking at EUA vs. full approval.

(The requirement for evidence of efficacy is of course pretty high even for EUA.)

Billions Served

By SwirlyGrrl on Sun, 10/24/2021 - 9:56am.

Very few issues, and there are three vaccines to chose from to suit your particular concern/risk group.

The real issue here (nationwide, not just Massachusetts): cops don't want to be forced to accept that they actually work for someone other than other cops. They don't want a clear precedent and reminder that they are beholden to civil authority.