Should those NOT immunized get paid-leave?

[Bini]

The Granite School District here in Utah has issued a measles outbreak in four schools. These schools will remain in session but is excluding those that are non-immunized. This got me thinking a bit.. Should employees (of any workplace) that refuse to be vaccinated/immunized receive paid-leave in situations like this that could be potentially avoided by being up-to-date on shots recommended by healthcare professionals?

[pam]

Depends on if it was a requirement before getting hired. If the conditions of employment stated that you needed to have such and such immunization because you are working around students..and you fail to do so..then no..no paid leave.

[NeuroTypical]

Interesting question. Implementing something like that might be more difficult than it might seem.

I'm not sure how someone would go about enforcing such a policy. My gut reaction is that, as a general rule, I am against the govt dictating how a business works. So no, I wouldn't support some law or something forcing businesses to modify their sick-pay policies based on some social engineering deal. As for businesses doing it themselves, I would be concerned about privacy issues. Are we going to start requiring proof of illness and doctor's notes whenever someone wants to take a sick day? My employer sure doesn't want anything like that from me, unless I'm like signing up for short-term disability or something.

And one more complication, how do we know who is immunized and who isn't? My kids' school doesn't have a "kids aren't immunized" form, they have a "mind your own dang business I'm not sending you any vaccination records" form. Do school employees have the same deal?

[pam]

I know when I worked for the school district locally, I was required to provide proof of having a tb test done.

Also before my children could enter school we had to show proof of certain immunizations before they could enter school.

[Maureen]

...And one more complication, how do we know who is immunized and who isn't? My kids' school doesn't have a "kids aren't immunized" form, they have a "mind your own dang business I'm not sending you any vaccination records" form. Do school employees have the same deal?

That's strange, because like Pam mentioned, schools require proof of immunization before starting school, like in Kindergarten. In Alberta, kids get immunized in school in grades 5 and 9. Children have their own health care number, so it's easy to keep track of whose been immunized.

M.

[NeuroTypical]

That's strange, because like Pam mentioned, schools require proof of immunization before starting school, like in Kindergarten.

Well again, there are laws providing for exceptions to this rule. Part of the Colorado immunization form contains a "Statement of Exemption to Immunization Law" section, where you can claim a medical, religious, or personal reason to not provide immunization records.

Here is a website with links to exemptions/waivers/etc. for every state and a bunch of countries besides the US.

And just to make it clear again - my kids are fully immunized, and I'm a big believer in immunization. I just want to minimize the amount of information I provide to the government about my kids. We homeschool them and take part in a 1 day a week "Homeschool academy" thing in a public school.

[Gwen]

here you have to prove you are up to date on immunizations before starting school or provide legal proof that you are exempt for whatever reason. there is no opt out of providing records option that i've ever heard of. you provide one or the other.

they do send home a paper every so often that says the health department or someone is doing a review of randomly pulled files on immunization records. you can sign to opt out of that and prevent them from seeing the school records on your kids.

as for the op, if someone chooses not to cover themselves and they miss work because of that choice that's the consequences... oh well. it's like opting not to get a flu shot, if you get sick you have to deal with it. if you choose not to go to work due to concern you might get sick then you should not be working around kids (or any large group of ppl).

[Backroads]

The Granite School District here in Utah has issued a measles outbreak in four schools. These schools will remain in session but is excluding those that are non-immunized. This got me thinking a bit.. Should employees (of any workplace) that refuse to be vaccinated/immunized receive paid-leave in situations like this that could be potentially avoided by being up-to-date on shots recommended by healthcare professionals?

If employees required immunizations to be hired, or if the school district required immunizations/legitimate wavers to immunizations, yes, I think they've opted out of the paid leave.

At that point, if faculty or staff gets sick, well, all other sick policies would thus apply, then.

But if we are merely calling the immunizations a recommendation and there is no legal requirement for them from the school district, yes, paid leave should apply.

[havejoy]

I guess it would be fair to pay double time to those who get sick after getting immunized.

[john doe]

Interesting question. Implementing something like that might be more difficult than it might seem.

I'm not sure how someone would go about enforcing such a policy. My gut reaction is that, as a general rule, I am against the govt dictating how a business works. So no, I wouldn't support some law or something forcing businesses to modify their sick-pay policies based on some social engineering deal. As for businesses doing it themselves, I would be concerned about privacy issues. Are we going to start requiring proof of illness and doctor's notes whenever someone wants to take a sick day? My employer sure doesn't want anything like that from me, unless I'm like signing up for short-term disability or something.

And one more complication, how do we know who is immunized and who isn't? My kids' school doesn't have a "kids aren't immunized" form, they have a "mind your own dang business I'm not sending you any vaccination records" form. Do school employees have the same deal?

Since public schools receive a large portion of their funding from various governmententities, I can see how the government can require school employees to show proof of immunizations. Utah does allow for students to not be immunized for religious or personal reasons and still go to school, but the law gives the government the right to bar those students from attending in situations where there may be risk of the students either spreading or contracting dangerous infectious diseases. I am of the opinion that if a school employee chooses to not be immunized for whatever reason, then they should not ask for compensation from the school when the school keeps them from going to work in the name of the health and safety of the students or the employee.

[Backroads]

But is it fair to deny compensation if the school district did not require proof of immunization from staff? Not being given a warning, then denied income... that's not very fair.

That's a generality, of course.

From what I understand, this school district did require immunizations from staff.

[jennvan]

It really doesn't matter if they were or weren't immunized, its not going to help. Why do you think there is such an outbreak? I read about places in CA where people were recently getting the mumps even though they had been immunized (MMR). Immunizations aren't as good as they are reported to be. Do a little research on immunizations and the natural decline of those diseases. Most of the diseases were fading away before immunizations became widespread. Similar to how H1N1 faded away before there were mass immunizations.

[Guest]

Try proving that somebody got the flu because they didn't receive a flu shot... that somebody got H1N1 because they didn't get the H1N1 vaccine... etc. etc.

If the employment agreement says sick leave is paid for, then sick leave is paid for regardless of immunizations.

If you want to argue that with me, I'll tell you I should get your sick pay everytime you take the day off for getting too sick to go to work after eating a gallon of ice-cream the previous day.

Okay?

[Gwen]

Try proving that somebody got the flu because they didn't receive a flu shot... that somebody got H1N1 because they didn't get the H1N1 vaccine... etc. etc.

If the employment agreement says sick leave is paid for, then sick leave is paid for regardless of immunizations.

If you want to argue that with me, I'll tell you I should get your sick pay everytime you take the day off for getting too sick to go to work after eating a gallon of ice-cream the previous day.

Okay?

maybe i misunderstood but i didn't see the question so much being should they get paid sick leave for actually being sick but should they get paid sick leave to prevent getting sick. that's healthy ppl staying home because they didn't get immunizations and now they are worried they might get sick. that's foolishness. you took the chance when you chose not to get the shot. if you want to stay home to avoid getting sick it needs to be on your own time/dime.

[seeking_peace]

maybe i misunderstood but i didn't see the question so much being should they get paid sick leave for actually being sick but should they get paid sick leave to prevent getting sick. that's healthy ppl staying home because they didn't get immunizations and now they are worried they might get sick. that's foolishness. you took the chance when you chose not to get the shot. if you want to stay home to avoid getting sick it needs to be on your own time/dime.

I read the question the same way. I don't think that they should be paid to stay home. In fact, I don't think that they should be allowed to stay home as long as they are healthy. They made the choice to not be immunized, and thus be susceptible to the disease. If they get sick, it's a consequence of their choice.

Edited April 12, 2011 by seeking_peace

[Backroads]

I read the question the same way. I don't think that they should be paid to stay home. In fact, I don't think that they should be allowed to stay home. They made the choice to not be immunized, and thus be susceptible to the disease. If they get sick, it's a consequence of their choice.

So you're saying that people should be forced to come to school? Yes, getting sick is an obvious consequence, but that's the issue at hand here.

If the school district did not require these specific immunizations for employment, they can't punish people for not getting them. Natural consequences can punish, but not the district.

If the school district DID require specific immunizations, it's partially their fault for not enforcing them. The way it seems to me is that immunizations were NOT required; otherwise, all the faculty and staff members should have been immunized long ago. When I taught, kids could not be in school until the desired immunizations were had. If it were required for staff, they should have been denied employment in the first place.

So... we come down to two possibilities. Either the school district did not require immunizations for employment, or purposely let it slip to the wayside. I'm inclined to think the first.

Either way, at this point the district has no legal right to deny someone compensation by instructing them to stay home for their safety, not making it a choice, and then taking away income.

This is not a debate about the pros and cons of immunization. This is about whether the school district can, late in the game, change employment requirements without prior notice.

[Guest]

maybe i misunderstood but i didn't see the question so much being should they get paid sick leave for actually being sick but should they get paid sick leave to prevent getting sick. that's healthy ppl staying home because they didn't get immunizations and now they are worried they might get sick. that's foolishness. you took the chance when you chose not to get the shot. if you want to stay home to avoid getting sick it needs to be on your own time/dime.

I read the question the same way. I don't think that they should be paid to stay home. In fact, I don't think that they should be allowed to stay home as long as they are healthy. They made the choice to not be immunized, and thus be susceptible to the disease. If they get sick, it's a consequence of their choice.

I understood it as - they were asked to stay home. Not that they chose to stay home.

[a1000tears]

OHHHHHHHH this is my cup of tea and what I do for a living.

It all depends on the teacher contract and how sick time is utilized. I see this more as a public safety concern and to insure the responsibility of the school district to not harbor an unsafe environment for their employees. Can you imagine the workers comp claims on this?

That being said, if an employer "mandates" someone to not come to work due to a health issue, then the employee is usually compensated for the day. Simply because it was not their choice but they were mandated to not attend school that day.

Depending on the teacher contract, they may be able to use "Personal time" or sick time, or they may put them on administrative leave w/pay.

Simply put, the cost of a day's compensation would be much cheaper than a workman's comp claim. Each state has it's own laws in regard to immunization of public employees, and it falls on the employer to insure a safe work environment for their employees. Some teacher licensing requirements may impose immunizations and some professional designations may require it as well. For example, Bus Driver's must maintain immunizations to comply with DOT laws and regulations and to maintain their CDL licenses.

(Commercial Driver's License). This is not mandated by the school district but by State and Federal laws.

Btw, an employer does have the right under the new FMLA laws to ask for a doctor's note to verify an employee's absence. Now the doctor doesn't have to put the medical condition on the note, but an employer may ask for it.

Now the moral question..should someone be paid or not...well if an employee chose to not get immunized, that should not be held against him/her. The bottom line is, that ALL the employees that are out for the same reason must be compensated the same. You cannot favor one over another. Therefore, it would seem that if someone elected to not be immunized due to religious reasons, then it should not be held against him/her, therefore, if he was able to be paid, then you have to treat everyone else the same way. If you don't, then the school district could face a discrimination law suit.

So hence, in the long run, I ask the question, Is it better to compensate the employee than to get into a legal and /or Labor battle over one day's wages? It always boils down to money.

[Bini]

I don't feel strongly either way. But everyone has brought up some good points. It's interesting to see where people stand and why they take that stance.