PDA

View Full Version : "Get Flu Shot or Get Fired" FOX news article




CaptainAmerica
08-31-2011, 12:13 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/08/30/get-flu-shot-or-get-fired-hospital-says/?test=latestnews


TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. – A major northern Michigan health care group has issued an ultimatum for employees: Get a flu shot by Dec. 31 or get fired.

Munson Healthcare, which includes its flagship Munson Medical Center in Traverse City, says individual rights must be sacrificed for the welfare of patients whose health could be threatened if exposed to flu.

Medical Center chief operating officer Kathleen McManus tells the Traverse City Record-Eagle that officials decided to make it mandatory because voluntary compliance has never topped 65 percent.

"The people we serve here are very sick," McManus said. "And I will not put a patient at risk."

But some employees are up in arms over baring an arm. About 50 turned out for a recent meeting of Michigan Opposing Mandatory Vaccines, a Detroit-area group that promotes vaccine choice. Employees also circulated petitions and hope to get the community behind them.



What is going on? Who's behind the mandates? This is seriously creepy.

muh_roads
08-31-2011, 12:40 AM
Make sure to ask for a single dose vial instead of multi-dose if ever in a position where you have to get one. Single doses usually don't have the mercury preservative.

Kylie
08-31-2011, 08:53 AM
I'd rather tell them to fuck off than ask for them to only give me one shot of something I don't want.

Extra vitamin D and more time in the sun will help to keep the flu at bay. I've been doing it for 5 years now, and(knock on wood) I have yet to get really sick. Even the normal sore throat is kicked out in 2-3 days when you double dose D's at the first feeling of sickness.

I don't want your drugs and I will not comply. Fire me, and I'll sue your ass off.

oyarde
08-31-2011, 10:19 AM
I have survived the killer flu in the 60's , the bad vacine in the 70's . I guess if my employer demanded I get one , I would in exchange for a raise , it cannot be as demeaning as the random urine tests that cost $38 ea:) Last time I got a flu shot was probably 1987 .

Warrior_of_Freedom
08-31-2011, 10:39 AM
I've never had a flu shot and never gotten the flu in almost 3 decades.

MelissaWV
08-31-2011, 04:11 PM
I guess no one's said it yet, but isn't this up to the employer? I mean, some healthcare agencies require certain handwashing procedures, protective clothing, or additional precautions (some will not hire you without a certain kind of Tetanus shot, etc.). I had to get TB tested before working, and I don't even work near patients. It would make an awful lot more sense for only people in high-risk situations to be kept away at the first sign of the sniffles, but of course you're catching before that. I wish they'd discriminate based on folks who have young children, too, as they seem to always be sick and complaining of what little Johnny/Jane brought home :(

People who do not want to do this should have the option to quit, and when they are asked why, they should be prepared to defend their decision.

donnay
08-31-2011, 05:38 PM
i'd rather tell them to fuck off then ask for them to only give me one shot of something i don't want.

Extra vitamin d and more time in the sun will help to keep the flu at bay. I've been doing it for 5 years now, and(knock on wood) i have yet to get really sick. Even the normal sore throat is kicked out in 2-3 days when you double dose d's at the first feeling of sickness.

I don't want your drugs and i will not comply. Fire me, and i'll sue your ass off.

qft!

Jandrsn21
08-31-2011, 06:15 PM
Never have gotten a flu shot, had it twice in the past three years. Each time was horrible and it was followed by a lung infection. The last one was in September of 2009, while I was sick my friend turned me on to natural remedies, the lung infection was gone two days later and now with the proper nutrition and plenty of Vitamin D supplementation, I have yet to even have a runny nose since!

brushfire
08-31-2011, 06:26 PM
What happened to washing your hands and keeping surfaces clean? Isnt that what hospitals used to do?

CaptainAmerica
08-31-2011, 06:29 PM
I guess no one's said it yet, but isn't this up to the employer? I mean, some healthcare agencies require certain handwashing procedures, protective clothing, or additional precautions (some will not hire you without a certain kind of Tetanus shot, etc.). I had to get TB tested before working, and I don't even work near patients. It would make an awful lot more sense for only people in high-risk situations to be kept away at the first sign of the sniffles, but of course you're catching before that. I wish they'd discriminate based on folks who have young children, too, as they seem to always be sick and complaining of what little Johnny/Jane brought home :(

People who do not want to do this should have the option to quit, and when they are asked why, they should be prepared to defend their decision. Should an employer have the right to coercion? NO, it is in many state statutes that an employer has 0 rights to coerce an employee or individual into buying a service,or doing something against their own will.Coercion is intimidation.

CaptainAmerica
08-31-2011, 06:33 PM
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/23/00203.htm&Title=23&DocType=ARS


"23-203. Compulsion or coercion of employee or another to buy from a particular person; classification

A person who knowingly compels, or in any manner seeks to coerce any employee or any person to purchase goods or supplies from any particular person is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor. "

Arizona statute clearly shows how illegal mandating an employee to receive a shot is. I can dig up more statutes cause I know they are there but this is just a simple example.

DamianTV
08-31-2011, 06:43 PM
I guess no one's said it yet, but isn't this up to the employer? I mean, some healthcare agencies require certain handwashing procedures, protective clothing, or additional precautions (some will not hire you without a certain kind of Tetanus shot, etc.). I had to get TB tested before working, and I don't even work near patients. It would make an awful lot more sense for only people in high-risk situations to be kept away at the first sign of the sniffles, but of course you're catching before that. I wish they'd discriminate based on folks who have young children, too, as they seem to always be sick and complaining of what little Johnny/Jane brought home :(

People who do not want to do this should have the option to quit, and when they are asked why, they should be prepared to defend their decision.

To a certain extent, employers can make reasonable requests. Wash your hands, dress code, sure, that is all fine and dandy. Requiring people to get flu shots is akin to an employer requiring you to work with Asbestos. While at work, your clothing can reflect the desire of the business, whether it be "professional looking" clothing, but once you go home, you dont have to wear your employers Chicken Suit or Statue of Liberty Costume. And your employer has no right to say anything about what you wear off of the job. You can run around naked with your underpants on your head and Whipped Cream covering your unmentionables. When youre off work, anything you do has nothing to do with your employer.

Thus, I think the unreasonable demands of employers that insist that their employees dont even so much as smoke period is a violation of that Employer Employee Agreement. More and more it comes down to Employers trying to tell people what they can and cant do outside of their jurisdiction. No Drugs at work. Fine. No Drugs at home? Unacceptable. No smoking at work. Fine. No smoking at home? Unacceptable. No TV Watching at work. Fine. No TV Watching at home? Unacceptable. When the demands of the employer intrude into the personal lives of the employees, it is no longer a job, it is akin to legalized slavery.

Now, since I brought up smoking, lets address those who flat out believe that smoking should be made illegal. Even in this forum. Lets take a step back and ask ourselves how we got in this mess to begin with? There are those of us that have expected the Government to overstep the powers granted to it and expect our Government to "keep us safe" from things which, as adults we are responsible for ourselves. Youre an adult. You want to smoke? Thats your choice. You dont want to smoke? That is also your choice. We dont need the Government coming in and telling us that we cant have Sugar or Caffeine or Bacon because those are also "bad for us". Youre opening doors without paying attention to where those doors lead. That, and as Dr. Paul suggests, when you make something desired illegal, you only create a black market.

However the point of this paragraph is that as adults, we are responsible for our bodies. But responsibility is nothing without the Authority. And as the word Authorize is a variation of the word Authority. When we "Authorize" someone else to tell us how to take care of our own bodies, we surrender our Authority and our Responsibility. I do not believe that telling someone else to even so much as "Lose 20 Pounds" is something ANY Employer can do, and there should be NO consequence to any individual telling said Employer or whoever is trying to impose their demands because they are not the Final Authority in the matter. If it is Your Body, there is no Higher Authority than yourself that these Suit Wearing Ass Hats can answer to.

But the real problem is in the potential damage they can do to your body. These arent just things that automagically go away after a week or so. A large quantity of vaccines contain Trimericol which contains Mercury, which as we know, will kill your brain. If we allow this type of Authority to be usurped by Employers and Insurance Companies, it wont be long before those of us that raise our voices will be required by those very same Employers and Insurance Companies to receive Mandatory Labotomys and Brain Amputations, as so many of them have done so already.

In any Liberty Minded Society, the Role of Government is to protect the Rights of the People. These allowances of our Government to let Corporations and Institutions deprive the People of Our Rights show that our Government no longer has any interest in protecting those Rights, only itself, and the Profit Margins of those Companies which pay into the Governments Self Centered Interests.

Anti Federalist
08-31-2011, 08:25 PM
What he said. +rep


To a certain extent, employers can make reasonable requests. Wash your hands, dress code, sure, that is all fine and dandy. Requiring people to get flu shots is akin to an employer requiring you to work with Asbestos. While at work, your clothing can reflect the desire of the business, whether it be "professional looking" clothing, but once you go home, you dont have to wear your employers Chicken Suit or Statue of Liberty Costume. And your employer has no right to say anything about what you wear off of the job. You can run around naked with your underpants on your head and Whipped Cream covering your unmentionables. When youre off work, anything you do has nothing to do with your employer.

Thus, I think the unreasonable demands of employers that insist that their employees dont even so much as smoke period is a violation of that Employer Employee Agreement. More and more it comes down to Employers trying to tell people what they can and cant do outside of their jurisdiction. No Drugs at work. Fine. No Drugs at home? Unacceptable. No smoking at work. Fine. No smoking at home? Unacceptable. No TV Watching at work. Fine. No TV Watching at home? Unacceptable. When the demands of the employer intrude into the personal lives of the employees, it is no longer a job, it is akin to legalized slavery.

Now, since I brought up smoking, lets address those who flat out believe that smoking should be made illegal. Even in this forum. Lets take a step back and ask ourselves how we got in this mess to begin with? There are those of us that have expected the Government to overstep the powers granted to it and expect our Government to "keep us safe" from things which, as adults we are responsible for ourselves. Youre an adult. You want to smoke? Thats your choice. You dont want to smoke? That is also your choice. We dont need the Government coming in and telling us that we cant have Sugar or Caffeine or Bacon because those are also "bad for us". Youre opening doors without paying attention to where those doors lead. That, and as Dr. Paul suggests, when you make something desired illegal, you only create a black market.

However the point of this paragraph is that as adults, we are responsible for our bodies. But responsibility is nothing without the Authority. And as the word Authorize is a variation of the word Authority. When we "Authorize" someone else to tell us how to take care of our own bodies, we surrender our Authority and our Responsibility. I do not believe that telling someone else to even so much as "Lose 20 Pounds" is something ANY Employer can do, and there should be NO consequence to any individual telling said Employer or whoever is trying to impose their demands because they are not the Final Authority in the matter. If it is Your Body, there is no Higher Authority than yourself that these Suit Wearing Ass Hats can answer to.

But the real problem is in the potential damage they can do to your body. These arent just things that automagically go away after a week or so. A large quantity of vaccines contain Trimericol which contains Mercury, which as we know, will kill your brain. If we allow this type of Authority to be usurped by Employers and Insurance Companies, it wont be long before those of us that raise our voices will be required by those very same Employers and Insurance Companies to receive Mandatory Labotomys and Brain Amputations, as so many of them have done so already.

In any Liberty Minded Society, the Role of Government is to protect the Rights of the People. These allowances of our Government to let Corporations and Institutions deprive the People of Our Rights show that our Government no longer has any interest in protecting those Rights, only itself, and the Profit Margins of those Companies which pay into the Governments Self Centered Interests.

kpitcher
08-31-2011, 10:43 PM
Altho in a supposed free to work scenario shouldn't this be fine for the employer to ask? If an employee finds it unreasonable they should quit. If the employer is being too unreasonable then they'll go under because of lack of employees.

Anti Federalist
08-31-2011, 10:48 PM
Altho in a supposed free to work scenario shouldn't this be fine for the employer to ask? If an employee finds it unreasonable they should quit. If the employer is being too unreasonable then they'll go under because of lack of employees.

Trouble is, quit and go where or do what?

Many of these overly intrusive actions are becoming standard practice no matter where you go.

Nobody is going to go broke right now due to lack of help.

Not with a real unemployment rate of about 18 percent.

Xenophage
09-01-2011, 01:48 AM
My last employer offered this as a free service, and I always took it. I think this paranoia about the flu shot is unfounded. It isn't a guaranteed immunity, but the statistics are enough to warrant offering it.

Regardless, if you don't want to take a flu shot you shouldn't have to. In this case, it looks like you can quit. It is true that the economic conditions right now make quitting a job extremely difficult for a lot of people, but we all know why that is, and the moral principle here is that you do not have the right to force an employer to employ anyone. If this place doesn't want workers around who haven't had the flu shot, that's their prerogative. Remember that there is no such thing as a right that violates someone else's rights, so which is it? Do you support property rights, or not?

You can exercise your right not to get a flu shot, and the employer can exercise their right not to employ you. But you do *not* have a right to the job. That's a contractual arrangement. A trade. If you don't like the terms, don't make the deal.

DamianTV
09-01-2011, 02:21 AM
My last employer offered this as a free service, and I always took it. I think this paranoia about the flu shot is unfounded. It isn't a guaranteed immunity, but the statistics are enough to warrant offering it.

Regardless, if you don't want to take a flu shot you shouldn't have to. In this case, it looks like you can quit. It is true that the economic conditions right now make quitting a job extremely difficult for a lot of people, but we all know why that is, and the moral principle here is that you do not have the right to force an employer to employ anyone. If this place doesn't want workers around who haven't had the flu shot, that's their prerogative. Remember that there is no such thing as a right that violates someone else's rights, so which is it? Do you support property rights, or not?

You can exercise your right not to get a flu shot, and the employer can exercise their right not to employ you. But you do *not* have a right to the job. That's a contractual arrangement. A trade. If you don't like the terms, don't make the deal.

This has nothing to do with the Vaccine itself. It is about Control and Power.

Right now, the employees are held hostage between doing something that should be entirely up to them, or facing Unemployment. Anyone who stands to make a profit (in this case, those selling the vaccines, even if it is at no cost to the employee) is going to test just exactly how far they can push and see what they can get away with.

Now, since Vaccines are clouding up the issue, lets pull it out of the equation.

The employer is a Security Firm, who employs Rent-A-Cops. Their Employers tells them to Kill someone. They want to weed out the ones that wont pull the trigger so that the ones that are left will do so simply because they feel that they have absolutely no other choice.

Sam I am
09-01-2011, 04:21 AM
I'm surprised at the responses in this thread. Since when did we become a socialist forum?

So they want their employees to get a flu shot so they don't spread it to patients. If the employees don't like that, then they don't have to work there.

In response to the above post, let's say the employer is a fast food establishment, and they want their employees to show up on time and be polite to customers. They want to weed out the ones that show up late and are rude to customers, so the ones that are left will do so simply because they feel they have absolutely no other choice.

What an Outrage

DamianTV
09-01-2011, 05:40 AM
What we are saying is we do not want to live in a country that allows their Employers to Forcibly Require Vaccines, Microchips, or other Pernanent and potentially damaging or privacy invasive Body Modifications as a condition of employment. What exactly is Socialistic about giving people a Choice to get Vaccinated or not? As a species, we've survived a pretty long time without the need for Vaccines. They may help, but the Trimerisol doesnt. The point is that you cant force a person to be healthy, quit smoking, drinking, eating fast food, or take vaccines.

They arent in the business for our health, they are in it for Our Money, our health be damned.

Its posts like that which have earned you your reputation, although I am not going to add to what you've already brought on yourself.

oyarde
09-01-2011, 09:59 AM
Trouble is, quit and go where or do what?

Many of these overly intrusive actions are becoming standard practice no matter where you go.

Nobody is going to go broke right now due to lack of help.

Not with a real unemployment rate of about 18 percent. 21 percent

LibForestPaul
09-01-2011, 05:43 PM
I'm surprised at the responses in this thread. Since when did we become a socialist forum?

So they want their employees to get a flu shot so they don't spread it to patients. If the employees don't like that, then they don't have to work there.

In response to the above post, let's say the employer is a fast food establishment, and they want their employees to show up on time and be polite to customers. They want to weed out the ones that show up late and are rude to customers, so the ones that are left will do so simply because they feel they have absolutely no other choice.

What an Outrage

I concur, however, with unemployment insurance the issue is clouded, as government intrusion usually plays out. If one is fired for refusal for the injection of a potentially dangerous substance into ones body, would the judgment be for just cause?

This idea of corporation not having such a right is ridiculous. A geriatric doctor pc is not allowed to insist that his staff receive a flu shot?

But then, what is considered safe? The previous example of being order to kill is inane. Yet, what about press operators, or other heavy industry workers? There are again, government regulations in place that permit only certain practices.

Xenophage
09-02-2011, 12:36 PM
This has nothing to do with the Vaccine itself. It is about Control and Power.

Right now, the employees are held hostage between doing something that should be entirely up to them, or facing Unemployment. Anyone who stands to make a profit (in this case, those selling the vaccines, even if it is at no cost to the employee) is going to test just exactly how far they can push and see what they can get away with.

Now, since Vaccines are clouding up the issue, lets pull it out of the equation.

The employer is a Security Firm, who employs Rent-A-Cops. Their Employers tells them to Kill someone. They want to weed out the ones that wont pull the trigger so that the ones that are left will do so simply because they feel that they have absolutely no other choice.
Thats ridiculous man. Killing someone and taking a vaccine are morally equivalent HOW? Lol

Xenophage
09-02-2011, 12:41 PM
I'm surprised at the responses in this thread. Since when did we become a socialist forum?

So they want their employees to get a flu shot so they don't spread it to patients. If the employees don't like that, then they don't have to work there.

In response to the above post, let's say the employer is a fast food establishment, and they want their employees to show up on time and be polite to customers. They want to weed out the ones that show up late and are rude to customers, so the ones that are left will do so simply because they feel they have absolutely no other choice.

What an Outrage


What we are saying is we do not want to live in a country that allows their Employers to Forcibly Require Vaccines, Microchips, or other Pernanent and potentially damaging or privacy invasive Body Modifications as a condition of employment. What exactly is Socialistic about giving people a Choice to get Vaccinated or not? As a species, we've survived a pretty long time without the need for Vaccines. They may help, but the Trimerisol doesnt. The point is that you cant force a person to be healthy, quit smoking, drinking, eating fast food, or take vaccines.

They arent in the business for our health, they are in it for Our Money, our health be damned.

Its posts like that which have earned you your reputation, although I am not going to add to what you've already brought on yourself.

Youre the one advocating vioence and aggression. you never replied to my post. nobody has the right to a job. the company cannot and is not forcing anybody to get vaccinated. they have no guns.