Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It cuts both ways once the employer/employee trust is broken.
Interesting to note that Doctors are often left out of the mandatory requirement because most are not considered staff... if the facility does not pay them and they bill the patient or insurance company directly.
This evening I was speaking with a company nurse... company she works for has over 2,000 mployees... each year they offer the vaccine and it still remains voluntary.
She went on to say the company passes out information two weeks in advance and she is available to answer specifics as to what the vaccine offered protects against, etc.
This company only uses single dose prefilled syringes... no multi-dose vials.
The Bay Area is no stranger to striking nurses... one count had nearly 30 strikes in the last few years and at least one patient death attributed to a strike replacement nurse...
Yeah really. What's next..forcing women with the BRCA gene to have mastectomies
????
You've missed the point completely. Breast cancer is not an infectious disease. It is not spread through contact with others at the work place. So, no that's not next. Moderator cut: snip
Last edited by 7G9C4J2; 11-13-2012 at 06:04 AM..
Reason: removed orphaned portion
1) Since the flu shot ONLY protects against certain strains of flu, if you come in contact with other strains, the shot offers no protection.
2) Pharmaceutical companies obviously benefit by having a mass population convinced that flu shots are a must.
3) An individual might protect themselves against any infection by having a healthy immune system - employers can contribute to this by offering a stress free work environment, increasing pay and benefits, offering extras such as a gym, breakfast, Yoga, massage, etc.
4) An individual can also protect themselves by practicing good hygiene and contagion habits (washing hands frequently, wearing a mask, cleaning door knobs and surfaces with disinfectants, etc.)
5) Sick employees can contribute to not spreading disease by staying home when sick (and employers can encourage that).
This mindset came into play when our society decided it was OK for employers to fire an employee if they smoke.....even if they only smoke on their own time in the privacy of their own home. This was happening before Obama even became president.
The excuse: Employees who smoke cost employers money. Therefore, the employer has legal cause to force health edicts on their employees.
There you have it.
Now that the same reasoning is being used in cases of obesity, flu shots, and who knows what else in the future..... all of a sudden it's not fair.
As a smoker, who is slim and trim and who has no problem getting a flu shot, I am finding this turn of events extremely satisfying.
Karma.....gotta love it.
Last edited by 7G9C4J2; 11-13-2012 at 06:04 AM..
Reason: removed orphaned portion
No health intervention cures or protects you against 100% of the diseases or medical problems you take it for.
But, hey if something isn't "perfect", if it doesn't fix 100% of the problems people get than let's not use it at all right? Stop and ask yourself just how ridiculous that kind of a position is.
Of course employers don't "own you". On the other hand, you have no constitutional right to a job. I don't have to give any of my workers a job at all. I could decide tomorrow to replace all of them or some of them. Guess what? The law has no say over whether I do that or not as long as my reasons for doing so, don't fit into a few narrow, specific exceptions.
A workplace is not a democracy. People who don't like my rules are free to work elsewhere or to set up their own business. Its that simple.
Honestly, this vaccination issue hasn't really come up for me until now. What does occur to me though is that I'm not sure I'd want an employee working for me who was so dumb they got wrapped up in some phony argument about freedom and chose to forgo a scientifically proven method of preventing disease. I like to think my employees are of "higher caliber" than that.
... especially if they were working in a health care setting like the OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDGeek
Yeah really. What's next..forcing women with the BRCA gene to have mastectomies????
Breast cancer isn't contagious, Einstein.
Moderator cut: snip My husband has worked in a health care setting and has been required to get the flu vaccine for years. Not only does it keep employees from spreading it to each other, but to their patients too. This is not a big conspiracy. It is science.
Last edited by 7G9C4J2; 11-13-2012 at 06:05 AM..
Reason: removed orphaned portion
The OP works at a hospital. Hospitals are large companies that have provided health care to employees for decades, and have required flu vaccines for years.
Last edited by 7G9C4J2; 11-13-2012 at 06:06 AM..
Reason: removed orphaned portion
The OP works at a hospital. Hospitals are large companies that have provided health care to employees for decades, and have required flu vaccines for years.
I'm referring to the posters discussing how employers are taking away rights. I don't know anything about working at a hospital, so I don't have much insight on that. However, I can see how a flu shot might make sense in a hospital setting from a logistics standpoint.
I don't agree with employers firing individuals who smoke or refuse to get the flu shot. I think a better a solution would be to keep these employees onboard, but charge a premium for health insurance to these particular employees. Maybe an extra $200/month or something small.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.