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.
I am totally against it. I don't get them myself (and I work in pharma research) - not for any of the dizzy "theories" about how dangerous vaccines are, just every time I get one I have a severe reaction - I get really sick for a few days. So I choose not to. My body, my choice. No employer has a right to tell other people that they must engage in any form of invasive therapy in order to keep their job.
FDA approvals are 50% about safety and efficacy data...and about 50% politics. Trust me; I know quite well what I am speaking of here.
I agree - people just blindly and mindlessly go along with anything an authority figure tells them. They actually don't know what they are getting injected into their bodies and even if they do, it is an individual's right to refuse. I don't even get the flu and I did not take the free shot administered by my firm and I have no intention of doing so unless it is my personal choice. If I were ever fired for not choosing to have a mandatory flu injection, we would be in the courts for the next 10 years, because I would definitely file a lawsuit.
Self-righteousness is always entertaining and good for a laugh. Keep pilling it on.
I worked at nationally ranked pediatric hospital with 5000 employees. I was non-clinical. We were ALL required to receive a flu shot OR mist - your choice - at the hospital's expense unless you had a specific medical reason (which would be investigated b/c, let's face it, they're a HOSPITAL) barring you from vaccination.
All non-clinical employees, prior to first day of work, also required to have TB test and show proof of MMR vaccination or be vaccinated on the spot. Of course, clinical employees were required to have more vaccinations because of direct patient contact.
Does "my body, my choice" apply in a hospital treating your kids? What about to non-clinical workers without patient contact?
Maybe all doctors and nurses should stop washing their hands in between patients and after using the restroom too because, after all, it's their body, their choice.
If I were ever fired for not choosing to have a mandatory flu injection, we would be in the courts for the next 10 years, because I would definitely file a lawsuit.
I just love people who act like they are some legal authority. Here's the facts:
1. You have no case.
2. You probably couldn't find a lawyer who would take it.
3. If you did find a lawyer who would take it, he'd want cash up front (probably more than you have).
4. If he's honest, he'd tell you that your case is going nowhere.
5. You'd lose your case based on the "employment-at-will" doctrine.
No, I answered it. You just didn't like the answer.
You asked "how far can an employer go".
My answer was that under the "employment at will doctrine", an employer can do just about what he wants unless:
1. He discriminates on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.
2. He hires, fires, or disciplines because an employee either joined or organized a union. and
3. Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, sexual orientation is illegal under some state laws.
Other than that, an employer can go about as far as he wants in terms of requiring actions from his employees. They have the freedom to quit if they don't like it. I would recommend that any employee who feels this way should go out and set up his own business, so that he can be the boss and makes these decisions on his own.
I did not ask that, below is what I asked:
"You think an employer should be allowed to tell someone who to vote for? What to eat and drink? How far into an employee's life do you think an employer should be allowed to go?"
Seems you derive your actions from the fear of consequence, thus if it is not a violation of a law, you have no problems with it. It is this attitude that caused these laws in the first place.
Would you engage in slavery if it was legal? Is the only reason you have a safe work place is because of OSHA, and not for the safety of the employees? The product and/or servie you produce, is it safe only because of regulations? So if these regulations were not in place, you would have no problem producing an unsafe item and/or service?
Self-righteousness is always entertaining and good for a laugh. Keep pilling it on.
I worked at nationally ranked pediatric hospital with 5000 employees. I was non-clinical. We were ALL required to receive a flu shot OR mist - your choice - at the hospital's expense unless you had a specific medical reason (which would be investigated b/c, let's face it, they're a HOSPITAL) barring you from vaccination.
All non-clinical employees, prior to first day of work, also required to have TB test and show proof of MMR vaccination or be vaccinated on the spot. Of course, clinical employees were required to have more vaccinations because of direct patient contact.
Does "my body, my choice" apply in a hospital treating your kids? What about to non-clinical workers without patient contact?
Maybe all doctors and nurses should stop washing their hands in between patients and after using the restroom too because, after all, it's their body, their choice.
That would be call a business necessity, the minority of hospitals mandate flu vaccines for their employees as of 2009.
There has to be some ways around it, such as vaccines are against your religion or you have medical issues.
My husband has MS, when the "bird flu" came out his whole company said everyone had to get vaccinated. We asked what type of vaccine they were going to give, and they said the live nasal one, but the nurses submitting THANKFULLY had brains and told the company my husband could NOT be given the live vaccine or it could kill him. They said he could have the shot but his company never ordered the shot for him, I think they felt it was better to not push the subject.
BTW his neurologist also wrote a note to confirm that he could not have the live vaccine or he could suffer a potential MS attack or worse. And we were perfectly willing to get the injection with the dead strain since his neurologist okay'd it. The rest of our family all got the vaccine (shot) as well to minimize the risk of my hubby getting it. And since my husband doesn't travel much we figured we were okay.
"You think an employer should be allowed to tell someone who to vote for? What to eat and drink? How far into an employee's life do you think an employer should be allowed to go?"
Seems you derive your actions from the fear of consequence, thus if it is not a violation of a law, you have no problems with it. It is this attitude that caused these laws in the first place.
Would you engage in slavery if it was legal? Is the only reason you have a safe work place is because of OSHA, and not for the safety of the employees? The product and/or servie you produce, is it safe only because of regulations? So if these regulations were not in place, you would have no problem producing an unsafe item and/or service?
The mistake you make is one that I've seem commonly made by many who don't understand the system. The Bill of Rights was written to protect you from your government. The freedoms or protections contained therein have little or no application to private parties and to employment relationships. Nor should they. The state has the power to throw people in prison, execute them, or take away their property through the imposition of fines and penalties. All an employer has the right to do is terminate your services. You have no "constitutional right" to a job.
In a handful of cases (mentioned before) a public policy was found to be so overwhelming (example; preventing racial discrimination) that the federal government and states chose to pass very specific laws mandating a course of behavior in very precise areas. The laws are written so specifically because neither Congress, nor the state legislatures intended to change the basic concept of employment at will.
Moreover, the very idea of comparing a requirement that an employee get a vaccination to slavery is so absurd on its face, its not worthy of further discussion. It reminds me of people who argue politics and start comparing their opponents to the Nazis or the Communists. My rule of thumb is that once they do this the discussion is over and they have lost.
[quote=beera;26883077]There has to be some ways around it, such as vaccines are against your religion or you have medical issues.
My husband has MS, when the "bird flu" came out his whole company said everyone had to get vaccinated. We asked what type of vaccine they were going to give, and they said the live nasal one, but the nurses submitting THANKFULLY had brains and told the company my husband could NOT be given the live vaccine or it could kill him. They said he could have the shot but his company never ordered the shot for him, I think they felt it was better to not push the subject.
Respectfully, they felt it was better to not push the subject when they heard the word "kill," or they would of had to call MarkG.
I get the argument that vaccinations save so many lives. But what about people who have undocumented/undiagnosed issues that these (flu) vaccines are encoding on? Tough **** for them lest they decide to refrain.
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.
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.
