Health-care workers in British Columbia are being told to roll up their sleeves and take a flu shot in the arm or else be sent home without pay in the case of an outbreak.
The controversial influenza-fighting program was introduced last month by the Health Employers’Association of British Columbia (HEABC) in some hospitals and nursing homes in the hopes of curbing the spread of the flu. The concern is more acute in nursing homes, where flu outbreaks have been fatal.
The program raises the issue of the competing rights of employees versus those of the employer in the workplace. The balance is made even more difficult in this case because of the intrusive nature of the program, says John Sanderson, a Vancouver-based employment mediator and arbitrator and former employment lawyer.
Unions representing health-care workers in the province lashed out against the program claiming its intrusive nature infringes on employees’ right to choose. Some employers are standing by the union and have refused to implement the policy.
“We believe people should be able to make intelligent choices. We believe in preventive programs but that doesn’t mean they should override our right to choose,” says Patt Shuttleworth, vice-president of the British Columbia Nurses Union (BCNU), which represents 2,800 nurses in the province.
Shuttleworth says the BCNU, in conjunction with other health-care unions in the province, including the Hospital Employees Union and Health Sciences Association of British Columbia, have written the health ministry proposing a voluntary immunization program that would provide health-care workers the choice of alternative forms of flu prevention.
“It’s disrespectful to say the program is not mandatory but then say if you don’t comply you aren’t going to get paid,” says Shuttleworth.
Of greater significance, says Sanderson, is the “heavy-handed approach” to the program.
“Not infrequently, employers create a dynamic where an awkward relationship is made worse. If they would have handled it in a more sensitive and thoughtful way, it could have been an accepted program,” says Sanderson.
Evidence suggests that vaccinations are still the greatest guarantee against flu outbreaks. There is research to suggest the overall effectiveness of a vaccine in preventing the flu is about 70 to 85 per cent. Last year, 5.3 million Canadians received a flu vaccine. The flu will attack about six million Canadians between November and April. Health Canada estimates the flu kills between 500 and 1,500 people per season. Health costs of influenza in Canada this year will top $1 billion.
Renzo Bertolini, specialist with the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, says vaccines are absolutely essential in health-care sectors, a recommendation also endorsed by Health Canada in its fifth edition of the Canadian Immunization Guide.
“Especially in the health-care industry, there is no doubt about the need for it,” says Bertolini.
According to the guide, “maintenance of immunity against vaccine-preventable diseases is an integral part of a health-care facility’s occupational health program.”
While the majority of medical data supports the use of vaccinations for protecting against the flu, most employers haven’t made an immunization program compulsory. Considering the implications of such a program —lowered employee morale for example — employers might want to consider the impacts on their employees.
“One of the things about the workplace is that we give up a lot of rights when we walk through that door,” says Mark Leier, labour history professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia.
“Most of us live by the notion that you shouldn’t be punished for what might happen or what should happen,” says Leier.
The BCNU is asking employers to document the effects of the flu shots on employees, recording physical side effects. While they have yet to hear back from employers, Shuttleworth says they are looking into it.
“The employer, if they are going to deny us our basic human rights, better be certain it’s safe,” says Shuttleworth.
The controversial influenza-fighting program was introduced last month by the Health Employers’Association of British Columbia (HEABC) in some hospitals and nursing homes in the hopes of curbing the spread of the flu. The concern is more acute in nursing homes, where flu outbreaks have been fatal.
The program raises the issue of the competing rights of employees versus those of the employer in the workplace. The balance is made even more difficult in this case because of the intrusive nature of the program, says John Sanderson, a Vancouver-based employment mediator and arbitrator and former employment lawyer.
Unions representing health-care workers in the province lashed out against the program claiming its intrusive nature infringes on employees’ right to choose. Some employers are standing by the union and have refused to implement the policy.
“We believe people should be able to make intelligent choices. We believe in preventive programs but that doesn’t mean they should override our right to choose,” says Patt Shuttleworth, vice-president of the British Columbia Nurses Union (BCNU), which represents 2,800 nurses in the province.
Shuttleworth says the BCNU, in conjunction with other health-care unions in the province, including the Hospital Employees Union and Health Sciences Association of British Columbia, have written the health ministry proposing a voluntary immunization program that would provide health-care workers the choice of alternative forms of flu prevention.
“It’s disrespectful to say the program is not mandatory but then say if you don’t comply you aren’t going to get paid,” says Shuttleworth.
Of greater significance, says Sanderson, is the “heavy-handed approach” to the program.
“Not infrequently, employers create a dynamic where an awkward relationship is made worse. If they would have handled it in a more sensitive and thoughtful way, it could have been an accepted program,” says Sanderson.
Evidence suggests that vaccinations are still the greatest guarantee against flu outbreaks. There is research to suggest the overall effectiveness of a vaccine in preventing the flu is about 70 to 85 per cent. Last year, 5.3 million Canadians received a flu vaccine. The flu will attack about six million Canadians between November and April. Health Canada estimates the flu kills between 500 and 1,500 people per season. Health costs of influenza in Canada this year will top $1 billion.
Renzo Bertolini, specialist with the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, says vaccines are absolutely essential in health-care sectors, a recommendation also endorsed by Health Canada in its fifth edition of the Canadian Immunization Guide.
“Especially in the health-care industry, there is no doubt about the need for it,” says Bertolini.
According to the guide, “maintenance of immunity against vaccine-preventable diseases is an integral part of a health-care facility’s occupational health program.”
While the majority of medical data supports the use of vaccinations for protecting against the flu, most employers haven’t made an immunization program compulsory. Considering the implications of such a program —lowered employee morale for example — employers might want to consider the impacts on their employees.
“One of the things about the workplace is that we give up a lot of rights when we walk through that door,” says Mark Leier, labour history professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia.
“Most of us live by the notion that you shouldn’t be punished for what might happen or what should happen,” says Leier.
The BCNU is asking employers to document the effects of the flu shots on employees, recording physical side effects. While they have yet to hear back from employers, Shuttleworth says they are looking into it.
“The employer, if they are going to deny us our basic human rights, better be certain it’s safe,” says Shuttleworth.
