Thanks Ron. I thought it could be considered a breach of contract but
not being a lawyer I wasn't sure. I can't tell you how much it upsets
me to see people not wanting to get the flu shot but getting it
anyway because they are afraid for their jobs. And when I saw the
form they sign absolving BJC of any responsibility .... well I can't
find the words to describe my anger. I was hoping if enough letters
went to the post-dispatch it would inspire folks to get together and
fight for their rights instead of jumping off the cliff like
lemmings. Most don't understand their rights. But I know quite a few
letters have gone to the post-dispatch and I don't see them getting
printed. I guess that tells you something too. It is a sad day for
everyone not just BJC employees.

Pam



--- In MCCFHC@yahoogroups.com, Ron Calzone <ron@...> wrote:
>
> Pam,
>
> Re-reading my first sentence, I think I worded it poorly...
>
> It should have said, "It is the height of arrogance FOR the
hospital to
> require..." (I was agreeing with you, but my hastily constructed
> sentence was unclear.)
>
> - Ron
>
> Ron Calzone wrote:
> >
> > Pam,
> >
> > It is the height of arrogance to think that the hospital would
require
> > the vaccine but "inoculate" themselves of any responsibility for
> > damage it does.
> >
> > That said, arrogance is not against the law or
unconstitutional. I
> > have been fighting against state mandated vaccines in Jefferson
City
> > for several years, so you know where I stand, but we do need to
> > understand the distinction between a government mandate
and "condition
> > of employment".
> >
> > A private business has the right to make about anything a
condition of
> > employment AND a prospective employee has the right to refuse to
take
> > the job. Other than putting market pressure (people refusing to
work
> > there or give them bad publicity), I don't think you can "make"
the
> > hospital change their policy - at least not with respect to
newly
> > hired people.
> > -
> > I do think, however, the rights of existing employees is a
different
> > story. Those rights are based on contract law. If this
mandatory
> > medical procedure was NOT a part of the original terms of
employment
> > (expressly or implicitly) then the hospital's NEW requirement of
> > EXISTING employees could be considered a breach of contract. As
such,
> > there are grounds for a civil suit.
> >
> > I think a media campaign, as you suggest, is a good idea. I
think
> > existing employees should ban together and hire a good lawyer -
or
> > threaten to.
> >
> > I do not think, however, that we would want to pursue legislation
that
> > prevented a private company from placing conditions of
employment.
> > After all, too much government involvement is the problem - not
the
> > solution.
> >
> > Anyway, that's my dime's worth. (in 2008 dollars)
> >
> > - Ron
> >
> > Pam Murphy,M.S.,RRT wrote:
> >
> >> Recently the BJC Health System enacted a mandatory flu vaccine
as a
> >> condition of employment. Employees who do get the shot sign a
waiver
> >> which totally absolves BJC of any responsibility if the employee
is
> >> injured by the vaccine. Yet many employees knowing the problems
with
> >> vaccines would not willingly get the flu shot if it were not a
> >> condition of employment.
> >>
> >> I am lucky I have a medical exemption which precludes me getting
the
> >> flu shot. But I'm worried about my co-workers and the
community/society
> >> at large. This is a flagrant violation of personal rights. It is
> >> unconstitutional. It has dire implications for the rest of the
> >> community and indeed of society if BJC is allowed to overstep its
> >> bounds in this way.That BJC is supposing this trampling of
employees
> >> personal rights will protect their patients is ludicrous seeing
as how
> >> they aren't planning on making visitors wear masks and
physicians with
> >> temporary privileges are not mandated to have the flu shot.
There is no
> >> evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is
effective in
> >> preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. It even says
that in
> >> the vaccine package insert. However, there's a lot of evidence
that the
> >> vaccines are very detrimental.
> >>
> >> If a corporation can demand its employees inject a toxic poison
into
> >> their body we are on a slippery slope to losing all the freedoms
on
> >> which this country was founded on. If a corporation can make
such a
> >> demand what kind of world will my nieces and nephews and your
children
> >> and grand-children have to live in? And how many more vaccines
could
> >> easily be required to be given to children?
> >>
> >> Make no mistake about it this is a very serious situation. If we
as a
> >> community allow this perversion of authority I ask you what
freedoms
> >> are you willing to give up? Because big brother will be knocking
on
> >> everyones door next.
> >>
> >> I hope that EVERY member of this group will write a letter to the
> >> editor of the Post Dispatch letters@...
> >> <mailto:letters%40post-dispatch.com> We need to
> >> educate the community. The only winner in a mandatory vaccine
policy is
> >> the pharmaceutical industry.
> >>
> >> Pam Murphy,M.S.,RRT
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > *************************************
> > Ron Calzone
> > Director, Missouri First, Inc.
> > mailto:ron@...
> > Web URL http://www.mofirst.org
> > *************************************
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> *************************************
> Ron Calzone
> Director, Missouri First, Inc.
> mailto:ron@...
> Web URL http://www.mofirst.org
> *************************************
>