Slashdot Mirror
Should Disney Require Its Employees To Be Vaccinated?
HughPickens.com writes According to Joanna Rothkopf Disneyland is already a huge petri dish of disease with tired children wiping their snot faces on Goofy and then riding log flumes through mechanized rivers filled with the backwash of thousands of other sweaty, unwashed, weeping toddlers. Now John Tozzi reports at Businessweek that five workers at Disneyland have been diagnosed with measles in an outbreak that California officials trace to visitors at the theme park in mid-December. The measles outbreak is a publicity nightmare for Disney and the company is urging its 27,000 workers at the park to verify that they're inoculated against the virus, and the company is offering tests and shots on site for workers who are unvaccinated. One thing Disney won't do, however, is require workers to get routine vaccinations as a condition of employment. Almost no companies outside the health-care industry do. "To make things mandatory just raises a lot of legal concerns and legal issues," says Rob Niccolini. Disney has been working with public health officials, and they've already put some employees on paid leave until medically cleared. "They recognized that they were just a meeting place for measles," says Gilberto Chávez. "And they are quite concerned about doing what they can to help control the outbreak."
because I am not anti vax, but i am pro choice. in that people should be free to do as they wish with their own bodies
on the other hand, I do believe that an employer can mandate a safe working environment. I think the issue is not should they be forced to be vaccinated, but to what extent. For example, im not a flue shot kinda guy, i just dont get those. on the other hand, I got all my childhood vaccine, as well as a lyme vaccine in my teens (major tick area and my aunt got lyme)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Would this be mitigated by Disney *always* providing paid sick leave? The quote in TFS suggests that this might be the exception rather than the rule. If you encourage employees to come in to work while they're sick, or even hide their symptoms, then I guess you're more likely to see illnesses spread...
Sounds like you feel entitled to that job...
Innocent until proven guilty is for specific parts of the legal system only - the police and prosecutors have to believe you are guilty to bring a case against you, so its obvious it doesn't apply to everyone, everywhere, for all things. So a company doesn't have to assume you are innocent at all, as neither does your friends, family or random person in the street.
A drug test isn't an assumption of guilt in a court of law. The entire guilty until proven innocent is for criminal and civil trials, not for employment. Mandatory drug tests are pragmatically stupid for many reasons in many industries (they are much less likely to catch the hard drugs like cocaine which go out of the system fast than marijuana which lingers, they cost a lot of money), but in the case of Disney where the employees are working on and maintaining rides with many passengers and where people could easily be killed if something goes wrong, drug tests aren't as unreasonable. In general, the real silliness of drug tests is when they are used by things like fast food restaurants or worse when they are used as a condition of welfare (where the evidence is that they cost far far more than they save the state).
so where do we draw the line? should we allow an employer to have access to our bank records? to ensure we arent funding terrorists? Should we give them our passwords to all our accounts online? to ensure we are not bad mouthing the company?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The protection you get from vaccinations is on the "herd" level and not the individual. If the majority of the herd is not vaccinated, the vaccine itself provide very little protection to an individual....
Factually incorrect for most vaccines, which provide a high degree of protection for individuals
The entire guilty until proven innocent is for criminal and civil trials
Actually, it's only for criminal trials. Civil trials are decided on the basis of "the preponderance of evidence."
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
i consider myself a libertarian, but at the same point i believe that what one does on their own time is of no concern to an employer. as such, one should be judged on the merits of their work, not their recreation
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Draw the line wherever you like, you don't have to work for them. I don't work for companies that want to pay me less than I want to be paid - it doesn't take any laws or rules for that to work.
Employers should not be put in a position where they are giving medical advice or direction. If there is a reason that large, public centered facilities or parks should have required vaccinations, then that needs to be public policy, not corporate policy.
Hospitals require testing and proof of vaccination as a condition of employment. I've worked in one in the past and they wanted proof of certain vaccinations, a TB test, and provided any needed vaccinations free of charge. (I got a booster for MMR and tetanus) I think if a place like a hospital it would be insane not to require the employees to be reasonably secure against likely communicable diseases. At a place like Disney where they have to deal with the general public I wouldn't have a problem with public health policy mandating vaccination as a condition of employment. I don't think people should be forced to accept a vaccine if they are adults and really don't want to (and of course if they cannot due to allergies etc) but I have no problem with certain jobs being closed to them if they are not vaccinated. I think all children should be vaccinated or have proof that they cannot safely be vaccinated before attending any public school.
Draw the line wherever you like, you don't have to work for them. I don't work for companies that want to pay me less than I want to be paid - it doesn't take any laws or rules for that to work.
Hope you like living in a tent and scrounging for food in garbage bins.
There are clear lines between what is personal and what affects the job. If you take drugs it'll likely affect your work and health costs (still somewhat paid for by the company) - that means the company has a valid interest. OTOH, your private emails (or facebook posts) between family and friends has very little to no affect on the company - therefore they don't have any valid need for access to it.
Rule of thumb: It's not a free choice, if there is a big "or else...." attached.
Free choice does not mean choice without consequences. I am free to speak my mind but that does not mean I shouldn't expect consequences for doing so. I can choose not to vaccinate my children or myself but that doesn't mean I should be allowed to endanger other people by making that choice. I can choose not to be tested for drugs for philosophical reasons but that might mean that certain jobs are closed to me.
Choice almost never comes without consequence.
How could anyone work in a place like Disney without being heavily drugged?
I kept returning to the UN pledge to build a drug-free world. There was one fact, above all others, that I kept placing next to it in my mind. It is a fact that seems at first glance both obvious and instinctively wrong. Only 10 percent of drug users have a problem with their substance. Some 90 percent of people who use a drug—the overwhelming majority—are not harmed by it. This figure comes not from a pro-legalization group, but from the United Nations Office on Drug Control, the global coordinator of the drug war. Even William Bennett, the most aggressive drug czar in U.S. history, admits: “Non-addicted users still comprise the vast bulk of our drug-involved population.”
link - http://boingboing.net/2015/01/...
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Because not everyone has the option of simply "working somewhere else".
I've got a WAIS 3 combined cognitive function test score of over 180 (that's all you need to know), and I am against vaccinations where they are not necessary.
Ok, I don't get what the needless bragging about your IQ score is about but most health care professionals would agree with you on this point. If you aren't going to Africa there probably isn't a need to get some of the more exotic vaccines out there since vaccines can have unfortunate side effects. Perfectly reasonable.
Influenza mutates every ten days, rendering vaccinations useless before they're even distributed. My wife got a flu shot in October, she had influenza over xmas. I've not even had so much as a cold since the last time I had a seasonal shot back in 1993 which resulted in me developing pneumonia thanks to influenza. Eight months it took me to recover from that.
You may be smart but you are quite ignorant on this point. Influenza isn't a single virus. It is a family of viruses and yes they mutate fairly often. Every year the CDC looks at the strains of flu viruses out there and how they are spreading and determines the 5 or so most likely strains to be a problem in the US. They then develop a vaccine to cover these strains. This vaccine does NOT make you immune against all strains of flu and you still might catch a strain not covered by the vaccine. And the CDC is often wrong about which strains actually prove to be most problematic since they are really just making an educated guess. If you get the flu vaccine you are more likely to be protected than if you don't against a few strains of flu but it does not and never did mean that you won't get the flu.
Furthermore if you choose not to get the vaccine you might actually encounter the virus but not become symptomatic but still carry it and infect others. The more people that get the vaccine the stronger the herd immunity benefit.
Finally it is highly unlikely that the vaccine caused you to get pneumonia. You seem to be unfamiliar with the latin phrase post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because the pneumonia followed the vaccine doesn't mean the vaccine caused the pneumonia.
It would help you to read how and why vaccines work before arguing against their efficacy. As it is you are reinforcing the "science-ignorant anti-vaxxer" stereotype with such childish errors. Actually, that's pretty mean, as plenty of children understand how vaccination works, having been taught about Edward Jenner and his work in 1796, and the subsequent discoveries and developments in the field of immunology.
Or are you happy sounding like an under-educated person, cheerfully spouting abject nonsense like some massive beacon of ignorance for all to see?
Because finding out the dude was high when he forgot to check the safety harness on Space Mountain after someone flies out and dies makes it all better. Suuurrre, he's the one they are going to sue for millions of dollars over negligence and Disney has no right, reason, or interest in ensuring the safety of their customers..
Look, ganjadude, it's FINE that you want to toast your brain. Rock on, dude. Just don't do it at a time or place where your impaired state is likely to affect me in any way whatsoever. In exchange I promise not get wasted on single malt and drive around in your neighborhood.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
Look, ganjadude, it's FINE that you want to toast your brain. Rock on, dude. Just don't do it at a time or place where your impaired state is likely to affect me in any way whatsoever
This times 100 is what I am saying. What one does in their off time is not of any concern to others
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
If I HAD to get something from a Disney employee, I'd rather get the clap from one or more of the several Princesses they have running around there.
Lots of fun and then just a shot!
One of the things that "helped" the anti-vax movement early on was that herd immunity protected them. If one family in a town decided not to vaccinate because "vaccines have toxins", they could rely on herd immunity same as if their kids actually had medical conditions that rendered vaccination not an option. So the anti-vax kids didn't seem to get sicker than the vax kids and the anti-vax movement spread. Unfortunately, we're getting to (or past) the herd immunity tipping point. So many parents have gone anti-vax that the diseases are making comebacks. The good news is that nothing will bring back support for vaccination like an outbreak. The bad news is that a lot of children (both anti-vax kids and kids who couldn't get the vaccinations due to age/medical conditions) will get sick and possibly die.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Nearly all companies worth working for have drug testing requirements. So it's not as easy as "you don't have to work for them." You effectively can't work for anybody in entire swaths of industry for doing something that is so harmless, several states have decided to legalize it. Do companies check to make sure you aren't violating other laws? Certainly. Do they make you prove your innocence on a quarterly basis? Of course not. That only happens with drug use.
Some employers even have you sign agreements not to drink in public, drive 5 mph under the speed limit, stay under a certain weight, or my personal favorite-- back in to all parking spots. Let's not forget some companies (e.g. church schools) still fire people for being gay. My employer doesn't allow me to post negative comments about my company on forums. Should this shit be legal?
Seems to me that if a person is doing their job well, that a company shouldn't have the right to fire them. I live in an "at will" state. We can fire somebody because the sky is cloudy, and they can't do anything about it. That seems pretty fucked up to me.
Some 90 percent of people who use a drug—the overwhelming majority—are not harmed by it.
But those 10% of caffeine addicts will do anything for just one more shot of espresso.
Thats seriously fucked up. Have you considered emigrating to a free country?
All that "hippy stuff" may well have some relevance to flu, but vitamins won't do anything to stop you catching measles if you are exposed and not immune.
There are good arguments against flu vaccine, but measles should be a no-brainer. It is safe and effective. Nothing else is.
perfectly spherical unemployed in a vacuum.
Were you out sick from school when the immune system was taught?
Nothing (NOTHING) has a 100% infection rate on exposure, largely because your immune system fights off most of the crap that you are exposed to, often without you even noticing. Having a well functioning immune system will indeed improve your odds when you are exposed.
Vaccines work by boosting your immune system. They aren't a magic shield that turns away pathogens before they land on you; they help your immune system respond faster and stronger by teaching it, in advance, how to deal with a pathogen it hasn't seen previously. And they aren't 100% effective either. If they were, no one would give a shit if other people were vaccinated or not. If that last part isn't obvious to you, think about it for a minute or two.
So, in summary, vaccines are one thing, out of many, that help your immune system and reduce your chances of infection. If you assign liability, or worse, criminality, to not boosting your immune system in one way, why not the others too? Or why not to people that do things intentionally that reduce their immunity? (Keep in mind that there exists in the west a protected class of people, membership depending on choosing behavior that has astonishingly powerful negative effects on the immune system.)
See that "Preview" button?
Great. Let's "get IT work elsewhere" shall we?
- oops, nothing available in my immediate area
- something available in the next town over, but I cannot afford the commute
- something available across the country but I cannot afford to sell my house
- something available across the country but I cannot afford the move
- something available across the country but that means wifey has to quit her job
- something available across the country but I can't move the ailing family member in my care
- I'd love that job in California but I'm putting my child through University and had to start bicycling to work to cut expenses
- I tried self-employment but I'm a horrible entrepreneur and lost my savings in my last, and only, venture
etc.
etc.
etc.
To be clear, I have been gainfully employed for 25 years and have never had problems finding work or moving from one job to the next. But I am not so naive as to think that the right work is available to anyone who wants it at any time.