Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-12-2012, 12:14 AM
 
28,115 posts, read 63,811,491 times
Reputation: 23268

Advertisements

Some have said if you don't like it leave...

This is of course an option, just like organizing is an option too... or pickets.

Nurses file lawsuit over mandatory flu vaccine | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News

or

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/ny...21vaccine.html

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...

4,400 Bay Area Sutter Nurses Plan One-Day Strike On Wednesday « CBS San Francisco

Judges have consistently ruled management must abide by ratified union agreements and some specifically address worker rights regarding vaccinations.

Maybe the answer is representation?

Last edited by Ultrarunner; 11-12-2012 at 12:32 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-12-2012, 12:55 AM
 
6,977 posts, read 5,729,991 times
Reputation: 5178
I wonder if its legal to require a person to get a medical treatment in order to maintain employment?

Seems like employers trying to play god with people's bodies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 04:47 AM
 
Location: North Texas
24,561 posts, read 40,379,505 times
Reputation: 28565
Quote:
Originally Posted by wall st kid View Post
I wonder if its legal to require a person to get a medical treatment in order to maintain employment?

Seems like employers trying to play god with people's bodies.
Yeah really. What's next..forcing women with the BRCA gene to have mastectomies????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 11:51 AM
 
14,452 posts, read 14,403,318 times
Reputation: 45954
Quote:
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 12:03 PM
 
Location: earth?
7,284 posts, read 12,951,698 times
Reputation: 8956
Here's are alternative viewpoints:

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).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Ohio
15,700 posts, read 17,093,273 times
Reputation: 22092
Moderator cut: snip

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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 04:06 PM
 
Location: here
24,873 posts, read 36,247,082 times
Reputation: 32732
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
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 View Post
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 04:08 PM
 
Location: here
24,873 posts, read 36,247,082 times
Reputation: 32732
Moderator cut: snip

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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 04:13 PM
 
24,488 posts, read 41,217,046 times
Reputation: 12921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibbiekat View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 04:20 PM
 
24,488 posts, read 41,217,046 times
Reputation: 12921
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:07 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top