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 11-08-2012, 12:22 AM
 
25,593 posts, read 49,197,279 times
Reputation: 19054

Advertisements

A number of employers are starting to require mandatory flu shots with some offering termination for those that refuse...

What I find interesting, at least as I understand it... employers and Doctors/Nurses are protected from liability from requiring/administering the vaccine so it cannot be without some risk or immunity wouldn't be necessary.

Lots of issues come to mind such as the Patients right to give informed consent and to refuse medical treatment for starters.

Then there are the preservatives often used like Mercury that can exceed the daily maximum exposure limit and the entire idea of refusal on religious grounds or refusal based on OSHA or EEOC guidelines.

Anyone care to comment?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2012, 12:27 AM
 
Location: Ohio
14,174 posts, read 12,416,013 times
Reputation: 18810
If employers can fire someone for smoking......why shouldn't they be able to fire someone for not getting a flue shot?

The justification for both are the same.....sick employees cost them money.

Gotta love unintended consequences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 12:36 AM
 
25,593 posts, read 49,197,279 times
Reputation: 19054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
If employers can fire someone for smoking......why shouldn't they be able to fire someone for not getting a flue shot?

The justification for both are the same.....sick employees cost them money.

Gotta love unintended consequences.
My first thought is because one is voluntary and the other is compulsory.

Vaccines are not without risk... this is a proven and one only needs to look at the medication insert for possible risks.

Also, vaccines may or may not be effective.

Additionally, injectables can be contaminated either in manufacturing or via administration

I tend to err on the side of caution and believe many are not in the position to give the informed consent required.

In 2009, New York City had thousands of medical professionals go out because of mandatory vaccinations... the requirement was quickly amended.

Even large professional groups such as the National and Local Nurses Associations and Labor Unions are opposed to the mandatory requirement...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 05:47 AM
 
8,194 posts, read 8,467,598 times
Reputation: 25584
I'm absolutely in favor of employers requiring that employees get the flu vaccine.

Flu is a more serious problem than most people want to admit. There are hundreds of people who die every year in this country from the flu. More commonly, there is a huge amount of morbidity from flu. This is simply a way of saying that people miss much work time and are unable to do much other than lie in bed because of illness. If you're in a workplace and around both co-workers and customers, the potential for you spreading disease is very high. The bottom line of the employer is affected by such illness.

When we weigh this against the disadvantages of having to get a flu shot it becomes even more clear. Side effects from taking the flu vaccine are rare indeed. The handful of people injured by the vaccine out of the tens of millions who take it every year have a method of redressing their problems. There is something called the Vaccine Compensation Fund. The VCF will pay legitimate claims for injury regardless of fault if it can be shown that the vaccine is responsible.

Nothing in life is completely without risk and that includes vaccines. We all make risk/benefit decisions everyday in our personal lives. The act of getting in an automobile and driving is an example of what I mean. There is some minor risk every time we drive a car that we will be in an accident that causes injury or death. Yet, we all decide that minor risk is less important to us than having fast and efficient transportation to work and school.

Apparently, Ultrarunner you are still continuing to believe some propaganda that has been repeated ad nauseam by opponents of vaccination. The truth is that mercury or thimersol has been removed from virtually every vaccine out there. If it is present, its in the barest trace amounts. To give you a clue what I'm talking about, if you eat a can of tuna fish, you'll get far more mercury from that than from any vaccine. Studies have repeatedly debunked any link between vaccination and serious health problems and yet people continue to make these same brain-dead arguments. The FDA has to approve every vaccine in use in this country as "safe and effective" before it can be required. The FDA has an excellent track record when it comes to protecting the public.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVac...fety/UCM096228
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 08:38 AM
 
25,593 posts, read 49,197,279 times
Reputation: 19054
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I'm absolutely in favor of employers requiring that employees get the flu vaccine.

Flu is a more serious problem than most people want to admit. There are hundreds of people who die every year in this country from the flu. More commonly, there is a huge amount of morbidity from flu. This is simply a way of saying that people miss much work time and are unable to do much other than lie in bed because of illness. If you're in a workplace and around both co-workers and customers, the potential for you spreading disease is very high. The bottom line of the employer is affected by such illness.

When we weigh this against the disadvantages of having to get a flu shot it becomes even more clear. Side effects from taking the flu vaccine are rare indeed. The handful of people injured by the vaccine out of the tens of millions who take it every year have a method of redressing their problems. There is something called the Vaccine Compensation Fund. The VCF will pay legitimate claims for injury regardless of fault if it can be shown that the vaccine is responsible.

Nothing in life is completely without risk and that includes vaccines. We all make risk/benefit decisions everyday in our personal lives. The act of getting in an automobile and driving is an example of what I mean. There is some minor risk every time we drive a car that we will be in an accident that causes injury or death. Yet, we all decide that minor risk is less important to us than having fast and efficient transportation to work and school.

Apparently, Ultrarunner you are still continuing to believe some propaganda that has been repeated ad nauseam by opponents of vaccination. The truth is that mercury or thimersol has been removed from virtually every vaccine out there. If it is present, its in the barest trace amounts. To give you a clue what I'm talking about, if you eat a can of tuna fish, you'll get far more mercury from that than from any vaccine. Studies have repeatedly debunked any link between vaccination and serious health problems and yet people continue to make these same brain-dead arguments. The FDA has to approve every vaccine in use in this country as "safe and effective" before it can be required. The FDA has an excellent track record when it comes to protecting the public.

Thimerosal in Vaccines
Thanks for posting the link and it confirms my understanding...

Thimerosal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine (see Table 1). A preservative-free version of the inactivated influenza vaccine (contains trace amounts of thimerosal) is available in limited supply at this time for use in infants, children and pregnant women

When I asked if I could have the preservative-free inactivated influenza vaccine with only trace amounts of thimerosal... I was told NO...

As to the requirement... the company posted a letter/directive/order the the County Health Department signed by the county's chief medical officer... as mentioned above... I called the Doctor directly and was told the order does not apply to me...

I provided my employer a copy directly from the "Horses Mouth" so to speak and was told it didn't matter... it is now company policy...

So why mislead and post inaccurate information... do they really think no one will do the research?

As you mentioned... life is full of risk and as adults... we are free to choose accordingly... at least I believe so.

21 years with an exemplary record and never a sick day should be evidence enough that I don't miss work and I have never had tuna in my life... ever!

Interesting to note that vaccines in many other countries have led the way in being mercury free and we are late to the party.

Also, the largest percentage of claims against the Federal Compensation Fund are flu vaccine related...

Most interesting is OSHA... the very government agency charge with workplace safety has argued against mandatory flu shots and the vaccine may actually provide an unwanted sense of of security...

I'm not a Doctor and not giving offering Medical Advice.

I am saying my research has led me to conclude the issue is far from settled and at the very least, my employer's actions are misleading.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 08:54 AM
 
Location: NJ
17,579 posts, read 38,001,996 times
Reputation: 16091
The question I have is the company requiring proof of getting the shot and HIPPA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 09:55 AM
 
150 posts, read 234,640 times
Reputation: 174
My mother only ever had one flu shot in her life, and she caught pneumonia and got really sick afterwards.

I could see a lawsuit stemming from this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 10:09 AM
 
25,593 posts, read 49,197,279 times
Reputation: 19054
The problems I see is employers are going out on a limb by requiring existing employees to take a prescription medicine barring an employment agreement.

My Dentist firmly believes mercury is toxic and will not use amalgam filling... he is my medical professional.

My city and county have an ongoing program to remove mercury from the home... yet, for most of us, the flue vaccine contains mercury.

I understand the greater good theory and my employer sure could have done a better job on education...

I really resented being called over to the conference room and being told to roll up my sleeve for the mandatory flue shot... the shot has been offered before and was always voluntary... some really appreciated it because it was free.

Like I said, I've been there 21 years and it was never a problem till last Friday...

Simply by questioning it... I was made out to be the bad person...

A few years ago, I was commended by the same employer for not taking the vaccine...

Apparantly the vaccine was in short supply that year and we were all asked to defer to those that had a medical reason to receive it... people with young children or elderly, etc...

My elderly mother gets it every year and she always has about a week or more of a runny nose within 24 to 36 hours... she says she would rather be a little sick then get real sick.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Ayrsley
4,714 posts, read 8,189,081 times
Reputation: 3809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
A number of employers are starting to require mandatory flu shots with some offering termination for those that refuse...
First I have heard of this (outside of certain positions in some health care settings). Have any articles you can link to about this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Ayrsley
4,714 posts, read 8,189,081 times
Reputation: 3809
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I'm absolutely in favor of employers requiring that employees get the flu vaccine.
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
The FDA has to approve every vaccine in use in this country as "safe and effective" before it can be required. The FDA has an excellent track record when it comes to protecting the public.

Thimerosal in Vaccines
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.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top