[Sheri257]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

On the face of it, this case is black and white. Given what the law says, it would seem that these nurses violated it.

But... first that term "reasonable" notice is going to need to be interpreted. If the facility was able to bring in nurses to cover all the shifts, then a case can be made that the notice was reasonable under this set of circumstances. Not ideal, certainly; but then, they'll make the argument that the way they were treated was also far less than ideal. It is difficult to muster up any sympathy for their employer having to scramble to cover their shifts. The fact that they ended up being covered will, IMHO, make proving abandonment a real stretch.

I believe the breach of contract issue will be treated separately? That too could end up being a wash... it sounds to me as if their employer was in serious breach, too.

We don't know if the employer was able to bring in enough nurses to cover their shifts or not. All of this happened on a Friday night so, it seems unlikely since it was on a weekend and 26 of their nurses quit all at the same time. I guess we'll find out one way or another during the trial.

Because these were disabled kids on respirators, I just don't think the "take this job and shove it" argument is going to play well with a jury under any circumstances.

We are, afterall, nurses who are supposed to care about these kids more than anything else. They can argue 'til their blue in the face about the employer, how they were mistreated, etc. but, these nurses will look just as bad by walking out on those kids.

All the DA has to do is show one picture of a disabled kid on the respirator, and it's game over, IMO. I've taken care of those kids ... it's heartbreaking to think anyone would walk out on them.

As for the employer treating these nurses badly, that could very well be true. But the attorney who orchestrated this mass walkout was also representing one of their competitors, who probably was also trying to exploit the situation.

IMO, all sides were sleazy ... the employer, the attorney/rival company and the nurses who pulled a cheezy stunt to try to get out of their contract by walking out on a Friday night.

[EmerNurse]

If the nurses gave over thier assignments to oncoming shifts, I don't see abandonment. Everyone keeps saying 26 nurses quit over 2 days. Were these all at the same facility? Were they ALL scheduled to work the next few days? Or was their next shift to be, say, Monday? The facility most likely was NOT having to replace 26 nurses by the next morning (with agency or whatever).

Also, I can't believe that all of these nurses went to see a lawyer on the fly, and got a letter of resignation from him all in a day or two. I would hope that issues at this facility had been brought up by these nurses several times over months at least, and that there is proof in writing of this.

I know at one place I worked at, several of us over time had discussions with management over serious issues. Finally, 7 nurses quit in the span of 6 weeks, including a charge nurse. Not the same scale and we all did give appropriate notice, but the fact is, we'd brought up issues over and over with nary a nod to our concerns. THAT is why we left, because our concerns were ignored over time. It took so many of us leaving to finally give management a heads' up. I understand the facility is (somewhat) improved now. I hope so.

I'd like more details of what led up to this massive resignation. I can't believe the company had NO clue that something was wrong. Just doesn't seem to fly.

[Sheri257]

We don't know what the scheduled shifts were but, the indictment says that there were six nurses (one of whom who was on vacation) who were assigned almost exclusively to the kids on the respirators. Five of them quit that Friday night with this walkout.

The other five defendant nurses were also trained to manage respirators but they too walked out that Friday night so, with ten nurses gone all at once at this particular facility, it seems this would cause a major staffing problem.

As the DA stated in the previously posted article: "The nurses' sudden departure, he said, left the center scrambling for replacements on a Friday evening."

As for all 26 nurses quitting, yes they did quit at different facilities. But, the DA is arguing that made finding replacements on a weekend all the more difficult.

Originally Posted by EmerNurse

I know at one place I worked at, several of us over time had discussions with management over serious issues. Finally, 7 nurses quit in the span of 6 weeks, including a charge nurse. Not the same scale and we all did give appropriate notice, but the fact is, we'd brought up issues over and over with nary a nod to our concerns. THAT is why we left, because our concerns were ignored over time. It took so many of us leaving to finally give management a heads' up. I understand the facility is (somewhat) improved now. I hope so.

I'd like more details of what led up to this massive resignation. I can't believe the company had NO clue that something was wrong. Just doesn't seem to fly.

As for the employment dispute, that had been going on for months. The company did apparently know about the problems. But, as you pointed out, you gave appropriate notice. These nurses didn't. That's the problem.

The nurses had been meeting with this lawyer for weeks so, that's apparently where all the letters of resignation and plan for the mass walkout came from.

[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by lizz

We don't know if the employer was able to bring in enough nurses to cover their shifts or not. All of this happened on a Friday night so, it seems unlikely since it was on a weekend and 26 of their nurses quit all at the same time. I guess we'll find out one way or another during the trial.

Because these were disabled kids on respirators, I just don't think the "take this job and shove it" argument is going to play well with a jury under any circumstances.

We are, afterall, nurses who are supposed to care about these kids more than anything else. They can argue 'til their blue in the face about the employer, how they were mistreated, etc. but, these nurses will look just as bad by walking out on those kids.

All the DA has to do is show one picture of a disabled kid on the respirator, and it's game over, IMO. I've taken care of those kids ... it's heartbreaking to think anyone would walk out on them.

As for the employer treating these nurses badly, that could very well be true. But the attorney who orchestrated this mass walkout was also representing one of their competitors, who probably was also trying to exploit the situation.

IMO, all sides were sleazy ... the employer, the attorney/rival company and the nurses who pulled a cheezy stunt to try to get out of their contract by walking out on a Friday night.

In the first place, the judge is going to warn the jury about making their decision based on facts, not emotions. The defense is almost sure to argue that showing pictures would inflame the jury, and the judge may well agree and disallow any such pictures. Now, if any child had actually been injured, that'd be another story, but these children weren't, thank God.

None of us like to see children on respirators or contemplate the medical travails of children with these kinds of disabilities. However, IMHO, making them the pawns in an employment dispute, even a criminal one, by creating melodrama, does them a disservice. Understanding that it is impossible to know how I'd react until I was actually a parent in that situation, right now it seems to me that if my child wasn't injured, I'd refuse to sign any release to have his picture paraded in front of a jury solely to create outrage and indignation.

Finally, I have a real problem with any nurse being found guilty of abandonment in any but the most blatant situation, because here's the rub... if employers know desperate nurses can't take desperate measures, then they will continue to practice the kinds of abuses that brought this whole mess to fruition in the first place.

[Sheri257]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

Finally, I have a real problem with any nurse being found guilty of abandonment in any but the most blatant situation, because here's the rub... if employers know desperate nurses can't take desperate measures, then they will continue to practice the kinds of abuses that brought this whole mess to fruition in the first place.

Well ... it's been brought up on this thread before but, even unions give notice when they go out on strike, no matter how bad the employer is. Afterall, you've got to give them a chance to staff so the patients are protected.

These nurses are arguing that they don't belong to a union so, they didn't have to give notice. But, you can't endager disabled children either by walking out, en masse, on a Friday night.

All they had to do was give some notice. Then quit. It's not too much to ask, really.

[KellNY]

I'm going to try and word this as simply as I can.

I have worked at Avalon Gardens, and I do not blame these nurses at all. I was an agency nurse (LPN) and finished my 2 shifts that week I'd comitted myself to, called my agency on the way home and said "Make me a DNR there. Take me off next week's shift. Don't even offer me a shift there again, because I am not going back" Agency guy sighs and says "Yeah, okay....we get that a lot"

Avalon Gardens utilizes agency nurses on a regular basis. To get replacements all they have to do is call and request it(they use at least 5 different local agencies, and when I say on a regular basis, I mean daily). Yes, they would have to come out of pocket, but the children would have been cared for.

[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by lizz

Well ... it's been brought up on this thread before but, even unions give notice when they go out on strike, no matter how bad the employer is. Afterall, you've got to give them a chance to staff so the patients are protected.

These nurses are arguing that they don't belong to a union so, they didn't have to give notice. But, you can't endager disabled children either by walking out, en masse, on a Friday night.

All they had to do was give some notice. Then quit. It's not too much to ask, really.

I have many of the same questions others have raised about this, though. We don't know what portion of total staff these 26 nurses comprised. On a staff of 50, 26 nurses taking a powder would have a huge impact. On a staff of 300, less so. Did this facility have a weekend staff? If so, it could be that the nurses who left on Friday night were actually giving over 48 hours of notice- not the standard 2 weeks, but still more than if they were expected back the next day. The article left so many key facts out and was so melodramatic, talking about kids on respirators who "had no one to call"... Since when is ANY patient expected to call staff in? The fact that these patients have disabilities is, in my opinion, being exploited by the facility and possibly by the prosecution and I find that just as despicable as any other sort of exploitation.

[Sheri257]

Originally Posted by KellNY

Avalon Gardens utilizes agency nurses on a regular basis. To get replacements all they have to do is call and request it(they use at least 5 different local agencies, and when I say on a regular basis, I mean daily). Yes, they would have to come out of pocket, but the children would have been cared for.

So I guess it comes down to ... with ten nurses leaving all at once, how many agency nurses could they call in on a Friday night?

I guess we'll find out at trial. I'm not sure that gets them off the hook with the statute though.

[Sheri257]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

I have many of the same questions others have raised about this, though. We don't know what portion of total staff these 26 nurses comprised. On a staff of 50, 26 nurses taking a powder would have a huge impact. On a staff of 300, less so. Did this facility have a weekend staff? If so, it could be that the nurses who left on Friday night were actually giving over 48 hours of notice- not the standard 2 weeks, but still more than if they were expected back the next day.

What it really comes down to, at least according to the indictment, was that there were five nurses total who were assigned almost exclusively to the kids on respirators. All five of them quit on a Friday night without notice. (There was another nurse who was assigned to the respirator kids but, she was on vacation.)

The other five nurses who were charged apparently weren't assigned to the respirator kids but, they were trained to perform respirator care, if needed. Since they also quit with no notice, the DA says that left the facility with no one to care for the respirator kids.

While 26 nurses total resigned from different facilities, 10 of them resigned from Avalon gardens, which was the only facility with a peds unit. Those are the nurses who were charged with child endangerment. The other 16 nurses at other facilities had resigned just the previous day.

So, the DA is saying these nurses knew in advance that Avalon Gardens would not be able to call in other nurses from other facilities because of the previous day's resignations.

However, maybe KellNY is right. If they were using five agencies maybe they could have called in agency nurses on such short notice.

The question is: what are the chances of getting enough agency nurses at the last minute on a weekend or, even by Monday ... when 10 nurses have quit at one facility, and 16 staff nurses have quit at other facilities .... all at the same time?

[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by lizz

The question is: what are the chances of getting enough agency nurses at the last minute on a weekend or, even by Monday ... when 10 nurses have quit at one facility, and 16 staff nurses have quit at other facilities .... all at the same time?

That is indeed the question. I'd need to know the answer before I could decide if I thought this was actual abandonment. It seems to me that the facility must have been able to find nurses to cover, because otherwise, given the melodramatic tone of the article, it would've included information about children going without care. Even without making that assumption, I'd like to know more about the specifics.

Is the indictment provided in the link on the first page? I can't open that for some reason.