Should Disney Require Its Employees To Be Vaccinated? 673
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."
its a tough subject (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Re:its a tough subject (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Hospitals require testing (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
So pretty much every retail job in the country should be required to be vaccinated? I'm just trying to clarify what level of "general public" interaction requires this vaccination oversight? Who's going to pay for it? The government or the employer?
If people shouldn't be forced then how do they work, given that 44% of the jobs in the US are in some form of retail, transportation, education, or healthcare and another ~10-15% are "professional and business services" or "government" that include some sort of regular customer interaction, how are they to have jobs and also choose not to be vaccinated?
Any job where a significant percentage of people will have a compromised immune system. If you work in estate planning, for example. An illness can be life-threatening for the elderly and if you put them in that position when it was easily preventable you should be liable at least for their funeral expenses.
Re:Hospitals require testing (Score:5, Insightful)
Personal and/or religious preferences as exemptions.
I don't really give a shit about your personal or religious preferences if it affects public health.
I don't want the government mandating what we stick into our bodies.
The government isn't mandating what you put in your body. It is however telling you that if you want a government funded education then you need to be vaccinated so you do not present a risk to others. You do have the right to opt out but there are (and should be) consequences.
However, with schools, it's best to allow unvaccinated children to attend with the understanding they won't be able to attend in an outbreak.
I could not disagree more. If you want to home school your children or send them to a private school, then that is your right. If they want to attend a public school then they should be vaccinated against common illnesses or provide that they cannot get the vaccine for provable medical conditions. I do not care at all about personal or religious preferences in this matter. Viruses do not notify people ahead of time when there will be an outbreak so by the time there is an outbreak it is already too late. The entire point of vaccines is prevent the outbreak in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
So, Disney shouldn't even be quarantining those employees with measles?
Re:its a tough subject (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:its a tough subject (Score:4, Insightful)
Rule of thumb: It's not a free choice, if there is a big "or else...." attached.
Re:its a tough subject (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely it is. Your have freedom to live your life as you choose. If you are forcing others to accommodate your choices, now you're infringing on THEIR rights.
Free choice != Consequence-free choice (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Free choice != Consequence-free choice (Score:4, Insightful)
But it's still no defense for armed robbery. "I asked him for his money or his life. He had the free choice and gave me the money voluntarily"....
Way to go straight to the absurd and irrelevant extreme.
So, how much harm is done by a "or else find yourself a new job" depends on the given individual. To some it's only a "...or else switch to another employer" but for some it's "...or else become homeless and die on the street like a dog"
Spare me. Nobody applying for a job at Disney is in a position where they have to get a job there or they will become homeless and die. There are plenty of other jobs out there and even if there aren't (finding work can be hard sometimes) there are other social safety nets for almost everyone. Yes some people are in better circumstances than others. Opportunity is not equal for everyone and never will be. Welcome to the real world. We all make choices that open some doors and close others. If you want to choose to not get a vaccine and you are an adult then that is your choice. But do not expect your decision to come without consequences. Possibly quite serious consequences.
Re:Free choice != Consequence-free choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Reducto Ad Absurdem is a perfectly valid argument. He is simply pointing out that there is necessarily a limitation to your viewpoint that you haven't addressed. Somewhere there is a line where the choice becomes non-free. "Your money or your life" is a good example of something over that line.
The real question is which side of the line is "get vaxed or get out" on and why.
We're fairly clear which side you believe it is on. Care to address the why part?
Re: (Score:3)
Malicious intent is not necessary for a crime. Not getting vaccinated and working with children should be criminally negligent if you transmit the disease to them. Natural process or not. Think of it like having a pool at a daycare center. Choosing not to provide rescue equipment because you are cheap doesn't make you faultless because drowning is natural and you didn't have malicious intent.
Re: (Score:3)
Provided that there were exemptions for genuine medical reasons (e.g. severe allergy to something in the vaccine), I agree
No. If someone cannot be vaccinated then they should GET A DIFFERENT JOB. For instance, if a nurse cannot be vaccinated against measles, then instead of working in the ICU, that nurse could get a job working for a neurologist. Nobody has a "right" to a specific job.
Re:its a tough subject (Score:5, Insightful)
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
As long as these bodies are kept out of civilization, i.e. basically hermits, then I'm fine with that. If you want to participate in society, though, you have to get vaccinated. It is part of the social contract you make with the rest of humanity. It is analogous to you waving around your hands (your body) being free, as long as you don't hit someone in the face (someone else's body).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It is part of the social contract you make with the rest of humanity.
Put it on paper, then we'll discuss whether to accept it or not as a contract with the rest of society.
Re:its a tough subject (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a choice. You can always leave society. I didn't have any choice of where I was born or what civilization I was born into, either. I got over it.
Re:its a tough subject (Score:4, Insightful)
Give me a fucking break. Remember that there are other people in the world besides you, and they are just as important as you are. Society as a concept may not have rights, but the individuals do; one of the rights that is given to individuals by society is protection from the malicious and incompetent.
Your right to swing your fist (or associate with people you know you may kill through exposure to the disease you currently have) ends at the tip of my nose. Society has decided that this is an appropriate compromise between your rights and the rights of others. There's only so much of an asshole you can be before you get sanctioned by the will of the people.
Re: (Score:3)
one of the rights that is given to individuals by society,
Who is this "society" that "gives" rights to people? Hmm? How is that handled? What rights can "society" take away? What if "society" is threatened by some individual because of what he does? What about what he says? Maybe he his spreading dangerous ideas. Maybe because of that he should be eliminated.
I think you are smart enough to see where this leads. "Society" needs to be protected - from dangerous ideas spread by some individual. So "society" implements a change to the "contract" (that nobody
Re:its a tough subject (Score:4, Interesting)
No. Individuals need to be protected from those who would do them harm. We're not talking about ideas here, we're talking about people's lives.
And we remove people from the group all the time. See: prisons, etc.
Well, that escalated quickly.
Why don't you take your 'sovereign citizens", "objectivist", "Atlas Shrugged is the word of God", "OMG RULES!" ass and get a job, or something.
Re:its a tough subject (Score:4, Interesting)
Why don't you take your 'sovereign citizens", "objectivist", "Atlas Shrugged is the word of God", "OMG RULES!" ass and get a job, or something.
Why do statist always think that when someone objects to elevating the rights of the state to impose its will on people, they always assume that the person objecting must be some crazy anarchist or something?
Individual rights always result in better outcomes than collectivist rights. You seem to think the latter is preferred, even when I pointed out where using such a principle can lead.
I think the United Nations' "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" has some excellent stuff in it - except near the bottom the invalidating disclaimer: "(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
Re:its a tough subject (Score:4, Interesting)
The many impose their will on the few. That's the difference between a productive society and anarchy.
Actually, it's called the "tyranny of the majority", and it's how we got things like slavery, bans on gay marriage, prohibition, and the Third Reich.
Depends on how you define "better". We could give one person absolute authority over all (which is the ultimate expression of individual rights) and that person would probably say it's a pretty damn good outcome. Everyone else would probably think it sucks.
You're imposing a false dichotomy. How about we give no one authority over anyone except themselves, and everyone authority over their own body and life. THAT is what is meant by valuing the rights of the individual. Or ... we do it your way, create a "society", put someone in charge, and THEN you have one person with absolute authority over all.
Re: (Score:3)
So, you've never read Rousseau, and are illiterate with regard to political philosophy.
Re: (Score:3)
The specific example may have been wrong; but that wasn't the point.
If you start banging some girl and you never discuss a relationship, but she behaves in a way that suggests she expects monogamy, you have accepted the social contract of monogamy. It's what's reasonably expected and understood, given the tone of the relationship. Technically not having discussed or agreed to it doesn't really matter when you've entered a situation where the reasonable expectation exists. Notice this is a very fuzzy
Re:Where is the line on other health aspects thoug (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Where is the line on other health aspects thoug (Score:4, Insightful)
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.)
Re: (Score:3)
It's hard to take seriously a source that says:
Personally, if I have septicemia or bacterial meningitis/pneum
Re:its a tough subject (Score:5, Insightful)
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
That is my baseline as well. But while I lean libertarian, the measles virus has no such ideology. As such, I am pragmatic and realize that this probably crosses the line of "your rights end where mine begin". You are infringing on other people's rights by knowingly and voluntarily making yourself vulnerable to deadly disease. I suppose that just like the right to free speech, people should have a right to not be vaccinated - but they do not have a right to be free from the consequences. Long and short - employers should be able to discriminate against people who voluntarily refuse vaccinations.
Re:its a tough subject (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, over an evolutionary timespan. Assuming that the disease in question kill before you can give birth, and that they kill enough of the population to be impactful in an evolutionary sense.
Call me soft though, I'd prefer we solve this problem in something less then an evolutionary timescale. I kinda care about the kids who'd die otherwise.
Min
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. If nature was simple. But it isn't, except for some commenters here.
It starts with that life is based on probabilities.
Probability of infection x Probability of outbreak
vaccaination lowers the probability of infection, but not to 0 as you might encounter a new strain of whatever. In return, being in a largely vaccacinated group, reduces the infection risk of unvaccacinated subjects, too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:its a tough subject (Score:5, Informative)
but if vaccinations actually worked, Darwin would take over and ONLY THOSE WHO REFUSED VACCINATIONS DIE.
I reject your assertion that "worked" is binary. Vaccination effectiveness is measured in percentages, not with a simple "true" or "false". You have a small percentage chance of being infected even if you were vaccinated.
Then throw in that a small portion of the population cannot be vaccinated. We were all part of this cohort at one time as newborns. Combine the percentage of people who cannot be vaccinated and the number with ineffective vaccines and there isn't a whole lot of headroom for ignorance. This is why Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Nigeria are the last places on earth with polio.
Re: (Score:3)
260 cases last year in Pakistan and that because the medical teams are being attacked hence have to be rescued. No information on whether or not all 260 cases a: were vaccinated or b: resulted in fatalities. 21 cases in Afghanistan last year which were attributed to Pakistani refugees, and six isolated cases in Nigeria. Source: NYTimes [nytimes.com] [not paywalled].
Re:its a tough subject (Score:5, Informative)
Re:its a tough subject (Score:5, Informative)
*sigh* Every vaccination debate we get this ignorant argument. Vaccinations, like everything in life, aren't 100% guaranteed. They're very effective, but they don't *always* work. Also ,there are people who can't have a vaccine for legitimate reasons (often a compromised immune system). The people for whom the vaccine doesn't take, and the people who legitimately can't get vaccinated are protected if enough people *are* effectively vaccinated because there aren't enough viable carriers. This is called "herd immunity." That is why everyone who can be vaccinated needs to be vaccinated--not just for their own protection but the protection of others.
Re:its a tough subject (Score:5, Insightful)
We can disagree over the rights of herd immunity, but those who maintain that refusal to vaccinate hurts only the one who refuses, as the OP argued, are just plain ignorant of the facts.
Re: (Score:3)
How are they infringing on others rights?
By knowingly making themselves an incubator for a communicable disease.
By their very nature, epidemics need to be managed at the society level. I think libertarianism is a fantastic base ideology, but communicable disease tends to not care much for individual-based thinking.
Really you're saying "you are going to have too many sick days, i can just tell it!" is justification for dismissal.
No, I'm saying, "You are going to make other people here, or their non-vaccinated dependents, sick."
I mean, this story is a perfect example that it isn't just a matter of sick days. Disneyland has a real nightmare on their hands.
Re:its a tough subject (Score:4, Insightful)
With your own body, yes, in the same way that we have a basic right in this country to own guns. But if you showed up at work brandishing your weapon and randomly firing it into the air over the heads of crowds, then your employer would say that this right of yours ends where other bodies begin. It's the same way with your right to walk around unvaccinated.
Beam me up (Score:3)
Snot is a noun. The adjective is snotty.
Re: (Score:3)
"Snot here, Captain." "What's not there, Snotty?"
Paid sick leave (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:Paid sick leave (Score:5, Informative)
This is why the US system sucks - in the UK I get 4 weeks fully paid sick leave from my employer, and after that a further year of statutory sick pay from the Government. I also get 5 weeks paid holiday against which my sick leave does not count. In addition, I get reasonable accommodation to go see the doctor, dentist, optician, hospital etc etc.
Why is the "land of the free" not similar?
Re:Paid sick leave (Score:4, Informative)
This is why the US system sucks - in the UK I get 4 weeks fully paid sick leave from my employer, and after that a further year of statutory sick pay from the Government. I also get 5 weeks paid holiday against which my sick leave does not count. In addition, I get reasonable accommodation to go see the doctor, dentist, optician, hospital etc etc.
Why is the "land of the free" not similar?
Because, due to history, mainly WW2, vacation as well as sick days and health care have mostly been relegated to the employers rather than by the government. Easy explanation is that it happened because during WW2, there was a pay freeze mandated due to the war effort, so employers started offering healthcare,sickdays, and vacation, above and beyond any required by law, as part of the job offer because that's what they could offer to get new employees in a time of a labor shortage. This continued after the war as it was now a standard part of employment. Thus, the middle class was largely taken care of and there was no large push to get the government involved. The cultural expectation is that if you want better of any of these things, you should get a better job which should just require work on your part. Also coming from that, is the cultural expectation that if you don't have better that what the law demands employers give you, that you are a slacker.
I have it pretty good in the US and get two and half weeks a year of sick time (which carries over from year to year, so at this time, I actually have about five months of sick time since I hardly ever use it) and after ten years, five weeks of vacation time a year (which also carried over). I'm happy where I'm at because while I could probably find a job that pays more, I probably couldn't find one that gave me as much vacation time which is now in higher demand to me than more money.
Re: (Score:3)
The US gets sick leave, it's called "personal days". Get your facts right. The UK also has no sick pay if you're part time, or have nothing but zero hour contracts. In the US you can see a medical specialist very soon, likewise with scans such as MRIs, ultrasound, et al, unlike the UK were you have to wait weeks and that's likely to be nowhere near where you live.
Hah, what bullshit - the level of employment you have has no bearing on your statutory sick pay entitlement, its all based on how much NI contributions you have made in that reporting period as to how much prorated sick pay you are entitled to.
How many "personal days" do you get? Is it at all comparable to my 4 weeks a year?
I'm also not sure where you get your view of the NHS from - if I need an MRI or ultrasound, I get it and I get it in a timely manner which depends on the severity of my condition. What
Re: (Score:3)
privilege-seeking employees
Yep staying at home when you're sick and having some time off is such a privilige. Over here it's considered a right and is codified in law.
Re: (Score:3)
Companies need to ensure employees take plenty of paid sick days and are not penalized in any way for them if they want to prevent the spread of disease. People need to stay home and ride the disease out, plus a couple of days to make sure it is really cleared up. Taking medication often just masks the symptoms, but the person is still infectious.
I know some Japanese companies do it, but I can't see it ever being adopted in America.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that a lot of these diseases can spread before you see the symptoms. If you are a Disney worker and are spreading a vaccine-preventable disease without having any symptoms (yet), how are sick days helping?
Comment removed (Score:3)
It isn't measles (Score:3)
It's-a smallpox after all.
Re: (Score:3)
You're that one eighty-year-old chain smoker that each of us knows. You are proof in your own mind that smoking has no effect on health.
Oh, and drone the terrorists wherever we may find them.
Re: (Score:3)
Death is more likely to be caused by car accidents than being eaten by wolves. Therefore, being eaten by wolves doesn't cause death. Science, bitches.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]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 [wikipedia.org]. Just because the pneumonia followed the vaccine doesn't mean the vaccine caused the pneumonia.
Re: (Score:3)
To avoid looking like an idiot and asshole, it might be worth looking up Flu-Related Complications [cdc.gov].
Pneumonia can be caused by a virus (Score:3)
Pneumonia is caused by bacteria, the flu by a virus.
Pneumonia [wikipedia.org] is a description of symptoms relating to inflammation of the lung and can be caused by bacteria, viruses, other micro-organisms, drug reactions and autoimmune conditions. It is an inflammatory condition, not an infection by a specific type of organism.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. Then I guess viral pneumonia [wikipedia.org] is a myth.
"Pneumonia" is term used to describe a disease where the lungs start to fill with fluid. This can result from a wide range of causes, many of which are bacterial infections, but it can also be caused by viruses, fungi, parasites, or other causes.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't get too snarky here. You are incorrect. Pneumonia - a state in the lungs with certain types of tissue damage and characteristic clinical findings - can be caused by bacteria, viruses, fungi, chemicals and the 'ol immune system all by its haywire self.
Hemophilus is a genus of bacteria that loves to infect the lungs AFTER a viral infection. Fortunately, there is a good vaccine for this and most Slashdot posters probably haven't even heard of a case of Hemophilus sepsis or encephalitis (truly awful d
Re: (Score:3)
If your immune system "stormed" after a flu shot, then you are in bigger trouble than you believe.
Anyway, there is no scientific connection between flu shots and pneumonia.
Are you sure you behaved "healthy" after the flu shot or did you live on your "I'm strong as an Ox" card?
If you believe that a flu shot caused, increased or influenced in any way your pneumonia (and you might be right) then I heavily suggest you consult a hospital next time as soon as you feel to get a flu.
Sorry, 8 month illness or recove
Re:Just Require an IQ Test (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
As a rule of thumb, with a flu shot you are immune to 80% of the current flu viruses going around. This number may change if a previously unimportant strain mutates to be more virulent.
I remember a few year ago a Slashdot articl
Re:Just Require an IQ Test (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
How could anyone work in a place like Disney without being heavily drugged?
Re: Yes. (Score:3)
How about NO? What I do in the privacy of my home, outside of working hours should not be the concern of my employer. If a worker fails to perform up to standard, sure, fire him. But recreational drug use alone as grounds for dismissal or refusing a hire is ridiculous.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
#1 - An alcoholic with a real issue. They sober up the night before the interview/test.
#2 - A cocaine addict who stopped using a few days before the interview/test.
#3 - An occasional marijuana user who smoked a joint 2 weeks ago.
Assuming everything else about those candidates is equal only one of those people is going to fail the test and not
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Informative)
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/... [boingboing.net]
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Interesting)
Thats seriously fucked up. Have you considered emigrating to a free country?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It is not that dissimilar from people who say that the political process is fine and that if you do not feel represented you are free to engage in personal lobbying or running for office. Theore
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 C
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if you would give the same answer for, say, mandatory hymen inspections as a condition for employment?
People are entitled to have their private lives, and accepting any kind of end run around that means no one's rights are every going to be safe.
If a company chooses to take upon itself law enforcement, it should bloody well ex
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Informative)
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."
Re: (Score:3)
Or have we abandoned personal responsibility?
Do you mean have we become like Wall Street and expect the government to bail us out when we are greedy, stupid and incompetent?
unfortunately, it probably assumes (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
take all the money spent on welfare programs, and cut a 1 time check to people to jumpstart their lives (bail out the poor)
That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three.
Now give that money to the individual and let them get back on their own feet, cut the bureaucracy out, cut the reoccurring costs, and let people get back to their lives without interference
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
yes, but should it not be your employers right to do with his capital what he will? it's his money.
Recreation versus liability (Score:3)
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
I have no quarrel with that. Problem is that I, as an employer (which I am), cannot be certain that your recreational (and probably illegal) drug habit will not present a safety or liability problem for me on the job. I have no problem ethically with an adult getting high on their own time provided it doesn't harm someone else. That last bit is the key though. As an employer I cannot afford to take avoidable risks of people getting harmed. If I don't test for drug use and someone gets injured with drug
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Herd immunity (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Healthcare workers are required to be vaccinated because they work with people who are highly vulnerable both to giving & receiving diseases. It's not just vaccines, even health workers who catch the common cold will be required to take time off, as it could be deadly to their patients with poor immune systems.
Re: (Score:3)
I would guess that a doctor is a better person to ask than /.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why the CDC-type folks are running scared. Unlike Ebola and HIV which take a fair amount of work and / or bad luck to get, Measles is airborne and very, very contagious.
Yes, it usually is a relatively mild, self limited illness but once you get lots of cases, you start getting into the 1-2% of folks that get serious complications. It's very ugly.
And, of course, totally unnecessary but that's human stupidity for you.