I live near the gulf where evacuating for hurricanes is a possibility around this time. The hospital where I work places nurses on teams. One team is forced to say, the other forced to come back 24 hrs after the hurricane is gone, and the other can come back when regular citizens come back.
My question can they legally do this? I was placed on the team that's forced to stay in the hospital with pts. They'll keep ICU, ER and MY floor open only.
There will be no extra pay, no bonus, just regular pay and time and 1/2 when you're in over time. Expected to sleep in the hospital, in semi-pvt room WITH ANOTHER CO-WORKER!
If the evacuation is mandatory how can they legally tell me to stay and WORK? Can I be fired for leaving?
I suppose in every industry in America (or Canada or anywhere else in the free world) instead of insist on proper treatment of ALL workers, everyone should just decide to accept the status quo or leave....
As I already alluded to in my previous posts, there are industries that expect and require much of the same from their employees (I used my father as an example) but with ample reimbursement for their time, commitment and risks. Time and a half pay along with the other aforementioned conditions is atrocious and only tolerated because the employees have no power to represent themselves here. I find it disgusting that institutions use "abandonment of patients" as a shield for inexplicable treatment of nurses.
I agree and well said. Almost every area of the US is in some type of natural disaster zone. Here it is horrendous snow storms, occasional flooding, and tornados. We have disaster plans and non of them require nurses to basically be on-call 24-7 /365 which it sounds like this hospital wants them to do. A lot of time policies are made because of fear and don't take into account the actual needs of the situation.
Specializes in Critical Care, ED, Cath lab, CTPAC,Trauma.
You are absolutely right. I am still a nursing student, but I have learned from this post a great deal of things I will need to plan out before I get out there in the real deal! I NEVER even thought this was a possibility... I am in Georgia, although hurricanes are not a scare here, tornadoes are... and of course, everyone has to be prepared for events like 9/11 and the Aurora, CO massacre- which I am sure is considered a mandatory stay at hospitals... right?
Thank you for bringing it to my attention... I will be speaking with my family about planning for such events in the near future!
It is the unexpected emergencies that count as well. Imagine 9/11. Imagine Joplin.......the hospital is torn to pieces and you don't know what happened to your children/family/pets. But you have wounded, critically injured public seeking shelter and patients terrified and injured that must be organized and evacuated.
What if....for whatever reason.....someone comes to where you are working and has small pox.....the government CDC quarantines the facility. The nuclear med department has a radiation explosion and the hospital is quarantined. I have locked down a 300 bed facility twice for internal disasters.......you must have a plan.
I made a choice to be a nurse and I made a choice to be a Mom. But if the two have a conflict and I have no choice I will choose my children every time. I was lucky when I worked my husband had the kids and I knew he could keep them safe but if I was the sole caregiver.....my decisions would probably be different....... if I couldn't have them with me at the facility then I would not be at the facility either. I live 1100 miles form ANY family.
I suppose in every industry in America (or Canada or anywhere else in the free world) instead of insist on proper treatment of ALL workers, everyone should just decide to accept the status quo or leave. I'm not disputing that her option may very well be "like it or leave it" as things currently stand, but that entire attitude is one that gets little accomplished, as I pointed out.
So were YOU involved in forming the union that's helped you have better working conditions? If not, the hard part was already done for you. It's easy to criticize us for not being willing to be local nursing Norma Rae characters when you are reaping the benefits of what was done without having to face the consequences of being such a character.
Before anyone gets too judgmental on those who do not want to stay during an evacuation, I'd suggest they read this blog from a nurse who stayed during Hurricane Katrina.
It's an important read for any of us. Note at the end of the blog she loses her job, health insurance etc for her trouble.
The last statement makes it seem like the hospital fired her which it didn't. The hospital didn't exist anymore and at the time of the blog writing she didn't know if her health insurance would be extended etc since communication wasn't exactly reliable. Although it was wrong I do think it says something that the hospital was more concerned with getting the staff choppered out than the visitors that had chosen to stay.
Specializes in Hospice, corrections, psychiatry, rehab, LTC.
I apologize that my character count is too high for you, but issues such as this are not discussed effectively in twitter-speak or bumper sticker messages.
Condescending statements insulting the intelligence of people who disagree with you will not win you many allies. There have been many replies in this thread that have been less than tactful. However, when you vent in a public forum you usually get responses on both sides of the issue, and sometimes emotions become involved. Tact is often at a premium. There has been enough gasoline thrown on this particular fire, IMO.
I don't fault the OP on her opinion. It is part of the job to have to stay if it's in your contract, but nursing is job. I'm not altruistic and I don't work for free or for slave wages. If staying for a disaster is a part of the job, then I should be payed for my sacrifice, risk and dedication to get there. If I'm at work, I should be payed for every second I'm working or if I have to stay, sleeping. If I'm not getting paid, then that means I'm off the clock and should be free to go home. For those who say they hate those who go into nursing for the money, I say volunteer or donate all your wages to your employer to validate your statement. As much as it costs in time, money, and effort to become a nurse, you know you wouldn't work for free! I believe if a nurse is good at what she does and is competent, her motivation is irrelevant. It's more important for her to be skilled, with a professional demeanor. The only reason you shouldn't be a nurse if it shows you don't like it or if you're harming/killing your patients with incompetence. People need to stay in their lane when it comes to the personal motivations of others.
I live on the Gulf Coast, too. Our hospital, every year before hurricane season, re-posts the policy for these kinds of emergencies and the criteria for exemption. If you meet the criteria - I can't remember what they are because I don't meet them, but I guess it's single parents and such - you don't have to stay and camp out. I do think they still expect you to do your shifts, though. (Administrators aren't exempt from the disaster duty.)
I haven't had to do it yet, and I'm sure it would deeply suck. And yeah, not getting compensation for that inconvenience could be seen as an imposition. But if a disastrous hurricane, for example, struck the area, this inconvenience could be only the first, and the smallest, of many worsening problems. I think the disaster itself is the imposition. The hospital has to plan to meet the needs of the community. The reality is, though, that you're likely to lose your job if you fail to fulfill the expectations, and you might even lose your license unless you've got a great defense - like being on your way to work but you were physically blocked by rushing waters and the like. Revulsion at the idea of camping out in the facility, or sharing a room, is no defense. You've been notified that this is expected, and taken the position (or not resigned if you found out after you started), so you are on the hook, as it stands now.
A few months back we had sudden severe storms that closed bridges, and a coworker couldn't make it to work. I guess, theoretically, she could have driven the land route, which would have taken about two hours longer in that weather. So about three hours driving in a tropical storm. She called off, and still has a job. Now, if it were a real disaster, maybe she wouldn't. We do have a few people who have that kind of drive, and I don't think they can all be exempted because of it, if we have a disaster. But do I think they will all show up? No. If push comes to shove, they might have to account for not meeting their obligations. I mean, if you know this could happen, one could say, don't take the job that's impossible to get to in bad weather. On the other hand, it's soooo common to have to drive over a major body of water to get to work around here, it's just not something you'd rule a position out for.
Some of the responses were way harsh, though. This isn't an indication of poor character. I don't think the OP is selfish. The prospect of disaster duty is daunting, and maybe not all nurses are suited to it. It's something we each need to figure out for ourselves. She just wanted to know where she stood, and was venting a little. We do vent to each other here, ya know. Cut her some slack.
Specializes in Oncology; medical specialty website.
so for those of you who believe your kids come first:
what if your kid is in the hospital when the disaster/emergency/hurricane/snowmageddon/2012 hits? i assume you'll be very understanding that your child gets abandoned in the hospital without care because all those nurses abandoned their patients to care for their kids?
it won't be a problem. a magic fairy will sprinkle plenty of childless nurses (aka "nurses without lives") who will take care of them.
so for those of you who believe your kids come first:
what if your kid is in the hospital when the disaster/emergency/hurricane/snowmageddon/2012 hits? i assume you'll be very understanding that your child gets abandoned in the hospital without care because all those nurses abandoned their patients to care for their kids?
i think most of us would prefer someone else take disaster duty. or that disasters don't come our way. and that life didn't offer these kinds of issues, where we might have to pit our obligations against each other. i can see situations where i'd choose to care for family rather than go to work and care for strangers, and that choice might have consequences for me, and it might have consequences for the community. life can be unforgiving. if you don't want to face that kind of choice, you might need to take a job that doesn't require that, and maybe make less money or have other tradeoffs.
by the op: the hospital should close it's doors, or pay me some extra money. i don't see being a nurse as "i put my life on the line for you" type of job. i am not a police officer, fire fighter...etc
and when a mandatory evac. is issued 911 services are stopped. no one will answer you are told "you're on your own" if you stay.
op, you're just plain wrong. if you needed medical care, you'd be very upset if the hospital closed its doors. a hospital is not like a restaurant. it can't just "close its doors". in a disaster there will be a lot of people in great need, and if the facility is there to take their money when times are good, the flip side is, they gotta be there when all hell breaks loose, too.
you might not "see" it as putting your life on the line, but life may not care how you see it. i myself would not volunteer for disaster duty at this point and time in my life, but if it's thrust upon me, i'll do it. and in a disaster, all bets are off. who's to say i'd be safer somewhere else? and if i had obligations at home, i'd either have a plan in place or deal with the consequences of not. what i'm saying is, life is what it is. if my city is hit with a disaster, my friends and neighbors will be struggling and suffering, and probably so would i. when that happens, not getting overtime, or having to share a room, will score pretty low on the misery index.
and if a mandatory evacuation is announced, the police and firefighters will not go into the evac area and rescue people who refused to obey. but you better believe they are still working whatever crazy hours need to be worked, to the point of exhaustion, and sleeping on cots in hallways if need be, for the duration. there will be plenty of people not in actual evacuation zones who will need help.
no slams on your character here, but it just seems that perhaps you need some other kind of nursing job; maybe some other kind of job entirely, if you actually will not do what's required in this kind of situation. maybe it wasn't made clear to you as you investigated nursing as a career, or maybe you just didn't want to hear it; i don't know. but you need to know, now at least and finally, that this is how it is.
msn10
560 Posts
I agree and well said. Almost every area of the US is in some type of natural disaster zone. Here it is horrendous snow storms, occasional flooding, and tornados. We have disaster plans and non of them require nurses to basically be on-call 24-7 /365 which it sounds like this hospital wants them to do. A lot of time policies are made because of fear and don't take into account the actual needs of the situation.