Flu shots at work?

The flu season is fast approaching.

I live in the Canadian province of Ontario- a pioneer in providing free flu-shot vaccinations to its citizens. There are a number of venues you can report to in order to receive a free flu shot. Many Ontarians prefer to get them at their family doctors. Others go to public health clinics dedicated to administering the shots. However, workplace flu clinics have also gained in popularity recently.

In Toronto, many major commercial office tower property managers (like Brookfield, Oxford and Cadillac Fairview) arrange flu clinics for tenants in their buildings. Similar to blood donor clinics, these may be set up in building lobbies or in particular designated rooms on the tenants’ premises. A certified health care professional comes into the workplace to administer the shots.

While it may make good sense to administer flu shots in the workplace (employees find it convenient while employers have a stake in the process since immunization may help to reduce flu related sick day absences), this development does pose a number of interesting workplace ethics issues.

A friend related an incident that occurred in her workplace a year ago. One of the partners in the legal firm she works at fell seriously ill with a rare medical condition called Guillain-Barré (G-B) syndrome and had to be hospitalized. He was perfectly fit (regularly worked out and was very conscious of eating a balanced diet) prior to contracting G-B. Receiving a flu shot is the expected cause of his G-B. (See a related news story here)

This has caused me to do much thinking about the pros and cons of workplace immunization programmes.

Consider the following (purely hypothetical) scenario (which will serve to highlight my concerns):

A Human Resource department official sends out the following mass e-mail to all Company employees

“The Company is pleased to be sponsoring an opportunity for employees to obtain a vaccination to immunize against influenza this year. Please call or e-mail our receptionist if you wish to make an appointment to receive a flu shot. For further information about the benefits and risk of influenza vaccinations, please consult the following government website”

In response to this e-mail, a manager in the accounting department forwards the HR e-mail to her team of six employees, adding this message at the top of the thread:

“Please e-mail HR to set your appointment date ASAP and copy me on that reply so I have a record of your status. We have lost too many work days to illness already this year and we cannot afford to have anyone off with flu because they failed to get their shot. I will expect anyone who fails to follow these instructions and who later calls in sick with flu symptoms to provide me and/or HR with a note from their family doctor confirming that they received a flu shot at his or her office.”

In response to this e-mail, three employees make appointments with the receptionist and report for a flu shot at the appointed time and receive a medical release outlining the risks. They then take the following actions:

Employee 1 signs the release without reading it. She is allergic to eggs and has a severe allergic reaction shortly after receiving the shot. The nurse calls an ambulance and she is rushed by paramedics to a hospital ER in an unconscious state. She fully recovers.

Employee 2 also signs to sign the release without reading it. However, after witnessing the medical emergency situation involving employee #1, she is shaken and declines to follow through and take her shot.

Employee 3 signs the release after reading it. He proceeds to get his shot. He develops G-B syndrome a few weeks later, is hospitalized for a prolonged period and suffers related paralysis that precludes him from ever returning to work. He files for LTD benefits with his employer’s health benefits insurer. After conducting an investigation, the insurer sues the employer to recover its claim costs, citing negligence in the administration of the flu shot programme they sponsored.

Employee 4 arranges a business meeting that conflicts with her immunization appointment to excuse her from reporting at the appointed time

Employee 5 declines to make an appointment because he received a shot at his family doctor’s office a week ago

Employee 6 declines to make an appointment because he has an irrational fear of needles and often faints when his skin is pierced by one. He fears being embarrassed in front of co-workers

Employees 2, 4, 5 and 6 end up developing flu symptoms sometime later.

Employee 2, remembering her boss’s e-mail and not wanting to arose her ire, reports to work with flu and promptly infects 3 others in the workplace while there

Employee 4 calls in sick and her absence is excused by her boss on account of copying the boss on the e-mail to HR arranging a workplace vaccination appointment (which she failed to keep)

Employee 5 calls in sick and is challenged by his boss to produce a letter certifying that he received a flu shot from his family doctor. The doctor charges him a $60 fee to write the letter. He is forced to bear that cost.

Employee 6 calls in sick and is likewise challenged by his boss to produce a letter certifying that he received a flu shot from his family doctor. He is unable to do so and the boss recommends his termination to HR He is fired with cause and denied any severance or employment insurance benefits. A month later he returns to the workplace with a rifle and shoots his boss, employee 2 and 5 dead. Employee 1 is injured in the shoot-up but survives and eventually recovers. Mewnhile, employee 4 is ill at home with flu that day and escapes unscathed!

Considering the actions of all the individuals in this hypothetical anecdote, which parties do you believe acted responsibly or irresponsibly? Your comments are welcome!