Racism in the workplace

[staygold]

Not to be a downer or anything but I have noticed some harsh things said about patients and sometimes even co workers in my unit when they think no one else can hear them. Has anyone else dealt with this?

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

I have to agree. I don't see what the heck some sort of racially/ethnically teamed show is supposed to do for the we're-all-people stance.

It's merely a symptom of our self-segregated society. CBS couldn't capitalize on it if it weren't an issue that strikes a chord with the masses.

The fact that it's controversial to actually design a TV program that mimics our societal self-regulation just points out that we all know, on some level, that we have failed to adequately actualize MLK's dream.

It might be 'crude' for CBS to so obviously point that out. But, it's our - all too real - reality. Why shouldn't it be 'reality TV'?

~faith,

Timothy.

[leslie :-D]

I linked above a very long thread that discussed in detail the current use of this word by our youts. The last several pages has my take on it.

~faith,

Timothy.

i just reread that 30 pg thread, which is still opened btw.

the problem in the workplace (as opposed to a school setting), is employees are expected to adhere to a code of professional conduct.

compounded with not to argue with the pt, there is a real situation of ambiguous solutions.

there's nothing in our p&p manuals addressing racial slurs by pts.

and as in gen'l society, employees in the workplace deal best by looking the other way.

i always say something if i hear this word being used.

but that's me, and only me.

when offended employees have gone to mgmt, they were always told to ignore it: "they're demented": "they're due for a psyche eval and will getting medications to deal with their agitation" and "don't take it personally" (gotta love that one).

no matter what interventions or lack thereof, ultimately one can choose to tolerate it or not....from the pts that is.

sometimes it's ok to just to take pity on their miserable souls.

leslie

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

i just reread that 30 pg thread, which is still opened btw.

the problem in the workplace (as opposed to a school setting), is employees are expected to adhere to a code of professional conduct.

compounded with not to argue with the pt, there is a real situation of ambiguous solutions.

there's nothing in our p&p manuals addressing racial slurs by pts.

and as in gen'l society, employees in the workplace deal best by looking the other way.

i always say something if i hear this word being used.

but that's me, and only me.

when offended employees have gone to mgmt, they were always told to ignore it: "they're demented": "they're due for a psyche eval and will getting medications to deal with their agitation" and "don't take it personally" (gotta love that one).

no matter what interventions or lack thereof, ultimately one can choose to tolerate it or not....from the pts that is.

sometimes it's ok to just to take pity on their miserable souls.

leslie

leslie

Well I will say this: I've heard preachers cuss like a sailor in their demented years. I don't think that means they 'cussed' off the pulpit, but that their 'self-regulation' is impacted by their dx process.

It does no good to 'correct' somebody using slurs because they've lost the ability at self control, be it demetia, or delirium. It's simply not a 'lesson' that type of pt can assimilate: if they could, they probably wouldn't be spouting off in the first place.

Now, somebody that knows darn good and well what they are saying: I am completely at ease treating uncooth behavior curtly. There is an 'inter' in inter-personal relationships, be they personal OR professional. That means that my imput is just as valid to the conversation.

~faith,

Timothy.

[Multicollinearity, BSN, RN]

And i think it's absolutely ridiculous that whether a word is offensive or not depends on the race it's coming from.

In a perfect world these words wouldn't be used. I do know that sometimes it is freeing for a group to claim an offensive word. I'm a bit uncomfortable with it, but I know it can help them. For example, 1/3 of my church is gay or lesbian. I've heard some of the lesbian women saying "hey d*ke" as a greeting, or teasing. I know what they are doing. I still wish they wouldn't though.

[leslie :-D]

We're striving for racial equality in our society - this won't be achieved by claims to being colorblind.

who do you think is striving for racial equality?

[leslie :-D]

It does no good to 'correct' somebody using slurs because they've lost the ability at self control, be it demetia, or delirium. It's simply not a 'lesson' that type of pt can assimilate: if they could, they probably wouldn't be spouting off in the first place.

~faith,

Timothy.

it does no good for who?

you don't think the offended person feels validated when someone is defending their honor?

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

it does no good for who?

you don't think the offended person feels validated when someone is defending their honor?

Possibly.

But, one of the duties of our profession is that nurses get a much more up close and personal view of the 'underside' of our society. Ask any ER nurse about that. Shoot, any nurse. I'm not chiding you, just pointing it out.

It might do some good to point out to an offended co-worker that you disagree.

But:

1. They should know this about you based our your previous experiences with them.

2. Part of being a professional in this business IS the ability to deal with the issues within our society that impact people at their most vulnerable. A professional, in my opinion, should be able to understand this without the need to be 'defended'.

3. IF a pt is in a situation where they cannot evaluate the morality of thier speech, pointing out and correcting the immorality of it is a valuation of that pt's morality at a time when they are most vulverable.

When we measure immorality, criminal or otherwise, we tend to focus - and rightly so - on 'intent'. I see no need to correct a moral lapse when the ability to evaluate 'intent' is lacking for medical reasons; for that person, it wasn't a 'lapse' - it wasn't a matter of an inappropriate CHOICE.

And, if a healthcare worker can't understand this and shake it off: this MIGHT be the wrong line of work. Because, we ARE the frontline for such things. Nurses have been 'accused' of being 'angels' for generations. I think we, just like real angels, are privy to some of humanity's most sordid behavior. IF they couldn't deal with it, they wouldn't be very effective being our guardians.

And if we can't deal with it, we wouldn't be very effective, either. That's not to say that we shouldn't 'reproof' bad behavior (just like that angel on our shoulder does all the time). But it does mean that we don't place value judgments on behavior uncontrollable by the actors.

Again, I'm not talking about pts that know good and well of which they speak.

~faith,

Timothy.

[Marie_LPN, RN, LPN, RN]

I do know that sometimes it is freeing for a group to claim an offensive word.

It's freeing to some, yet confusing and restrictive to others. Instead of solving a problem, it's creating a new one.

[leslie :-D]

i understand my nsg role perfectly; and all of its' implications.

even the 'offendees' know the difference between a pathological process vs. a mean and miserable disposition.

but even the codes of professional conduct are not so clearly defined by my nurse practice act.

our profession especially is laden with moral and ethical scenarios.

our npa can try and dictate the 'whats' of their expectations.

it is not defined as to 'how'.

and so, it is up to us as individuals, as to the battles we choose and fight.

i can only try and coexist on this earth, as peacefully as possible.

my profession does not define me or my relationship w/man, even if they're my patients.

rather, it is my unique character as an individual on this planet, that will define my relationship in and out of work.

we all deal with our pts as we deem appropriate.

it's a personal application to the art of nsg, not a science.

one nurse might assess the pt to be cognizant of their actions.

another nsg might note an altered ms w/the same pt.

if a pt is delirious, then he cannot be held responsible for what he says.

and the same for moderate to advanced dementia.

working in hospice for 10+ yrs has afforded me to see the worst of the worst of human trauma.

if one of my pts casually uses the 'n' word, i casually redirect w/the name of that person.

most times, it has no effect w/the pt.

but it sure has boosted an ominous morale, even if it's one employee.

so even if it is about the nurse-pt relationship, i happen to think those confines should be expanded to encompass all involved w/this pt.

furthermore, i'm not declaring war when i protest the use of this word.

it's not big drama: just matter-of-fact redirection or limit setting.

i don't do it necessarily for the pt.

i just happen to think a harmonious workplace is more productive and therapeutic to all present.

leslie

[madwife2002, BSN, RN]

i understand my nsg role perfectly; and all of its' implications.

even the 'offendees' know the difference between a pathological process vs. a mean and miserable disposition.

but even the codes of professional conduct are not so clearly defined by my nurse practice act.

our profession especially is laden with moral and ethical scenarios.

our npa can try and dictate the 'whats' of their expectations.

it is not defined as to 'how'.

and so, it is up to us as individuals, as to the battles we choose and fight.

i can only try and coexist on this earth, as peacefully as possible.

my profession does not define me or my relationship w/man, even if they're my patients.

rather, it is my unique character as an individual on this planet, that will define my relationship in and out of work.

we all deal with our pts as we deem appropriate.

it's a personal application to the art of nsg, not a science.

one nurse might assess the pt to be cognizant of their actions.

another nsg might note an altered ms w/the same pt.

if a pt is delirious, then he cannot be held responsible for what he says.

and the same for moderate to advanced dementia.

working in hospice for 10+ yrs has afforded me to see the worst of the worst of human trauma.

if one of my pts casually uses the 'n' word, i casually redirect w/the name of that person.

most times, it has no effect w/the pt.

but it sure has boosted an ominous morale, even if it's one employee.

so even if it is about the nurse-pt relationship, i happen to think those confines should be expanded to encompass all involved w/this pt.

furthermore, i'm not declaring war when i protest the use of this word.

it's not big drama: just matter-of-fact redirection or limit setting.

i don't do it necessarily for the pt.

i just happen to think a harmonious workplace is more productive and therapeutic to all present.

leslie

well written i admire you so much, you incorporate everything I believe in

[Sheri257]

What's this got to do with racism in the workplace?

I think it's got a lot to do with racisim in the workplace and everywhere else, for that matter. We've just read instances of patients calling African American staff the N-work as an example of racism in the workplace. Yet, when you turn on the television, radio, etc. there's some very prominent African American entertainers using that word on a regular basis in movies, songs, etc.

There's obvious problems with this. It can be interpreted that there's no longer a racist association with that word and that the N-word is ok. Or, it can also make people who are racist more comfortable using it.

Whatever the case may be, it definitely blurs the lines and, IMHO, actually encourages racism by keeping that word alive.

It's freeing to some, yet confusing and restrictive to others. Instead of solving a problem, it's creating a new one.

I agree.

:typing

[NurseLatteDNP, MSN, DNP, RN]

It's merely a symptom of our self-segregated society. CBS couldn't capitalize on it if it weren't an issue that strikes a chord with the masses.

The fact that it's controversial to actually design a TV program that mimics our societal self-regulation just points out that we all know, on some level, that we have failed to adequately actualize MLK's dream.

It might be 'crude' for CBS to so obviously point that out. But, it's our - all too real - reality. Why shouldn't it be 'reality TV'?

~faith,

Timothy.

Here is an interesting link http://news.yahoo.com/s/eo/20060825/en_tv_eo/19855