No rehire !!!!!!!!!! - page 3
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
Aug 1Quote from YorkerAny facility has the right to label a previous employee as " not eligible for rehire".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.
Usually , this stipulation drops off after one year, and depends on the circumstances.
Aug 1Quote from YorkerPeople who, in your opinion, deserve employment are not a protected class. Employers mark employees ineligible for rehire for a variety of reasons. There is no discrimination here.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.
Aug 1Quote from YorkerThe nurse in your hypothetical had their opportunity at employment and ultimately severed it. Equal opportunity was clearly given.Wow, that is crazy, doesn't that violate the term " equal opportunity employment "??
In this case, it wouldn't be the hospital being unfair but rather the employee who left after being trained but without ever providing a return on the investment but later wishing to return.
Most organizations would place such a person on an 'ineligible for rehire' list, formal or otherwise.
Aug 1Quote from YorkerWhen you own a business...so long as you do not discriminate against a protected class...you can hire or not hire who you want. Viva la America~ (for that, anyway :/ )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.
Honestly, would you re-hire someone who left during your unit's orientation? Come on! No one is entitled to a job.
In hindsight, if you liked the hospital, just not the unit you worked on, could you not have transferred to another unit? Better yet, did you vet out the unit (i.e. shadow, asked questions about the working conditions, etc.) before accepting the position?
Well, take it as a learning experience before you accept another hospital position.
Next thread!Last edit by DTWriter on Aug 1
Aug 1Quote from CowboyardeeHospitals elsewhere are hiring new grads under contract with financial penalties for leaving before a year or two. It is what it is.Quote from JKL33Tangential to this thread.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.
Aug 1Quote from YorkerFirst off, there is no "right of employment," only a right to be free of discrimination based on being a member of a protected class.Yes , I think its discriminatory because it taking away the right of employment from someone who deserves it.
As far as being "someone who deserves it," the one who deserves it is the applicant who most closely matches the employers needs based on their education, experience, personality, character, reliability, etc.
Having been previously hired and then leaving after a short time is a negative reflection on the latter two.
Aug 1Quote from YorkerThere is no "right of employment". Any employer who I interview with has the right to either offer me a job or not. I am not entitled to that offer, and if they don't make an offer, I keep interviewing. It is called persistence. No prospective employer owes you, me or anyone else a job.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.
If this hospital invested the time and money to train and orient you and then you dumped out on them after less than six months on the job, I understand why they don't want you back. They have already taken a loss on you, and they don't want to risk the same thing happening again.Last edit by Orca on Aug 1
Aug 1We all know that changing specialties, or different campuses or sometimes even a different floor can make all the difference in the world within the same company. You shouldn't be DNR'd from an entire system of hospitals over an unfit match.
Even if it is expensive to train new grads, let's be honest. Companies cheat nurses out of so much money anyway. That money will be made back up before the nurse finds another place of employment. It's just the culture of healthcare to bully nurses.Last edit by gcupid on Aug 1
Aug 1Texas nurses who truly feel unsafe staffing can complete Safe Harbor Peer Review form
documenting conditions that may lead to violation of TX nurse Practice Act.... such submission may incur further employer scrutiny... use with caution.
What is Safe Harbor Peer Review?
Safe Harbor is a process that protects a nurse from employer retaliation, suspension, termination, discipline, discrimination, and licensure sanction when a nurse makes a good faith request for peer review of an assignment or conduct the nurse is requested to perform and that the nurse believes could result in a violation of the NPA or Board rules
The BON has no authority over employment issues, but a nurse does have civil recourse in matters where the nurse’s decision to invoke Safe Harbor was made in good faith, but negative employment action occurred as a result of the nurse's request. A nurse also has whistleblower protections when the nurse reports a facility, physician, or other entity for violations of laws relating to patient care and or illegal acts, such as fraud, see Nursing Practice Act, Section 301.4025 and Section 303.005 and Texas Administrative Code, Rule §217.20 Safe Harbor Peer Review for Nurses and Whistleblower Protections. You may wish to also seek your own legal counsel for advice. The BON cannot provide legal advice, and has no authority in civil matters.
The Quick Request for Safe Harbor is an abbreviated form to allow a nurse to quickly jot down the key information necessary to invoke Safe Harbor in writing as required by Rule 217.20 at the time the nurse is asked to accept what he/she believes to be an unsafe assignment. Use of the form is not required, but is provided to make safe harbor an easier process for the nurse.
The Comprehensive Request for Safe Harbor Form is a sample form that may be used to document the more in-depth information that the nurse must commit to writing before leaving the work setting at the end of the work period. The nurse may still supply supporting documents at a later time, however the details of the events surrounding the request must be recorded prior to the nurse leaving the premises. The comprehensive form also includes a fill-in-the-blank format that the peer review committee and CNO or nurse administrator can utilize to document the safe harbor peer review process. Again, this form is not mandatory, but is offered a guide to the process. An entity required to have a peer review plan must have policies and procedures that encompass other aspects both within and beyond the statutes and rules of peer review. In other words, it is not sufficient to use the BON Safe Harbor forms in place of official policies and procedures on nursing peer review.
Aug 1Quote from Been there,done thatSomeone responsible for hiring and firing once told me that they eased employees out when they discovered that the person was not, or no longer, a good fit and they changed the characterization of their status to "not eligible for rehire" at some later point, in order to prevent problems at the time the employee was heading for the door. From the perspective of the former employee, I would call this deceit unfair, but from the perspective of the employer, they are achieving their goal. Apparently no one ever successfully brought a wrongful termination suit against that particular company regarding this policy.Any facility has the right to label a previous employee as " not eligible for rehire".
Usually , this stipulation drops off after one year, and depends on the circumstances.
Aug 2I'm still mystified as to why people think it's unfair for a company/organization to determine who they do and do not want to employ. It's their company and outside of abject discrimination against protected classes they should be able to hire, or not, whomever they want. Nobody is owed a job.