The ethics of firing unvaccinated employees

Some organisations make vaccination a condition of employment. This means prospective employees must demonstrate they have been vaccinated (eg, against measles) to be hired. But it also means organisations must decide whether existing employees should be expected to meet newly introduced vaccination conditions (eg, against COVID-19). Unlike prospective employees who will not be hired if they do not meet vaccination conditions, existing employees who fail to meet new vaccination conditions risk being fired. The latter seems worse than the former. Hence, objections to vaccination mandates commonly centre on the harms that will be visited on existing employees who are unwilling to be vaccinated. However, because this objection does not necessarily entail the claim that vaccination is unnecessary for the effective and safe performance of certain jobs, those making this objection should have less of an objection, or no objection at all (at least on these grounds), to introducing vaccination requirements in some cases for prospective employees. Yet, in this paper, I shall argue that if one has reason to believe vaccination requirements can be justified for prospective employees, one should also believe they are justified for existing employees despite any asymmetry in consequences experienced by the two groups. As a consequence, common objections made against vaccination mandates grounded solely in the harms that may be experienced by existing employees who are unwilling to be vaccinated should be considered unpersuasive.

Automated summary

Some organizations require employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment. This raises the question of whether existing employees should also meet newly introduced vaccination requirements. Objections to vaccination mandates commonly focus on the harm that may be inflicted on existing employees who are unwilling to be vaccinated. However, this objection does not necessarily imply that vaccination is unnecessary for certain jobs. This paper argues that if vaccination requirements can be justified for prospective employees, they should also be justified for existing employees, regardless of the asymmetry in consequences.