TriHealth fires 150 employees for not getting flu shots

reply to post by davjan4


Good on you davjan4 - take your stand. You are an educated professional and not so easily replaced.

But the original question still remains:

What should be done when employers make demands that have nothing to do with improving performance on the job and invade your private life and health?

Tired of Control Freaks

My hospital has just gone through this......These flu vaccines are IMO deadly.....

National Vaccine Information

Dr.Tenpenny has convincingly gathered information that she has placed on DVD to send to hospitals and policy makers nationwide. Her website has lots of information and you can view her video too on youtube...She is just one of hundreds who have awakened to the realization that many people, to include Bill Gates are after human depopulation.....

You can find your state regulations under the link....What these companies are doing is illegal and against civil liberties!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Didn't read every post here, so this might have been mentioned already, but this is probably an insurance issue. It may be that the insurance is cheaper if the risk of lawsuits goes down for the hospital. Maybe the hospital was trying to get the coverage costs to go down and the ins agent tried to cut them a deal. Lowering the possibilities of the staff getting the client sick will lower the ins cost.

If this is he case, be prepared to start hearing rumors of this happening everywhere soon. The insurance companies have pushed employers to invade our privacy with drug tests, naturally the next step would be to control our behavior.

The insurance companies don't want to ever have to pay another claim, and if they can turn us all into timid little stay at home do good robots... Everyone's happy, right?

I think it's a real simple thing here. If you don't want to get a flu shot or any vaccination for that matter, do not plan a career in the health care field. How hard is that to accept? I won't take a flu shot. Period. I watched an elderly neighbor almost die of one when I was a kid and that bad situation developed with the vaccinations way back then.

Now, I have every right...and had better always...have every right to say no and not take their flu shot. By the same token though, any health care employer has every right to deem me a bad fit to their private workplace and goal of employees. Frankly, with my attitude, I would be a bad fit and I can't expect THEM to change just for me. Alas....A Doctor is never in my future.


At the same time....If I have an elderly relative in the Hospital who contracts the flu and becomes one of the annual statistics AS A RESULT of a hospital staff member contracting and spreading the flu, I'd say they infected my relative as a 'captive audience'. I'll be sure to donate a few million from the lawsuit to make a foundation in the name of those who die of OTHER people's decisions regarding vaccination. That Whooping Cough outbreak in California recently was absurdly preventable......but illegals don't usually have current shot records. It only takes a few to make a bad scene for everyone. Health workers are a different class by their work, IMO.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I think it's a real simple thing here. If you don't want to get a flu shot or any vaccination for that matter, do not plan a career in the health care field. How hard is that to accept? I won't take a flu shot. Period. I watched an elderly neighbor almost die of one when I was a kid and that bad situation developed with the vaccinations way back then.

Now, I have every right...and had better always...have every right to say no and not take their flu shot. By the same token though, any health care employer has every right to deem me a bad fit to their private workplace and goal of employees. Frankly, with my attitude, I would be a bad fit and I can't expect THEM to change just for me. Alas....A Doctor is never in my future.


At the same time....If I have an elderly relative in the Hospital who contracts the flu and becomes one of the annual statistics AS A RESULT of a hospital staff member contracting and spreading the flu, I'd say they infected my relative as a 'captive audience'. I'll be sure to donate a few million from the lawsuit to make a foundation in the name of those who die of OTHER people's decisions regarding vaccination. That Whooping Cough outbreak in California recently was absurdly preventable......but illegals don't usually have current shot records. It only takes a few to make a bad scene for everyone. Health workers are a different class by their work, IMO.

edit on 25-11-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: minor correction.

If the flu shot actually worked, your hypothetical elderly relative won't get the flu, becuase they would have been a Good Citizen and got the flu shot, right?

Oh, and some of us wake up to the truth about flu shots after getting in the healthcare business and seeing for ourselves that they don't work.

As an interesting aside, I suddenly developed a seizure disorder out of the blue at the age of 15 within a few weeks of getting the MMR booster. I had a reaction at the time of the shot, and started having seizures shortly after that.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I think it's a real simple thing here. If you don't want to get a flu shot or any vaccination for that matter, do not plan a career in the health care field. How hard is that to accept? I won't take a flu shot. Period. I watched an elderly neighbor almost die of one when I was a kid and that bad situation developed with the vaccinations way back then.

Now, I have every right...and had better always...have every right to say no and not take their flu shot. By the same token though, any health care employer has every right to deem me a bad fit to their private workplace and goal of employees. Frankly, with my attitude, I would be a bad fit and I can't expect THEM to change just for me. Alas....A Doctor is never in my future.


At the same time....If I have an elderly relative in the Hospital who contracts the flu and becomes one of the annual statistics AS A RESULT of a hospital staff member contracting and spreading the flu, I'd say they infected my relative as a 'captive audience'. I'll be sure to donate a few million from the lawsuit to make a foundation in the name of those who die of OTHER people's decisions regarding vaccination. That Whooping Cough outbreak in California recently was absurdly preventable......but illegals don't usually have current shot records. It only takes a few to make a bad scene for everyone. Health workers are a different class by their work, IMO.

edit on 25-11-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: minor correction.

If the flu shot actually worked, your hypothetical elderly relative won't get the flu, becuase they would have been a Good Citizen and got the flu shot, right?

Originally posted by Quauhtli
Didn't read every post here, so this might have been mentioned already, but this is probably an insurance issue. It may be that the insurance is cheaper if the risk of lawsuits goes down for the hospital. Maybe the hospital was trying to get the coverage costs to go down and the ins agent tried to cut them a deal. Lowering the possibilities of the staff getting the client sick will lower the ins cost.

If this is he case, be prepared to start hearing rumors of this happening everywhere soon. The insurance companies have pushed employers to invade our privacy with drug tests, naturally the next step would be to control our behavior.

The insurance companies don't want to ever have to pay another claim, and if they can turn us all into timid little stay at home do good robots... Everyone's happy, right?

I can assure you that this is not an insurance issue. If it were every healthcare organization inthe US would be trying to mandate the flu shot. There's no insurance advantage because the insurance companies know it doesn't work so they confer no discount.

reply to post by davjan4

If it doesn't work, don't simply say that....go out and prove it with the same methods and processes used to say it does work. I am sure a great many people would absolutely love to see that proven with even a fair degree of confidence. I know I'm waiting on a couple studies to run their course on possible causation to Autism. A big, multi-year one is running among others.

As it is though, where they predict the strain correctly (they do have to guess and start the process before the actual strains for the coming year are known for certain as I recall) it seems to be fairly effective. Once again, proof to the contrary is how things would change. Now though? I think it's effective, though I still won't be having one. My luck is about that of Midas in reverse. I would be that 1:100,000 or whatever to have a bad reaction...and that's as much my basis for saying no as anything else.

As the thread is about though, that decision means I'd never even consider applying at a health facility as even I.T. support. Kinda like I'd never even apply at a food service business if I were a Hepatitis carrier. proper handling and safety procedures should make that a moot point....but that isn't for me to decide to everyone else's exposure, is how I see both examples. Hospitals are full of people most likely to have very bad outcomes from the flu afterall.

reply to post by xuenchen


You know with the amount of evidence to the fact that these shots not only cause harm, but don't even prevent what they claim to prevent, these companies should really not be able to force employees to do anything but their job.

This, in my opinion, should be against the law.

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Glinda

 

Smoking is a disgusting, costly habit that benefits absolutely NO ONE, whether it be the people who smoke or the people who must breathe it in.

I'm all for regulating it out of existence by bankrupting the tobacco companies. That's something that the U.S government should have done years ago.

Freedom and rights, MY ASS! How many habits can you name where the people who do something AND the people who walk by/breathe it in both face health risks?

In a collective everyone is going to do things that you personally don't approve of. Sometimes it's risky behavior and sometimes it's just poor choices. People should still have that freedom to choose though whether it's the person on food stamps buying chocolate bars or the person on health insurance smoking. Those are choices they make. Insurance works because it spreads out the risk pool, and generally smokers have higher premiums because they smoke (that's also the only risk pool that faces higher premiums). Someone who's morbidly obese costs money too, yet where is the outcry that they exercise daily and only eat vegetables? Some people overload on salt and have high blood pressure, that costs money too. As a precaution should we all have to eat low sodium low fat low carb low calorie diets so no one develops health issues? Afterall, each individual is paying for everyone else, so they should be able to dictate what that person eats right?

Lets take it a step further and look at activities. People who play sports get injuries, broken bones, pulled muscles, and so on all cost extra money to heal. Because my money shouldn't go towards funding that risky behavior no one on my health insurance plan should be able to play sports. It makes sense right?

Are you seeing where your logic is flawed?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

this is where we disagree.
you said ...

I am saying at the very least there should be an exemption for the reasons I stated

(those reasons being solely allergy or religion)

i insist the ONLY exemption necessary is a Concientious Objection, period, end of story.

why ?? because if you have an allergy, you are conscientiously objecting to getting the shot ... and likewise, if your refusal is based on a religious decision (it's really no one else's business anyway), you are concientiously objecting. there is no other reason necessary.

no one should need any reason beyond ... I object.

I work in a hospital. Every employee can smoke. What are you talking about?

guess that depends on your location, doesn't it?
here, you can be ticketed/jailed for smoking on hospital property.
(which happens to include the public sidewalk out front and parking lots)

need proof ?
how's this headline grab ya ??
[and this is for ALL county workers, not just medical ones]

"County: Smokers need not apply"
www.heraldtribune.com...

FL (statewide) hospital policy ...

www.examiner.com...
Last year (2010), hospitals in Florida became 1 of 8 other states that discourage hiring smokers. They contend they are only trying to increase worker productivity, reduce health care costs and encourage healthier living.

and another from the North region ...

www.tidewaternews.com...
The ban means visitors and employees can no longer light up on the grounds, which includes the parking lots that serve the hospital, four medical offices and East Pavilion nursing home, said Anne Williams, director of marketing.

Smoking is already prohibited inside all buildings.

and the legistaive movement ...

www.no-smoke.org...
researchers from the Henry Ford Health System's Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, completed a survey regarding hospitals' smokefree campus policies and concluded that by February 2008, 45 percent of US hospitals had adopted "smoke-free campus" policies. In addition, "...another 15 percent indicated that they would be implementing similar policies in the near future. [color=amber]Hence, it is safe to assume on the basis of these results that the majority of US hospitals will have smoke-free campuses by the end of 2009."

reply to post by VaterOrlaag

How many habits can you name where the people who do something AND the people who walk by/breathe it in both face health risks

how many times a day do you "flip a switch" ??
every electrical line, every auto exhaust you travel behind or inhale at a stop light, heck even ppl west of me cannot turn on a spigot without exposure to extreme flamables, pure danger and potential death.

i have more, how many do you need ??
sorry, but your argument is as baseless as your prejudice ... and yes, i'm a smoker.

Originally posted by RottenBeauty
Three pages and no one has brought up the fact that patients in a hospital could be immuno-supressed from advanced HIV, or chemo therapy. The flu could literally kill them.
You're shedding flu virus before you're showing symptoms.

nooooo, all those who GET the flu shot are shedding flu virus ALL OVER the workplace and infecting anyone within reach.

I live in Cincinnati and Group Health Associates just so happens to be where all of my doctors are employed.
They are one of the businesses operated by TriHealth.
Cincinnati is a VERY conservative city, most people are very happy to follow the leader...disgusting really.
Quite frankly what surprises me the most about this whole story is the fact that 150 people actually
refused the flu shot.
That is very un-Cincinnati like behavior...a sign of the times?
Interesting to say the least.

reply to post by xuenchen


I read info everyday on the validity of flu shots-- this is a bold move-- and not the first... damned ballsy...

Originally posted by Quauhtli
Didn't read every post here, so this might have been mentioned already, but this is probably an insurance issue. It may be that the insurance is cheaper if the risk of lawsuits goes down for the hospital. Maybe the hospital was trying to get the coverage costs to go down and the ins agent tried to cut them a deal. Lowering the possibilities of the staff getting the client sick will lower the ins cost.

If this is he case, be prepared to start hearing rumors of this happening everywhere soon. The insurance companies have pushed employers to invade our privacy with drug tests, naturally the next step would be to control our behavior.

The insurance companies don't want to ever have to pay another claim, and if they can turn us all into timid little stay at home do good robots... Everyone's happy, right?

It is because insurance does not cover any illness incurred after the patient is admitted. If staff x has the flu and infects patients a, b, c, d, and e then the hospital has to pay for the full cost of treating it. I believe this is a big part of the reason.

I worked for Trihealth, for almost 10 years. When I worked there, it was optional, and most times I opted out. I'm actually surprised by them now demanding employees get it.

My current employer requires a flu shot, every year, and if you don't comply, you are terminated. We got a "new" type of flu shot this year and I had terrible side effects, so bad that I just might of well had the dang flu!

I do not feel that I should be forced to get a flu shot, regardless of what my job is. But, these days, what are you going to do? Especially when you only get 5 sick days a ROLLING calendar year...

Just another way we're being controlled by big brother.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by RottenBeauty
Three pages and no one has brought up the fact that patients in a hospital could be immuno-supressed from advanced HIV, or chemo therapy. The flu could literally kill them.
You're shedding flu virus before you're showing symptoms.

nooooo, all those who GET the flu shot are shedding flu virus ALL OVER the workplace and infecting anyone within reach.

Sorry, you are wrong...The flu shot is not a "live" vaccine, so your argument is dead (for lack of a better word) right there.

Originally posted by lovebeck

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by RottenBeauty
Three pages and no one has brought up the fact that patients in a hospital could be immuno-supressed from advanced HIV, or chemo therapy. The flu could literally kill them.
You're shedding flu virus before you're showing symptoms.

nooooo, all those who GET the flu shot are shedding flu virus ALL OVER the workplace and infecting anyone within reach.

Sorry, you are wrong...The flu shot is not a "live" vaccine, so your argument is dead (for lack of a better word) right there.

oh, so now we have to specify "mist" or "shot" do we ??
since "mist" is the most common application, perhaps i should have been specific.

and, concerning the most common application ... mist/nasal spray ...
you are wrong ... it IS live virus.

need a link? www.flumist.com...

Does FluMist contain a live virus?
Yes. Similar to the chicken pox vaccine, FluMist contains a weakened live virus. The weakened live virus in FluMist is designed not to cause the flu, but to help protect you from influenza through the end of flu season.

pick a brand, i'd bet a majority are live attenuated solutions.

now, concerning "shots" ... you're correct, they are DEAD virus and given that fact alone, why would any body produce anti-bodies to fight a dead virus ??

whose body develops an immunity army to fight a dead invader ??
so yeppers, "shots" are even more useless than the mist.

On Flu shots: That is so not right to force people to get that - where is our freedom of choice in this matter?
And if it was me - I totally get awefully sick when I take those shots - worse that the flue itself so I just don't get it and most of the times I don't even get flu in winter only before summer where no flu shots are available.
It sounds to me like populace control or populace experimentation....just saying......