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.
Nothing is without risk. My job requires flu vaccines. It also requires that I drive a car from place to place during the work day. Guess which one is more likely to kill me.
Nothing is without risk. My job requires flu vaccines. It also requires that I drive a car from place to place during the work day. Guess which one is more likely to kill me.
Did you know about the personal vehicle requirement at the time of hire?
I have to drive often and it is part of the job...
A couple of times they actually sent me home to get my truck and trailer to make an emergency pick-up... not a problem.
The trailer is not something I would normally take to work... one time I had a $600k medical laser in it...
I would be talking to a lawyer. Maybe you can sue them for wrongful termination. If that's an option, suggest you tell them (while squinting of course) "Go ahead. Make My Day".
As a lawyer, trust me. This kind of lawsuit will go nowhere fast. Employers can fire an employee for no reason, or any reason at all as long as they aren't discriminating based on race, sex, religion, pregnancy, or because the employee tried to organize or join a union.
I don't understand the paranoia that exists in some circles about vaccinations. Maybe you have to get deathly ill to appreciate vaccines.
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.
I have some background in public health and I have a spouse who works in a mid-management position for the local health department here. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and nothing comes to close to preventing the amount of disease that vaccination does.
The law gives an employer the right to fire an employee for any reason and for no reason at all. The exceptions would be if the employer tries to fire someone based on their race, sex, religion, being pregnant, or attempting to organize or join a union. Other than that the "employment at will doctrine" let's me terminate my employees for the reason given above. I have not yet made a choice to require my own employees to get a vaccination for flu yet. However, if I do its up to me and not to them.
Quote:
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.
What a cavalier statement. Have any authority in the form of a medical journal article or scientific study to back it up? Or, because you "work in pharma research" am I expected to take your word on such an important issue as gospel truth? The point is that I don't "trust you" on this point.
On the contrary, I trust vaccination because of its strong track record in preventing disease epidemics.
All you people who act like a case of the flu is nothing ought to read up on the Spanish Flu which back in 1919, killed 750,000 Americans in one year. That's right 750,000 people. Its more than we lost in World War I and World War II combined. Spanish Flu was a uniquely virulent strain. However, those kind of viruses are out there and they can take the lives of both young and old people.
Preventing this from happening is a more important value to me than honoring some notion of phony freedom.
Based on some of the comments it would seem the employer can do anything unless race, sex, religion, pregnancy, or because the employee tried to organize or join a union.
Even the CDC has provisions regarding those with certain health conditions... and OSHA which is empowered to protect workers stops short of mandatory vaccination without exception... medical is specifically listed as a valid reason for Healthcare Providers to decline.
Another statement states "The current influenza vaccine is not magic bullet. The current state of of influenza technology requires annual reformulation and revaccination and the efficacy is quite variable. In years when the antigenic match is good, the vaccine only provides protection against the 3 strains in the formulation.... lastly, reliance on mandatory influenza vaccination policy may provide unwarranted sense of security..."
One would think in this litigeous society employers would be especially mindful of liability...
A friend forwarded this to me from their company's HR Alert...
Don’t make it mandatory
It’s always a good idea to encourage staffers to get vaccinated. However, making flu shots mandatory isn’t worth it. Reason: Requiring workers to get vaccinated can run afoul of laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and get you in trouble with the EEOC.
Here’s just one example: An employee may have a legitimate religious reason for not being able to get a vaccination – such as rules that forbid certain medical procedures.
Flu can occasionally lead to pneumonia, either direct viral pneumonia or secondary bacterial pneumonia, even for persons who are usually very healthy.[4][5][6] In particular it is a warning sign if a child (or presumably an adult) seems to be getting better and then relapses with a high fever as this relapse may be bacterial pneumonia.[7] Another warning sign is if the person starts to have trouble breathing.[6] A 2009 New England Journal of Medicine article stated that it is difficult to tell bacterial from viral pneumonia and recommended that patients with influenza who show signs of pneumonia be treated with both antivirals and antibiotics
A number of employers are starting to require mandatory flu shots with some offering termination for those that refuse...
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?
How often does the Thimerasol exceed the recommended daily limit? - Can you give me figures? - I`think CDC would disagree. (In fact, they do.) Do you ever eat caned tuna? - One serving would probably approximate to 10 year' worth of flu shots. Not many people die from eating canned tuna.
Far too many people die from flu.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53
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.
I disagree with this. There is (IMO) absolutely no justification whatsoever for the government forcing anybody to have anything. By all means let the government (and the employers) give 'best advice' but do you really want a country where the government (or your boss) tells you when to breathe, when to fart and when to get a flu shot? - I don't.
That's a step too far!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner
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.
Which country do you live in? - There are supermarkets/pharmacies in Florida (in a place called America) offering the flu shot for free. They don't expect the people queueing up for a free shot to go and pay for a prescription. WHO and the CDC recommend flu shots for everybody over tha age of 6 months. What makes you think anybody would dare limit flu shots to 'by prescription only?'
Quote:
My Dentist firmly believes mercury is toxic and will not use amalgam filling... he is my medical professional.
Your dentist is absolutely right! - and if anybody ever tries to inject you with an amalgam, shoot him! YPu may wish to read what the World Health Organisation and the Center for Disease Control have to say about the mercury compound (type and amount) in some flu shots.
Quote:
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...
I think you've been treated shabbily, you should not be forced to have anything and your employer doesn't appear to care about the employees.
Quote:
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.
When you get a flu shot, your body will start to make antibodies. You may feel a bit ill - but you will not get flu. - You can't; the vaccine used for injections is dead (but your body sees it as a 'real' threat and reacts. If you feel crappy after having been injected with dead viruses, imagine how you might feel had you contracted live viruses which were trying to beat your body's attempts to provide antibodies?
If you are immunised (a couple of weeks after th flu shot) then although you can pick up and spread the virus (you could pick it up off a door knob and put it on another) you're nowhere near as efficient a spreader as somebody who is infected, sneezes and scatters viruses over everybody within a yard and a half.
Flu does kill people (Some - hopefully not many) but the fewer people who are infected, the more limited is the spread of the disease.
Flu can occasionally lead to pneumonia, either direct viral pneumonia or secondary bacterial pneumonia, even for persons who are usually very healthy.[4][5][6] In particular it is a warning sign if a child (or presumably an adult) seems to be getting better and then relapses with a high fever as this relapse may be bacterial pneumonia.[7] Another warning sign is if the person starts to have trouble breathing.[6] A 2009 New England Journal of Medicine article stated that it is difficult to tell bacterial from viral pneumonia and recommended that patients with influenza who show signs of pneumonia be treated with both antivirals and antibiotics
Influenza and pneumonia are still two very different diseases. There are many people who get a flu shot every year who should also get a pneumovax shot (ask your healthcare provider if in doubt) but flu shots are recommended for everybody over the age of 6 months.
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.
