Latest Comments by Jolie

Latest Comments by Jolie

Jolie 24,780 Views

Joined Oct 17, '01. Posts: 9,442 (48% Liked) Likes: 13,267

Sorted By Last Comment (Past 5 Years)
  • 1
    WKShadowRN likes this.

    Consult with a reputable plumber or home inspector. How to best manage your septic system will depend on the specifics of how it was built, how it is positioned on your property, how old it is, etc.

    With care and maintenance, it will function just fine.

  • 0

    Which of these sites has the best vascular perfusion? The most limited?

    That's your answer

  • 2
    brandy1017 and BrendanO like this.

    Quote from Jen4nursing
    So I was just curious on how many nurses have left their jobs due to hostile environments and the boss fires them as soon as they put in their letter of recognition.

    I am in that boat now and I need that reference as that is my only clinical experience. How have you all dealt with bad references?

    I'd like to clarify one point: When you turned in your resignation, were you actually told that the resignation was not being accepted because you were being terminated instead, or did the supervisor accept your resignation and then say that you did not need to complete a 2 week notice but would be taken off the schedule immediately?

    These scenarios are not the same thing.

    It seems unlikely to me (although certainly not impossible) that an employer would fire someone who has attempted to formally resign. Typically a person who voluntarily resigns is NOT eligible for employer-sponsored unemployment payments, while one who is fired may be. From an employer's standpoint, this is a significant expense, and one that most attempt to avoid, if at all possible. So it doesn't make sense from the employer's standpoint to fire someone who is trying to quit, thus opening the possibility of having to pay a significant amount of money to sponsor that employee's unemployment compensation.

    When an employee turns in a resignation, it is customary to offer to work out a "notice" usually 2-4 weeks. Many employers require this for an employee to leave in "good standing" and to receive all benefits owed such as unpaid vacation time. Not all do, and some prefer to have the employee leave immediately. Accepting an employee's resignation and asking that employee to leave immediately rather than work out a 2-4 week notice is NOT the same as firing the employee.

    Whether an employee is eligible for re-hire may or may not have anything to do with how the employment was terminated. I have had to fire employees who were valued and would be willing to rehire them (needed extended LOA in excess of family and medical leave) at a later time. I have also accepted voluntary resignations from employees who were not valued and would not be eligible for rehire. (Poor clinical skills).

    I would suggest clarifying with Human Resources whether your resignation was accepted or whether you were fired. If fired, investigate filing for unemployment compensation while you continue to look for another job.

    Lastly, I agree that it is best to have not only an offer, but have worked out all details of starting a new job before resigning from the old one. Sometimes offers are rescinded due to reference checks, drug screens or even staffing changes that have nothing to do with the candidate.

    Best of luck to you.

  • 4

    I applaud you all for your no-tolerance stance with this serious safety problem. I had a similar situation several years back and had the principal's backing and blessing to do the same. We were over-ruled by the superintendent who would not "deny a student his right to access a free and appropriate public education!" He vehemently disagreed with our belief that it was the student and his parents who were preventing access, but needless to say, he prevailed.

    We had the student for nearly 1/2 of the school year without valid orders, supplies, or medication on hand. Calls to his mom were returned inconsistently. We had no direct contact information for his dad, and mom refused to allow direct contact with the physician's office.

    One day, purely by coincidence, Dad came to school on business completely unrelated to the student. As soon as the principal realized who he was, he gathered us all in the office to discuss the situation with his son's diabetes management. Needless to say, things got done that day.

    I can't begin to describe the relief I felt to finally not be responsible for something completely out of my control.

  • 0

    You mention that you are introverted, but then state thst you discussed the situation with a number of staff members as well as the manager. Those two bits of information seem to contradict each other.

    Regardless of your personality or comfort level in communicating with others, I believe you owe your co-workers the simple courtesy of speaking to them FIRST when you perceive a problem. I don't know if the nurse you followed skimped on basic care, had an unmanageable workload that shift, or was completely blindsided by your findings @ shift change, but I do know that you chose to make accusations to others without speaking to her first.

    That wouldn't set well with me as a coworker or manager.

  • 1
    VivaLasViejas likes this.

    Quote from VivaLasViejas
    I noticed a glaring omission in the post. What about nurses who are discriminated against because of disability? Whose employers decide they "can't" make reasonable accommodations and let them go?
    My guess is there is not enough money in those cases either.

  • 5
    nursej22, llg, doodlebuttRN, and 2 others like this.

    I detest "write-ups" because they connote a punitive rather than a problem-solving mindset.

    I understand your belief that your "offense" was duly reported, since the on-coming nurse stated that she would write it up. It is a misunderstanding common among newer nurses who, unfortunately spend an inordinate amount of time and energy doing things "by the book" rather than being encouraged to understand the big picture. With a med error, often there is more concern for a missing signature in the MAR (to be discovered by patients, insurers and lawyers), than the implications for the immediate and long term effects on the patient's health, and how best to alleviate them.

    The on-coming nurse may or may not have actually followed thru (promptly or at all) on writing the incident report. Once written, it may have been a day or so before a supervisor read it and was able to go back and track what happened and how it was resolved. What was really far more important in the immediate term was for someone to assess the patient, determine the effect of the missed medication, collaborate with the prescriber, determine what action to take, and revise the care plan/MAR accordingly. This is what I believe your supervisor is getting at. You may have done those things. Your post isn't clear, so I can't say for sure. But when you realized your error, this is what I would have recommended that you do so that all aspects of the situation (patient outcome and your own learning) were clearly defined. Then, by completing an incident report yourself, you could have indicated in writing that you had done everything possible to protect the patient and hospital.

  • 4

    At-will employment does not typically involve a contract. Please check the language of your contract regarding its termination. Most contracts spell out the circumstances under which a contract may be broken (by either employer or employee). One example would be for cause: that you have failed to perform adequately or have violated a policy such as excessive absenteeism, which clearly doesn't apply.
    A second example would be that both parties agree to the termination, which doesn't apply either. The third example would be that they have found an equivalent position for you. That may apply IF you are hired for another position within the district, but not until those details are solidified. Lastly, if the contract is terminated against your will (because of budget cuts), they may be obligated to compensate you financially. This is why it is important NOT to agree to anything until you've spoken to a legal advisor.

    Best of luck to you!

  • 9
    NanaPoo, kschenz, canoehead, and 6 others like this.

    I don't understand how the district can simply "release" themselves from a contractural obligation for full time, teacher-scale employment and salary, unless you agree in writing. I can understand not renewing at the end of the year, but once a contract has been signed and the year has begun, it seems like they should be required to honor it, just as they are doing for the teachers. Isn't that the purpose of a contract?

  • 1
    MrChicagoRN likes this.

    I agree with the information you were given about keeping your original license active, and disagree that there is no difference between placing your license on inactive status versus simply letting it lapse. My perspective reflects my experience over 30 years, and it may be vastly different than other posters, so take it for what it's worth

    I was originally licensed in IL in 1986. I was advised by a nursing school instructor as well as my first nurse manager to always keep my original license active, unless it was not financially feasible to do so. I am glad I took that advice.

    I never imagined working or living anywhere other than IL. But plans and circumstances changed and only 2-1/2 years later, I was moving out of state. Endorsing my license the first time was no big deal. In short, I moved 4 times in 3 years, and ultimately a total of 7 times, never repeating the same location.

    If you are licensed in a compact state and moving to a compact state, or if all states involved use the NURSYS system of license verification, it may not be any big deal whether or not your original license is active. But not all states use the system (IL being one that does not). In that case, the state to which you are applying must contact IL IDPFR directly to verify your information. IL is notoriously slow in responding to these requests, and if you are not a current license holder (and fee payer) you may wait MONTHS for the IL to respond to your request. Having a current, active license hastens this process significantly, at least in the State of IL. Since not all states grant temporary practice permits to out of state license holders, this can mean the difference between working while you wait for license approval or being forced into unemployment for weeks, if not months when moving.

    If you decide that you no longer need a license, I strongly advise taking the few moments necessary to formally place it on inactive status. If you unexpectedly find yourself needing that license again in the future, re-instating it from inactive status is typically a quick and easy process. If it has been allowed to lapse, the state BON may require you to jump thru all kinds of hoops such as documenting a continuous paper trail of active practice and continuing education, as well as paying a financial penalty that is not assessed to inactive licenses. It requires little effort, but can save you headaches in the event that you need to reinstate your license.

    This may or may not apply to the state in which you are licensed, but it is certainly worth checking into. Best of luck to you.

  • 3
    dishes, meanmaryjean, and llg like this.

    I'm sorry that you are unhappy with your current situation. You must weigh the pros and cons of breaking your contract, moving to a new area, starting a new job and new life. No one here can possibly know how your current employer will react, how a future employer will receive you or what your tolerance will be for the financial, social or practical aspects of such a change.

    I am a former nurse manager, currently a hiring manager in a different field and the mother of 2 young adults who will soon be making decisions similar to yours. Please accept my input as it is intended: to help you think about your choices and encourage you to think beyond the immediate term.

    First of all, you have a contract. Undoubtedly it spells out the consequences of failing to complete your agreed-upon term of service. I encourage you to read it and be prepared to accept what is written. If you agreed to a monetary payback of $X for leaving after a year, expect to owe your employer that full amount of money. While it is possible that they will choose not to collect, don't count on it. They invested a significant amount of money in your degree and on the job training, and per your contract, they have a right to a portion of that money back if you do not fulfill your obligation. It's nothing personal. It's their responsibility to hire and train your replacement, and that costs money. If you don't have the money or aren't willing to be in-debt to them, then breaking the contract isn't a good idea. Might you be able to find a new job that would be willing to pay your debt as a type of hiring bonus? Possible, but unlikely. Most positions have multiple applicants. It is not likely that a new employer will be so determined to have you on their staff that they would be willing to pay your debt, but should you get a job offer, you can certainly ask.

    Secondly, I am concerned about your statement that you hate the location where you currently live and hate the people there. I assume that you must have had a somewhat favorable impression of your area and your fellow citizens when you accepted and started your current job. Most people don't voluntarily choose to start a life in an area they dislike, and you don't mention a spouse or other circumstances that forced you to locate here. So I encourage you to thoroughly examine what you are looking for in a community and a job, or I am concerned that you will find yourself equally miserable in a new location a year or two from now. I'm glad that you have heard from others who are happy on the west coast, but please don't mistake that for a guarantee that you will also be happy there. I can assure you that it is NOT the longitude and latitude of their home that makes them happy. It is a sum total of family, friends, health, professional challenge, financial comfort, connectedness, independence, educational opportunities, and many other factors that are specific to each individual.

    Lastly, please understand that while sounding chiche, it is absolutely true that the first year (and really two years) out of school are the most difficult for new professionals. Every workplace has its strengths and weaknesses. You acknowledge that there are some good points to yours. Please make sure that you are evaluating it and any other potential employer objectively and candidly. It is easy to see green grass on the other side of the fence. That grass often turns brown upon closer inspection. Might it be possible and worthwhile to focus on gaining everything possible from your current employer while taking a year to plan a move under more positive circumstances?

    Best of luck to you whatever you decide.

  • 4

    Quote from Julius Seizure
    I've never heard of this "safety sensitive" rule where they can refuse to hire you based on any certain (federally legal) prescription that is found in your drug screen (which you may not even take regularly scheduled prior to a shift).

    Does anyone have examples of what kinds of substances would be on a list like that? Or where I could find more info?

    Can you imagine if a Catholic hospital had a policy that they would not hire anyone who used prescription birth control pills?
    There is no single list of "safety-sensitive medications. The drugs of concern to one employer in a given setting may not be an issue for another employer in a different setting. Those that I know to have been reviewed by various employers have included medications with a high likelihood to impair one's level of alertness, reaction time, judgment, etc. Some significant factors that posters may not be considering include whether the individual works alone or with others, whether s/he operates potentially hazardous equipment or drives in the course of employment, whether the employee is solely responsible for the well-being of minor children or dependent adults at work, the strenuousness of physical activity and cognitive demands of the job, and whether the job requires irregular hours or on-call time that could make it impossible to time medications so that they don't interfere with working hours.

    I was recently involved in a situation where a candidate's drug screen indicated use of a prescribed controlled substance. Because of the sensitive nature of the individual's work (which I won't disclose here), the employee was notified that a discussion with his/her healthcare provider was necessary in order to determine fitness for the job. It was the candidate's physician who indicated that the side effects of the medication rendered the candidate capable of the work required and advised not to hire for THAT position, although there were other that were suitable.

    This type of consultation is allowable and appropriate under the ADA, and protects all parties involved: the candidate, the employer and the individuals served by the employee.

    As for the comment on Catholic employers dis-allowing contraception on urine drug screens, I assume you are trying to engage in hyperbole.

  • 0
  • 3

    Quote from NotAllWhoWandeRN
    No, they can't. The purpose of a drug screen is to identify people who are using substances illegally, period, and it was wrong (possibly illegal, but I can't say with 100% certainty) to disclose drug results before they were verified.

    The hospital CAN have a policy that you cannot work under the influence of a controlled substance, but they CANNOT refuse to hire you for taking something you were prescribed while not at work.

    OP, they've done you wrong, but it isn't rude of Pangea to point out that your anxiety and panic (I'm not trying to label you - just using your words) can affect your perceptions of the situation. Employee health isn't who you work with on the unit. The nurse recruiter isn't who you work with on the unit. HR isn't who you work with on the unit. But it will not help to harass people for not getting things fixed quickly enough. You said you wouldn't wait until the next day because the employee who deals with these things was gone for the day? (hard to tell, you said they leave at 3:30 but didn't say when you called) Then you called the recruiter twice in a row then e-mailed? Your fear and frustration are legitimate because they clearly crossed a line, but if your immediate response is panic, you are only increasing their concern that something is wrong, and feeding into any prejudice they may have. If your goal is to keep the job offer, put on a good face for them - even though they don't deserve it - and give them a day, not 15 minutes, to get things fixed.

    If something like this happens again, you may want to simply say to HR (or whoever calls you besides the testing company) that you do not use any drugs illegally and you will contact the testing company to discuss results. Then the testing company will mark you as negative, and all the employer will know is that there was some sort of error.

    You may also want to contact the testing company to file a complaint. Whoever returned the results to your employer without giving time to verify prescriptions is the one who started this mess.
    My post did not address the legality of disclosing the drug screen results prior to verification. Per federal law and the employer's P&P that may very well have been the wrong thing to do.

    But I stand by my assertion that a prescription is not a blanket "OK" for any substance that is detected on a drug screen. There are medications that have the potential to impair a worker, regardless of legitimate medical use, and under those conditions, an employer does not have to hire the individual for that safety-sensitive job. To do so would invite an incident (and avoidable liability) compromising worker and/or client safety and force the employer to address it retroactively by removing the worker from a position s/he never should have been assigned.

    The ADA may come into play in the instance of a worker with a legitimate prescription for a medication with the potential to impair safe job performance. If the worker claims a disability covered by ADA, then additional steps would need to be taken to protect employment rights, but even that is not a "given" that the employee must be hired for a position with significant safety concerns.

  • 4
    LadyFree28, subee, Marisette, and 1 other like this.

    I am not an expert on drug screening policies and procedures, but it is possible that the applicant was positive for a substance that would have been deemed unacceptable regardless of prescription.

    An employer can disallow medications that might potentially impair an individual in a highly sensitive position regardless of prescription.