If you go to cochrane.org and enter "influenza vaccination" in the search bar, you'll pull up a wide array of independent meta-analyses. Most of them call into question the routine vaccination for influenza in healthy adults, children under 2, health care workers working with the elderly, and a variety of vulnerable, high-risk populations.
We also have newer evidence about health care workers from CIDRAP. http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2013/09/analysis-finds-limited-evidence-hcw-flu-vaccination
So first of all, if there is a lack of evidence supporting vaccinating health care workers in a nursing home setting--full of elderly individuals with a wide assortment of immuno-compromised conditions--what evidence do we have that it will be effective in a hospital setting--full of individuals of all ages with a wide assortment of immuno-compromised conditions?
Second, should people really be losing their informed consent rights--their right to weigh the evidence and say yes or no-- over a medical intervention with what we now know is only a 24% success rate? http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/02/spanish-study-finds-current-flu-vaccine-gives-limited-protection
Should people give up their rights over the philosophy that 24% is somehow better than 0%?
Frankly, in the case of coercive intervention, the burden of proof rests with those imposing and supporting the intervention. So for those of you who do support mandatory influenza vaccination for HCWs, what kind of proof can you provide that this is an effective practice? And when you make your case, how are you defining "effective?"