Nanny refuses to get flu shot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this entirely legal?
Are nannies not entitled to HIPAA protection?

Sure HIPAA applies to nannies, but I'm not sure how that it relevant to the current discussion. HIPAA generally deals with portability of health insurance and privacy of health information. How does asking a nanny to take a flu shot raise HIPAA issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this entirely legal?
Are nannies not entitled to HIPAA protection?

Sure HIPAA applies to nannies, but I'm not sure how that it relevant to the current discussion. HIPAA generally deals with portability of health insurance and privacy of health information. How does asking a nanny to take a flu shot raise HIPAA issues?

um not the pp but wouldn't hippa protect her so she can lie and say she got the shot? she wouldn't be obligated to prove otherwise because her medical records are private.

[Anonymous]

Uh, doubt it. Especially those with kids. If I was going to be around sick people and could get a vaccine, I would.

It's a benefit vs. harm thing. If you are a mom of young children, risk of vaccine harm is much less than risk of getting the flu and passing it on to them

opnion and not true

about half of the people I have talked to said nope to it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Uh, doubt it. Especially those with kids. If I was going to be around sick people and could get a vaccine, I would.

It's a benefit vs. harm thing. If you are a mom of young children, risk of vaccine harm is much less than risk of getting the flu and passing it on to them

opnion and not true

about half of the people I have talked to said nope to it

Oh so your opinion can be true but mine can't? Fact - I work in health care and know of no one not getting the shot.

[Anonymous]

"um not the pp but wouldn't hippa protect her so she can lie and say she got the shot? she wouldn't be obligated to prove otherwise because her medical records are private. "

No, HIPPA protects you from your doctor or insurance company revealing your medical records without your permission. It protects how doctors' offices, hospitals, and insurance companies tranfer and handle your records. It does not any way preclude anyone from getting documentation to prove thhey were vaccinated and then providing that record to their employer or school. It is pretty common for a doctor's office to provide a record for a vaccination and most employers would probably accept the payment receipt. The employer should keep a copy of the receipt for tax purposes as reimbursing an employee is not taxable.

I agree that this is an employment issue. A parent employer is well within their right to require their nanny who is watching an infant to get a flu shot. The nanny can disagree for whatever reason she chooses but she has no right to be employed by this parent if she refuses. As the flu shot for caregivers of high risk populations are recommended by the CDC to get the vaccine, the ped recommended it, the employer offered to pay for it, and a nanny is an at will employee then the nanny can be fired for cause and not receive severance or unemployment even if there is no contractual language about the shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"um not the pp but wouldn't hippa protect her so she can lie and say she got the shot? she wouldn't be obligated to prove otherwise because her medical records are private. "

No, HIPPA protects you from your doctor or insurance company revealing your medical records without your permission. It protects how doctors' offices, hospitals, and insurance companies tranfer and handle your records. It does not any way preclude anyone from getting documentation to prove thhey were vaccinated and then providing that record to their employer or school. It is pretty common for a doctor's office to provide a record for a vaccination and most employers would probably accept the payment receipt. The employer should keep a copy of the receipt for tax purposes as reimbursing an employee is not taxable.

I agree that this is an employment issue. A parent employer is well within their right to require their nanny who is watching an infant to get a flu shot. The nanny can disagree for whatever reason she chooses but she has no right to be employed by this parent if she refuses. As the flu shot for caregivers of high risk populations are recommended by the CDC to get the vaccine, the ped recommended it, the employer offered to pay for it, and a nanny is an at will employee then the nanny can be fired for cause and not receive severance or unemployment even if there is no contractual language about the shot.

An employer can 'require' the nanny to get the shot only if the nanny agreed to it in the contract. Otherwise, nanny CAN get fired, and nanny CAN collect unemployment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"um not the pp but wouldn't hippa protect her so she can lie and say she got the shot? she wouldn't be obligated to prove otherwise because her medical records are private. "

No, HIPPA protects you from your doctor or insurance company revealing your medical records without your permission. It protects how doctors' offices, hospitals, and insurance companies tranfer and handle your records. It does not any way preclude anyone from getting documentation to prove thhey were vaccinated and then providing that record to their employer or school. It is pretty common for a doctor's office to provide a record for a vaccination and most employers would probably accept the payment receipt. The employer should keep a copy of the receipt for tax purposes as reimbursing an employee is not taxable.

I agree that this is an employment issue. A parent employer is well within their right to require their nanny who is watching an infant to get a flu shot. The nanny can disagree for whatever reason she chooses but she has no right to be employed by this parent if she refuses. As the flu shot for caregivers of high risk populations are recommended by the CDC to get the vaccine, the ped recommended it, the employer offered to pay for it, and a nanny is an at will employee then the nanny can be fired for cause and not receive severance or unemployment even if there is no contractual language about the shot.

An employer can 'require' the nanny to get the shot only if the nanny agreed to it in the contract. Otherwise, nanny CAN get fired, and nanny CAN collect unemployment.

Do you have any authority for this? I think it could go either way whether a state would rule that such a firing was "for cause."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"um not the pp but wouldn't hippa protect her so she can lie and say she got the shot? she wouldn't be obligated to prove otherwise because her medical records are private. "

No, HIPPA protects you from your doctor or insurance company revealing your medical records without your permission. It protects how doctors' offices, hospitals, and insurance companies tranfer and handle your records. It does not any way preclude anyone from getting documentation to prove thhey were vaccinated and then providing that record to their employer or school. It is pretty common for a doctor's office to provide a record for a vaccination and most employers would probably accept the payment receipt. The employer should keep a copy of the receipt for tax purposes as reimbursing an employee is not taxable.

I agree that this is an employment issue. A parent employer is well within their right to require their nanny who is watching an infant to get a flu shot. The nanny can disagree for whatever reason she chooses but she has no right to be employed by this parent if she refuses. As the flu shot for caregivers of high risk populations are recommended by the CDC to get the vaccine, the ped recommended it, the employer offered to pay for it, and a nanny is an at will employee then the nanny can be fired for cause and not receive severance or unemployment even if there is no contractual language about the shot.

An employer can 'require' the nanny to get the shot only if the nanny agreed to it in the contract. Otherwise, nanny CAN get fired, and nanny CAN collect unemployment.

Do you have any authority for this? I think it could go either way whether a state would rule that such a firing was "for cause."

It is not common practice to try to force a nanny to get any shots against her will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you have any authority for this? I think it could go either way whether a state would rule that such a firing was "for cause."

It is not common practice to try to force a nanny to get any shots against her will.

Totally agree, and I think the OP stated in her first post that she knew she couldn't force her nanny to get the shot. But that really isn't relevant to whether firing a childcare provider for refusing to follow recommendations of the AAP/CDC is or is not a firing "for cause".

[Anonymous]

If my child were under 6 months old so could not get the shot, I would definitely require both an H1N1 and seasonal flu shot as a precondition to hiring her.

[Anonymous]

Employer here with a wonderful nanny. Our boys are 3 years and 1 year old. We asked if she wanted to get a flu shot (we would pay of course), but she declined. My husband and I will get the shot, and we'd prefer if our nanny got it, but bottom line is we adore her, she is great to our boys, and if it's the shot or her, we'd rather have her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"um not the pp but wouldn't hippa protect her so she can lie and say she got the shot? she wouldn't be obligated to prove otherwise because her medical records are private. "

No, HIPPA protects you from your doctor or insurance company revealing your medical records without your permission. It protects how doctors' offices, hospitals, and insurance companies tranfer and handle your records. It does not any way preclude anyone from getting documentation to prove thhey were vaccinated and then providing that record to their employer or school. It is pretty common for a doctor's office to provide a record for a vaccination and most employers would probably accept the payment receipt. The employer should keep a copy of the receipt for tax purposes as reimbursing an employee is not taxable.

I agree that this is an employment issue. A parent employer is well within their right to require their nanny who is watching an infant to get a flu shot. The nanny can disagree for whatever reason she chooses but she has no right to be employed by this parent if she refuses. As the flu shot for caregivers of high risk populations are recommended by the CDC to get the vaccine, the ped recommended it, the employer offered to pay for it, and a nanny is an at will employee then the nanny can be fired for cause and not receive severance or unemployment even if there is no contractual language about the shot.

An employer can 'require' the nanny to get the shot only if the nanny agreed to it in the contract. Otherwise, nanny CAN get fired, and nanny CAN collect unemployment.

Do you have any authority for this? I think it could go either way whether a state would rule that such a firing was "for cause."

I don't see how it can be "for cause" if you can't point to it in the employment agreement (where cause is normally defined), the job description, established workplace policy, or the law. As it stands, the state of New York is in court over whether it can require health care workers to get the vaccine. So I can't see how you can be in a better position than a public health department.

If it's really that important, then it's worth letting her go with the ability to collect unemployment. This is clearly not something you contemplated when you hired the nanny. You don't have to keep her, but fair is fair. She should be able to collect unemployment.

[Anonymous]

"I don't see how it can be "for cause" if you can't point to it in the employment agreement (where cause is normally defined), the job description, established workplace policy, or the law. As it stands, the state of New York is in court over whether it can require health care workers to get the vaccine. So I can't see how you can be in a better position than a public health department.

If it's really that important, then it's worth letting her go with the ability to collect unemployment. This is clearly not something you contemplated when you hired the nanny. You don't have to keep her, but fair is fair. She should be able to collect unemployment."

Individual employers are in a better position than a government employer. A private company for example would have less of an issue requiring mandatory immunization than a state or federal government.

You can be fired for cause for something that is not clearly described in your work agreement. You can fire someone for 'cause' if they fail to meet an emergent requirement that relates to the overall purpose of the position if they fail to meet it. The court would take into account the recommendation of the doctor, the employer giving notice and opportunity for the nanny to meet the requirement, and the employer offering to pay providing additional means for the nanny to meet the requirement. If the nanny refuses fully understanding she would be terminated by doing so, the court probably would see this as an action for 'cause'.

Its up the OP and not worth the trouble IMO to avoid the very small increase in future unemployment ratees but she would probably prevail and the nanny would lose.

[Anonymous]

Sadly the things I took away from this thread have nothing to do with vaccination. I have noticed many people do not clearly read the posts they are replying to and aree extermely rude in their replies. At the very least if you must be unkind and generally disrespectful the least you could do is correctly read the post you are so oddly angry with.

Concerning vaccines I will get one and both parents of my charge have their shots already we are all also CPR certified. They would not ask me to do something they would not do themselves.

[Anonymous]

I work as nanny and i never got the flu either flu shot and I eat very healthy and i also washed my hands a lot and i make sure the kid eat good and clean after we come back i make sure they wash their hands.
The kids usually get sick on the weekend or when I am on vacation. They are under the parents cares.

I am more worry about getting sick from the kids and the parents. Once they did not tell me they some stomach virus during the weekend the only thing i noticed was a strong smell of clorox in the bathroom but I never asked o suspect I end the day very sick
I wondered why parents make sure about themselves and exposed their worker?
They did not tell me and expose me to get sick and i have to spend money in medicine and just no to feel good. Another day the father get cold a lot but some infection once again they did not tell me and i got sick again this time i have to spent a lot of money

Please parents be fair with us.