No rehire !!!!!!!!!! - page 2

Can I ask everyone which hospitals in Dallas have the practice of labelling their employees as No rehire? If there is no offence on the part of the employee and they served their notice period but... Read More

  1. by   roser13
    Quote from JKL33
    Well by all means, let us defend the practice of seeking out those at a serious (financial) disadvantage and having them pay for the serious (and rather pervasive) problems in hospital work environments!

    I know, I know...that's their choice if they want a job!

    "It is what it is" ONLY because when nurses present arguments against it, they get this false dilemma thrown back at them. You want a job or not?

    Come on, people.
    I don't know that new college grads are necessarily considered to be at a "serious (financial) disadvantage," any more than any other type of college grad. I'm not sure how you would know how a hospital spends any $$ that they recoup from a new grad breaking a contract and leaving early. I don't know either but I would guess that it would be a partial reimbursement for the orientation of the new grad.

    What "false dilemma" is thrown back at nurses? I'm seriously confused by your post.
  2. by   DeeAngel
    Not at all.
  3. by   LovingLife123
    Quote from Yorker
    I agree that the hospitals spend a lot of money in orientation and training. Although the employee's track record is clean and highly appreciated and the employee left not because of a new offer but because of unsafe working conditions there should be no policy of "no rehire". If the hospitals spend the money on orientation they should also know to retain the good people rather than just labelling someone.
    You are not understanding. Just as you are free to quit your job, they are free to label you not rehirable. Are you planning on applying there again? Also, please cite your "unsafe" conditions. So many people say this without truly knowing what it means. Being unhappy with the job does not equal unsafe working conditions.
  4. by   Yorker
    Yes , I think its discriminatory because it taking away the right of employment from someone who deserves it. If they want to follow this policy then it should be relayed to the new hires so they can consider their option, matter of fact there was no employee handbook given.
  5. by   chare
    Quote from Yorker
    Yes , I think its discriminatory because it taking away the right of employment from someone who deserves it…
    You’re the one that took away your right to employment; you had a job that you voluntarily walked away from.
    Quote from Yorker
    …If they want to follow this policy then it should be relayed to the new hires so they can consider their option, matter of fact there was no employee handbook given.
    Some sources estimate that it costs $50,000, or more, to orient a new graduate nurse. Even if you aren’t a new graduate, there is still a significant cost involved in onboarding. As you yourself admitted that facilities spend money orienting new employees, how can this be a surprise?
    Quote from Yorker
    …Although the employee's track record is clean and highly appreciated and the employee left not because of a new offer but because of unsafe working conditions there should be no policy of "no rehire…
    What exactly were these “unsafe working conditions” that you refer to? Were they truly unsafe, or is it possible that you were actually experiencing new employee anxiety? And, did you bother to speak to these “unsafe working conditions” with your leadership team?

    Best wishes as you begin your search for your next position.
  6. by   roser13
    Quote from Yorker
    Yes , I think its discriminatory because it taking away the right of employment from someone who deserves it. If they want to follow this policy then it should be relayed to the new hires so they can consider their option, matter of fact there was no employee handbook given.
    No one has a "right" to employment. Especially not a right to employment at a specific facility. There are some serious misunderstandings here regarding American rights vs privileges. Employers are not under any obligation to hire anyone. And they are free to set their own hiring practices, as long as they do not discriminate against a protected class.
  7. by   Yorker
    Believe me I get it , but my point is that this is no fair. I have been a nurse for over 8 years and I can clearly distinguish between safe and unsafe working conditions. Unsafe when I say refusing orientation when asked for more , vented unstable pt. needs a 1:1 care combined with a climber and the charge nurse calls the nurse from break room to check on the climber as her call bell was on while the vented pt. is critical. No policies , one of the nurse got written up for the stuff that she was never trained. 3 nurses and 1 tech resigned in 2 weeks and I have more .

    PS: This post might sound rude but its not, don't take it personally.
  8. by   Sour Lemon
    All else aside, why would you want to return to work for a company so unsafe that you felt you had to quit? A "normal" person would not have known they were ineligible because they would have never attempted to go back.
  9. by   FolksBtrippin
    Do you actually want to work there again, given that conditions are so poor?

    Or is your "not eligible for rehire" status hurting you with regard to getting a position somewhere else?

    If it's the latter, I think you should get a lawyer and inquire as to what you can do about being blackballed.
  10. by   Yorker
    OMG, Hold on, neither am I trying to get a job in the same organization nor am I listed as a "not eligible for hire". I heard from one of my friend and was reading on it.
    It sounded unfair to me that's when I posted this topic to know everyone else's opinion.
  11. by   JKL33
    Quote from roser13
    1. I don't know that new college grads are necessarily considered to be at a "serious (financial) disadvantage," any more than any other type of college grad. 2. I'm not sure how you would know how a hospital spends any $$ that they recoup from a new grad breaking a contract and leaving early. I don't know either but I would guess that it would be a partial reimbursement for the orientation of the new grad.

    3. What "false dilemma" is thrown back at nurses? I'm seriously confused by your post.
    [Numbers/bolding added]

    1. Okay. Are you then of the mind that hospitals seek out new grads for reasons of altruism? To help them get going in their career? Or what is your perspective on this matter? I believe there is some evidence for my thought...I think there is a reason they don't offer these "opportunities" as readily to experienced nurses. Trust me, they have studied and figured out the demographic that will meet their needs, whether you and I like "the sound of it" or not. Regardless of their reason for seeking them out (if my personal suspicion doesn't suit you), hospitals who enact this re-payment scheme are not willing to pay the price for acquiring the desirable talent of new grads. Based on the conversation we are having, they are passing it on. They want the talent, and they don't want to risk anything for it.

    2. I believe that hiring *anyone* into a problematic situation and then having them repay you for your hiring expenditures if they choose to leave, is essentially having them help pay for your staffing problem. You (as the employer) gain a body to put in a position and when the rest of your program is not such that the body stays there long enough for your hiring scheme to make sense financially, you charge them money so that you recoup some of your losses.

    3. The false dilemma is that the hospital has no other options to having a financially solvent staffing model than "make them stay" or "make them pay". That line of thinking is a 100% neglect of (what could be) other very influential aspects of the culture of the place. There is MUCH that could be changed.

    **From my perspective, the ethical problems I have with this are not specific to new grads. I'm speaking in those terms mainly because that is the trend that has been recognized, as noted earlier in this thread. I am against this practice (for ANY entry level position in ANY employment sect), for the reasons I already stated. We are talking about companies with billion(s) dollars budgets here. It's not just a teeny-tiny bit ridiculous to think the budget is going to fall apart because of the money spent to train one new employee? And that the person making an entry-level wage should repay the billion-dollar corporation??
    Last edit by JKL33 on Aug 1
  12. by   JKL33
    I feel the same way about this that I felt reading about Jimmy John's and their "non-compete" clauses (which they have now apparently stopped).

    There is just a point in my mind when..."your greed is showing". I believe this is another one of those situations.
  13. by   not.done.yet
    The error in thinking here is the "right to employment", at least in Texas. Texas is very red, Employment-At-Will state, no unions and laws that very blatantly favor employers over employees. There IS no "right to employment". You don't have a constitutionally protected right to a job, which is what would be required to have a valid discrimination complaint.

    If this is something that truly chaps you, get involved in your state's political process.

close