Q&A
Council Member Carr questions policy on rehiring workers terminated due to vaccination status
1:30:56
·
4 min
Council Member David M. Carr engages in a discussion with Daniel Pollak from the Office of Labor Relations regarding the city's policy on rehiring workers who were terminated due to their COVID-19 vaccination status. Carr expresses dissatisfaction with the current policy and pushes for a change to allow these workers to return to their positions with full seniority and benefits.
- Carr highlights that some workers have been allowed to return under less than desirable circumstances, without their original titles or seniority.
- He emphasizes that the policy needs to change, especially in light of updated CDC guidelines from 2022 regarding vaccine effectiveness in preventing transmission.
- Carr criticizes the law department's handling of the issue and suggests that the city may ultimately lose in court if they don't proactively address the situation.
David M. Carr
1:30:56
Thank you, chairs, commissioners.
1:30:58
It's good to see you.
1:30:59
I just wanna return to the topic I was discussing with Henry Garrido when he was here, which is the issue of, those workers who were severed from city service, as a result of their vaccination status.
1:31:10
Can you give us any window into where the administration is in terms of working towards a solution and hopefully bringing these individuals back to work in their titles with their seniority, so that they can continue serving the city in the wonderful way they did before the the the COVID crisis began.
Daniel Pollak
1:31:32
Thank you, council member.
1:31:33
I'll take that question.
1:31:34
So the the policy that is currently in place is, the same policy that was implemented when the vaccine mandate was lifted in February of 2023.
1:31:44
Employees, at that time who were eligible for to apply for reinstatement under civil service rules, had that opportunity to apply for reinstatement that was mostly competitive class employees, and any other employees have the opportunity to apply for for rehire.
1:32:00
That that continues to be the policy today.
David M. Carr
1:32:03
But it's not an adequate policy.
1:32:04
Right?
1:32:04
It's a policy that has allowed some people to return under, you know, we'll say, less than desirable circumstances, not with their title, not with their seniority.
1:32:15
There are folks who are still litigating successfully and are not being allowed to return.
1:32:19
Some people have been asked to sign away their legal rights.
1:32:23
So that's the policy that you think is should be in place at this point?
1:32:27
I know it is the policy, but I'm I'm asking if there's gonna be a change.
Daniel Pollak
1:32:31
So, you know, that's not, type within my, ability to answer.
1:32:35
That's, saying I defer to, city hall on that issue.
David M. Carr
1:32:39
Well, I think I think what you're really referring to is the law department.
1:32:41
Right?
1:32:41
Because the law department has been the main culprit for why we haven't had a positive resolution on this.
1:32:47
Right?
1:32:47
This is supposed to be the get stuff done administration.
1:32:50
Right?
1:32:50
That's the hallmark, so, allegedly, of this, 10 years so far.
1:32:55
Right?
1:32:55
And the truth is, in order to work through this, right, there needs to be a will, right, to work through it.
1:33:01
There's things that need to be resolved.
1:33:02
Henry brought up some of them in his testimony, but there's no willingness to do that.
1:33:06
It's just sort of like we have all these positions that we need to fill quite desperately.
1:33:11
We have people who performed well in the roles before and during the pandemic, I might add.
1:33:16
Right?
1:33:16
People who were deemed essential workers that are no longer able to return to their jobs with dignity.
1:33:22
So what's what's your opinion about that at this stage?
Daniel Pollak
1:33:26
So as I mentioned, you know, I can only speak to the policy that's in place, and the the way that was implemented.
1:33:32
I I can't speak to anything beyond that.
David M. Carr
1:33:35
Yeah.
1:33:35
I think I think it's a policy that absolutely needs to change, and and I'm not gonna go at you too hard because as I said, I know this is the law department's, Bailiwick, and they have been absolutely horrible from beginning to end on this.
1:33:46
And the policy needs to change because, ultimately, they're gonna lose in court.
1:33:50
They've already lost in trial.
1:33:51
They're gonna lose at the appellate division, and you're gonna have to do this with the sort of proverbial legal gun to the city's head as opposed to just doing the right thing out out front.
1:34:00
And I I wanna be very clear.
1:34:02
I'm not talking about whether or not the city should have the legal capacity to require vaccination of its employees.
1:34:09
I'm not even talking about whether the decision to use that legal authority was correct in the past.
1:34:15
What is clear is that since August or September of 2022, the CDC put out guidelines that the vaccination, while effective for controlling symptoms, wasn't effective at preventing transmission, which was the whole predicate reason for requiring the vaccination in the per in the first place.
1:34:33
So we're just asking that city government be nimble, realize that new facts have emerged since the policy was first created, and allow people to come back to work who were good workers.
1:34:44
These weren't bad workers.
1:34:45
These were people who ably served the city and want to continue to do so.
1:34:49
So I know you're not in a position to answer a comment further, but it's just a shame that it's, you know, over 2 years since the CDC put out that new guidance, and and nothing has really changed for the better.
