Are Hospitals requiring courses to be considered for hire unfair?

[Esme12, ASN, BSN, RN]

from esme12 premium member

active

age: 50

years exp: 32

nursing specialty: critical care, ed, cath lab,ctpac,trauma

received 2,012 kudos from 595 posts

join date: aug 2005

posts: 1,297 today, 11:34 am

originally posted by ninja2011

sadly,

there are even programs where having certification prior to being considered are a requirement. in san diego there is a hospital that even requires a 600 dollar regional perinatal class before you can even be considered.

i would do acls and pals if i was you and anything else you can get certified in to be more marketable.

i'm just shocked that's all.......i am sick right now and cannot work.......i read this stuff and i think if i ever get well enough to go back to work......would i ever find a job again.......

i agree they should do whatever it takes to be competative but i still think it's shameful that the hospitals are shirking their responsibilities to pay for training. how ethical is it to make someone pay for a $600.00 course for a job they may not get.......but if you do get the position you've already taken the course they should be paying for.....talk about finding more that one way to skin a cat. there isn't any amount of money that will make me believe that the hospitals are perfectly aware that making an employment candidate take required courses is saving them tons of dough........ but that's off topic.

i started this line of thinking in another post. are hospitals shirking their responsibility? do you think it's right for hospitals to do this? anyone else experiencing this? i am godsmacked at just another tactic by the hospitals to cheat people in order to save money.......

[caliotter3]

Employers can set any standard for employment consideration that they care to, it is up to the prospective employee to meet those standards if they want to be considered for hire. That is life.

[caroladybelle, BSN, RN]

In the private sector and in many federal jobs, there are often courses required bscore you are considered for employment.

Plus, even if you got hired into some units, with requirements such as ACLS, your employer is not required to pay for the course. That is YOUR obligation.

Now if they choose to do so, that is lovely and appreciated, but not required.

[elkpark]

I don't see how this is an example of hospitals "shirking their responsibilities." Why should it necessarily be the hospitals' responsibility to pay for training for employees? What responsibility does the individual professional bear for professional growth and development? As caliotter and caroladybelle note, employers are free to set whatever minimum requirements they see fit for employment (as long as they're not violating state or Federal employment laws). If employers choose to set a higher standard than simple, basic licensure, they are welcome to do that.

[Esme12, ASN, BSN, RN]

Once upon a time there was a federal law the stated that if an employer required "courses" to maintain your position (both hospital and non-hospital) they were required to pay for said course. So if you are an Emergency nurse and the hospital requires you to have TNCC, the hospital was rewuired to pay for the TNCC...... it used to say on job applications....TNCC required within one year of hire....and the hospital pays for the course. At what point did this change? I completely understand that an employer can set whatever standard they wish. But at what point is it just too much? I guess the sky's the limit if you really want to work......but "back in my day...."

I have only been not working for 2 years and it really caught me off guard that new grads taking ACLS to get an edge, even when considering home care...... I guess I am older and more out of touch than I thought which makes me even sadder that IF I ever get better..........would I ever be able to get a job.......it just ook me off guard. All these things hospitals had to pay for....like BLS,ACLS,PALS and to require them before employment is shirking their finiancial duty or maybe just passing the buck and I am all for saving money but hospitals just seem to be getting away with alot these days......I guess I'm just old school....

[Esme12, ASN, BSN, RN]

Anyone else remember the good ole days???

[HouTx, BSN, MSN, EdD]

Rest assured everyone... the law has not changed. Any "mandatory" training education that is required to maintain your current job must be paid for by the employer. This does not include stuff that you are taking to become qualified for a new/better job. However, it seems that the situation described by the OP is a 'pre hire' condition, so that would not be covered.

[Esme12, ASN, BSN, RN]

Rest assured everyone... the law has not changed. Any "mandatory" training education that is required to maintain your current job must be paid for by the employer. This does not include stuff that you are taking to become qualified for a new/better job. However, it seems that the situation described by the OP is a 'pre hire' condition, so that would not be covered.

Thank goodness I'm not crazy!!!:yeah:

But....It seems that hospitals are making those "mandatory" courses that would normally be paid for by them post employment a pre employment requirement just to save few bucks.....?

[Little Miss Coffee]

My two cents...

It's reasonable for employers to require any amount of training BEFORE hiring someone. After all, they are taking the risk that they won't have enough good applicants who are trained in exactly what they want. I guess the employer could argue that taking the course is a good thing anyway, and even if you don't get hired you are learning a skill that will always be useful.

Naturally, I would think it was a jerk thing to do to post a job and then tell the applicants they needed to get more training after they'd already applied, but I don't see how that would be advantageous to the employer...

I do think it is unfair to ask someone who's already an established employee to pay out-of-pocket for a new course if the course is pricey compared to what the employer is paying the person.

Only an opinion.

Perhaps you are right that things were once nicer; I wouldn't know. =/

EDIT: Glad to hear the law hasn't changed.

[whichone'spink, BSN, RN]

Do you know if student nurses can take ACLS and/or PALS before licensure? I am strongly considering doing that in order to help me get a job in an area I want to work in, or any job for that matter.

[caroladybelle, BSN, RN]

Well, for one, if they hire you having already had the class, they know that you can pass it.

I recently worked with a nurse that in 3 1/2 years, and numerous classes, never managed to become telemetry capable on a unit that was telemetry capable. Imagine the amount of educational time invested in someone that never could fully work the floor.

Our employees spend a disproportionate amount of time/money orienting staff. They are entitled to place some requirements when hiring to insure that they will get an employee capable of doing the job and having the appropriate knowledge.

[dance4life]

They have been doing this lately. As well as IV certified. Sorry, but I haven't even been able to find a job. I let my ACLS go because I couldn't afford it without working. Now I am facing the fact that I can't even afford the BLS. Next, I will not be able to renew my license. There goes my career. I wouldn't even know where to get IV certified anyhow.

It isn't unfair they spend thousands training people and getting them these certs for free only for them to quit. I agree it is life. The fact lies that they just don't have money to do it anymore.