Bay Area

BART to Require All Employees Get COVID-19 Vaccinations by December 13

Published

3 years ago

October 22, 2021

COVID-19 mask requirements poster at the Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) station at 1365 Treat Boulevard in Walnut Creek, Calif. on March 5, 2021. (Samantha Laurey/Bay City News)

All Bay Area Rapid Transit employees and contractors will be required to get vaccinated against COVID-19 or prove their full vaccination status by mid-December under a policy the agency’s board adopted on October 14.
The policy — drafted by Board Directors Rebecca Saltzman, Lateefah Simon, Bevan Dufty and Janice Li — will require the full vaccination of BART’s employees and board members by December 13, save for those who have a valid medical or religious exemption.
The board also voted as part of the vaccination policy to direct BART General Manager Bob Powers to implement a vaccination requirement for the agency’s contractors and bargain with the agency’s labor unions to determine how employees who decline to get vaccinated will be handled.
“By adopting this policy today, nobody is getting fired tomorrow,” Li said. “No one is being forced to get the vaccine, but this policy states that being vaccinated is a condition of employment.”
Several board members framed the policy as a necessity to keep both the transit agency’s employees and its riders, particularly children under 12 who are not yet eligible for vaccination, protected against the virus.
BART officials estimated that around 20 to 25% of BART’s nearly 4,000 employees remain unvaccinated, which Board Director Mark Foley argued could lead to further outbreaks and potential service disruptions.
Foley also said that he is acutely empathetic to those hesitant to get vaccinated, noting that he opposed vaccination for “more than a decade” after his then-1-year-old daughter was diagnosed with autism.
Foley and his daughter are now fully vaccinated against COVID-19, he said Thursday, and his daughter ultimately received her scheduled vaccinations when she entered high school after Foley said he “allowed science to lead” him and his wife.
“I can see where people come from,” he said. “I understand. Coming from that perspective, I had doubts, I had concerns. But I also allowed myself to be guided by experts. And I was not the expert, Google was not the expert, fake news was not the expert.”
The policy, as written and approved on October 14, does not include an option for frequent testing for those who decline to get vaccinated.
Board Director Debora Allen, the only board member to vote against adopting the policy, took issue with that and argued that the agency should not infringe on its employees’ medical decisions.
Allen added that she got fully vaccinated this summer after initially being skeptical that the vaccine’s protection would be more robust than the antibodies she acquired from contracting the virus.
“I think each person should have the right to research and make their own medical decisions as I did without threats from their employer of losing their job,” she said. “So, I come down on the side of every person making their own choice as to these medical treatments.”
Foley noted that while the policy adopted October 14 does not include a testing component, it does not prevent the addition of such a component during bargaining discussions between Powers and BART’s labor unions.
“This policy allows for labor to negotiate over how to protect their members … It puts the power in the labor leaders’ hands and the general manager to craft a document that helps us move forward,” he said. “So, I’m going to put my faith in their hands that they can come up with something that meets their needs.”
Under federal health guidelines, all BART riders and employees will still be required to wear a face covering when in a BART station or on a BART train, regardless of their vaccination status.

Christy Price

Posts by Christy Price

Up Next

Colin L. Powell, former Secretary of State, 84

Don't Miss

School Advocate Finds Oakland Schools Lost Money by Closing Roots, Kaiser and Other Schools

Christy Price

Click to comment

Alameda County

District Attorney Pamela Price Will Face Recall Election on November General Election Ballot

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors scheduled the recall election against Alameda District Attorney Pamela Price for November 5, coinciding with the 2024 General Election. The decision comes after weeks of controversy and drawn-out discussions amongst county officials, recall proponents, and opponents, and legal advisors.

Published

1 hour ago

May 18, 2024

Oakland Post

Alameda District Attorney Pamela Price’s future will be determined on the November General Election ballot instead of a special recall election. On the left, DA Pamela Price. On the right, principal officer of the recall campaign Save Alameda For Everyone (SAFE). Collage by Magaly Muñoz

By Magaly Muñoz

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors scheduled the recall election against Alameda District Attorney Pamela Price for November 5, coinciding with the 2024 General Election.

The decision comes after weeks of controversy and drawn-out discussions amongst county officials, recall proponents, and opponents, and legal advisors.

Recall proponents submitted 123,374 signatures before the March 5 deadline, which resulted in 74,757 valid signatures counted by the Registrar of Voters (ROV).

The recall election will cost Alameda County $4 million and will require them to hire hundreds of new election workers to manage the demand of keeping up with the federal, state and local elections and measures.

Save Alameda For Everyone (SAFE), one of the two recall campaigns against Price, held a press conference minutes before the Board’s special meeting asking for the Supervisors to schedule the election in August instead of consolidating with the November election.

Supporters of the recall have said they were not concerned with the $20 million price tag the special election would’ve cost the county if they had put it on the ballot in the summer. Many have stated that the lives of their loved ones are worth more than that number.

“What is the cost of a life?” recall supporters have asked time and time again.

Opponents of the recall election have been vehemently against a special date to vote, stating it would cost taxpayers too much money that could be reinvested into social programs to help struggling residents.

A special election could’ve cost the county’s budget to exceed its current deficit of $68 million, which was a driving factor in the three supervisors who voted for a consolidated election.

“Bottom line is, I can’t in good conscience support a special election that is going to cost the county $20 million,” Board President Nate Miley said.

Many speakers asked Miley and Keith Carson to recuse themselves from the vote, claiming that they have had improper involvement with either the recall proponents or Price herself.

Both supervisors addressed the concerns stating that regardless of who they associate themselves with or what their political beliefs are, they have to do their jobs, no matter the outcome.

Carson noted that although he’s neither supporting nor opposing Price as district attorney, he believes that whoever is elected next to take that position should have a reasonable amount of time to adjust to the job before recalls are considered.

Reports of recall attempts started as soon as April 2023 when Price had only been in office three months.

Price and her campaign team Protect the Win have been adamant that the voters who elected her to office will not fall for the “undemocratic” practices from the recall campaign and they are prepared to put all efforts forward to guarantee she stays in office.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Bay Area

Radical Proposal to Limit the Power of Oakland’s Police Commission

Since February 2023, several stakeholders, including the Coalition for Police Accountability, began to work on amending the Enabling Ordinance of Section 604, Article VI of the Oakland City Charter. The Enabling Ordinance was approved by 83.19% of Oakland voters and established the civilian membered Police Commission (the Commission), the Community Police Review Agency (CPRA) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The recent process to amend was focused on addressing some of the inefficiencies and disruptions that have occurred with the Police Commission and to establish guard rails and procedures to mitigate such issues in the future.

Published

1 hour ago

May 18, 2024

Oakland Post

Cathy Leonard, President Coalition for Police Accountability. Courtesy photo. Coalition for Police Accountability logo.

By Coalition for Police Accountability

A counter proposal was presented by Councilmember Jenkins to drastically amend Article VI, Section 604 of the City Charter. The proposal would remove the selection process of the police chief from the Commission and give that power solely to the mayor. Currently, the Commission selects the candidates from which the mayor chooses the chief and presents them to the mayor who selects the final candidate. The proposal also moves the OIG to the Auditor’s Office. These proposals would rob the Commission and the OIG of independence from City Hall which 83.19% of Oakland voters sought in voting for Measure LL in 2016 and Measure S1 in 2018.

Our position is that the issues that have been raised about the hiring of the Chief, the appointment authority of Commissioners, and the scope of CPRA can all be incorporated into the ongoing collaboration of all the stakeholders working on the Enabling Ordinance. Those stakeholders are the two authors, the Coalition of Police Accountability, the Police Commission and the community members who have participated in this extensive work which has yet to be completed and approved by the City Council. The Charter is very clear that the Commission hires the IG and that the IG is supervised by the Commission. The ordinance cannot override that provision of the Charter.

Amending the Charter is not the vehicle that should be used to make amendments. The proposed Enabling Ordinance should be given a chance to effect positive change before making radical and undemocratic revisions.

For further information, please contact the Coalition for Police Accountability by reaching out to Mariano Contreras at puralata1@gmail.com.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Bay Area

Oakland International Airport Will Now Be Called ‘San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport’

The Port of Oakland Commissioners voted unanimously to rename the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport to San Francisco Bay Oakland Airport at their board meeting last week. Despite a six-week battle with San Francisco leaders, residents and even Oaklanders, the Port remained steadfast in their decision to change the airport name in order to bring more revenue to Oakland’s economy.

Published

2 hours ago

May 18, 2024

Oakland Post

The Port of Oakland unanimously voted to rename Metropolitan Oakland International Airport to San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport after weeks of controversy and legal pushback from surrounding Bay Area cities. Photo by Takako Phillips, iStock.

By Magaly Muñoz

The Port of Oakland Commissioners voted unanimously to rename the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport to San Francisco Bay Oakland Airport at their board meeting last week.

Despite a six-week battle with San Francisco leaders, residents and even Oaklanders, the Port remained steadfast in their decision to change the airport name in order to bring more revenue to Oakland’s economy.

The Port reassured all parties that the airport will continue to have its OAK three-letter code and ‘I Fly OAK’ phrases, to minimize confusion among travelers.

“Our Board came to these discussions with a shared love of Oakland and a desire to see our city and airport thrive. Since our initial vote, the Port has met with dozens of community leaders and stakeholders and heard their concerns. We are moving forward with a commitment to honoring our past while building a stronger, more inclusive future,” Board President Barbara Leslie said in a statement.

The Board had delayed their decision by a month in order to listen to community members’ concerns about the name change. Bay Area residents accused the Port of trying to rewrite history and hide their current problems with public safety and crime behind a big tourist attraction.

The Port stated that their intention is to boost the number of people who fly into Oakland, which will allow for travelers to get to know the city and spend their money in the local businesses.

According to reports, Oakland Airport (OAK) is the closest major airport to 58% of the Bay Area population.

In the days following the announcement for change consideration, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu filed a lawsuit against Oakland to protect San Francisco.

The lawsuit argues that Oakland airport’s attempt to “unlawfully incorporate” the San Francisco trademark leaves the city with no choice but to sue for trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition.

San Francisco city leaders and Oakland residents have insisted that the new name will create confusion and chaos for travelers who are not familiar with the area or the distinction between the two airports.

The Port has since responded with a countersuit of their own, asking the courts to rule that their name change does not violate San Francisco Airport’s (SFO) trademark.

The counterclaim says that the Port “seeks to increase awareness of Oakland Airport’s geographic location on San Francisco Bay among potential travelers and thus increase passenger traffic at Oakland Airport, create jobs, and boost economic activity in Oakland and the wider San Francisco Bay Area.”

Two days before the Port meeting, Chiu sent another letter to the Port offering to collaborate with Oakland to find alternative names for the airport and avoid litigation.

Oakland Port Attorney Mary Richardson said in a statement the following day that the Port is willing to partner with SFO to bring as many options as possible to travelers and have an open dialogue on how to move forward, but ultimately will still change the Oakland airport name.

The ‘San Francisco Bay’ rebrand has already made its way to the airport’s website and physical changes such as signage will be coming in the following months. The name swap will cost Oakland about $150,000.