Group One background checks in Texas

ree-nee · Apr 17, 2006

It is to the point I have NOTHING to lose, so I contacted the "investigation" team at Fox four. They may never respond, but I will continue to contact them, then other news stations until someone FINALLY says..............................ok, enough, NO MORE e-mails from this person and they look into it. I am not saying get rid of GO, all I want is more protection from a one-sided verdict. Heck, even in our legal system we are suppose to be innocent until guilty and guaranteed proper legal representation. Heck, If I would of robbed a bank, at least an atty would have already visited me at the jailhouse. BUT, if my nurse manager does not like me............................well, I have to look into it myself.

Personally,i think this is the best idea to get an immediate response. No major corporation likes negative attention and doing this would definitely put the DFW healthcare facilites and GroupOne in a horrible light and if they get enough attention maybe they would rethink some policies. The best thing to do is to have the media put a spin on it that shows a disadvantage to the welfare of the general public, sort like "Did you know that the healthcare facilities that treat the public are understaffed by X% and a reason for this is because of the abuse of GroupOne services....Now the quality and efficiency of care is being effected yadda yadda yadda There are plenty of qualified nurses for a starving industry but this company is putting up a roadblock that is unique to DFW area"...u might get a reaction...Id be pissed if I was a citizen in the area. I mean, other major metroplexes have excellent healthcare systems without companies like this-why does this area have this protocol at all in the first place and why is it allowed to be used maliciously in the way that it is?

RN34TX · Apr 17, 2006

It is to the point I have NOTHING to lose, so I contacted the "investigation" team at Fox four. They may never respond, but I will continue to contact them, then other news stations until someone FINALLY says..............................ok, enough, NO MORE e-mails from this person and they look into it. I am not saying get rid of GO, all I want is more protection from a one-sided verdict. Heck, even in our legal system we are suppose to be innocent until guilty and guaranteed proper legal representation. Heck, If I would of robbed a bank, at least an atty would have already visited me at the jailhouse. BUT, if my nurse manager does not like me............................well, I have to look into it myself.

They may not respond but I still think it's a step in the right direction and a good idea.

When I lived in Dallas it was Becky Oliver who did those Fox news investigations. Is she still doing it?

I vaguely remember her going undercover as a CNA in a nursing home to bust the poor care that was supposedly being provided there. I don't remember whatever became of that.

I'm sure that the ABC, NBC or CBS affiliates in Dallas have similar investigative teams. Contact them as well.

RN34TX · Apr 17, 2006

I know Texas RN's are vehemently anti-union (which is weird since they seem to need unions more than anybody else) but .... I do hope something can be done to change things there. If not union then, perhaps something else because ... this is insane.
I continue to be stunned by the way RN's are treated in Texas.:typing

But are TX RN's that passionately anti-union?

Is that why we don't have unions here?

I'm not sure and rarely get into any discussion about it at work.

I'm asking because I took a TX government course last semester as required by TX law for anyone graduating from a state school.

I can't remember all of the details at this point but I thought that the "right to work" state laws literally prevented unions from materializing here and that we really have no choice in the matter.

Am I wrong or confused about the facts?

I'm not exactly pro or anti union myself having worked both at different times.

But I do know that not having a union is certainly not helping TX nurses either way.

Group One is a prime example of how easily nurses can be bullied.

**canoehead, BSN, RN** · Apr 17, 2006

Sign me up as an RN who will never even consider a job in Texas because of this practice.

leigh21 · Apr 17, 2006

I just followed the "icon" on their website, I honestly cannot remember the last time I saw a Becky Oliver report. I do know they are still "investigating" issues in the metroplex, use see the commercials all the time. I have decided that I will contact all the News companies, how would you like to have a loved one in the hospital and they lose a limb, use of their legs, or their life because they are short handed?????????????? They can investigate on hundreds of issues, I think if they would really enjoy this one if "whoever" reads the e-mails passes it on or however it works. I am sure their would be quite a negative response from the public because "grandpa" or "grandma," or whoever did not get the help in time due to employee shortage. And they see on the news......................GROUPONE, I know I would be furious if it were a family member of mine.

The union thing, my only hang up would be the overtime issue. I don't know how many of you pick up extra shifts, especially around the holidays, for the extra cash. I don't want an organization governing that or they say we can't work 2 hour shifts. I like my work week over in a few days. If we could have a union and this would not be a big hang-up I would be all for it, taht way we would not have this GO crapppppppppppppp..

pickledpepperRN · Apr 17, 2006

I am thinking about many different thoughts on this thread. Please excuse me for putting so much on one post.

An RN colleague was terminated at my hospital for a “hurried tone of voice” on the telephone. As nurse representative (like a steward) I attended her meetings with management through several steps. When we were meeting with the DON that manager told of many “offenses” like asking for assistance with a patient about to crash, being rude to a family member when discharging a patient (she was not working that day), and returning to the unit to return alcohol swabs, Band-Aids, and such.

The RN finally asked, “I just don’t know why you don’t like me.”

The manager stood, clenched her fists, turned red, and shouted, “Because you look like the woman my husband left me for.”

She kept her job and the manager resigned.

With Group One and no grievance procedure?

--------------------

One of the nurses at my hospital often works six 12 hour shifts in a week. Amazingly she is great to work with and cheerful to. Excellent nurse. Our contract states a staff nurse can 'bump' a registry nurse. The nurse will be first cancelled, cannot work for one who wants the shift off.

-------------------

A right to work state is where a law prohibits mandatory membership in a union as a requirement of employment.

http://www.answers.com/topic/right-to-work-laws

There are unions in Texas and other right to work states. A plus is that no one complains about having to pay dues. Membership is voluntary.

Firefighters, police, engineers, and others - http://www.xpdnc.com/links/loustx.html

Teachers - http://www.tsta.org/

They have a credit union - http://www.cuoftexas.org/

100% of the professional firefighters in Flagstaff Arizona are members of their union by choice. - http://www.pffaz.org/pages/home.html http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/congress/9874/index.html

Sheri257 · Apr 17, 2006

But I do know that not having a union is certainly not helping TX nurses either way.
Group One is a prime example of how easily nurses can be bullied.

I'd be willing to bet that if California hospitals tried to pull something like this ... the unions would scream bloody murder. They'd probably try to take it to court. And if they couldn't win in court they'd probably be lobbying the legislature to ban this practice. And, if that didn't work, they'd probably organize a bunch of protests, raise a big stink with the public and threaten to strike if necessary.

That is the one good thing about unions, at least in California. When the hospital industry and the governor tried to attack the ratio law multiple times ... the union lawyers sued them constantly and won their cases every time. It was expensive, but they had the membership base and union dues to pay for it.

I notice some have said that all of this is legal. Maybe so but ... it would really be interesting to see what union lawyers ... or any lawyers representing the RN point of view ... would have to say about the legality of all of this. Because it doesn't seem to be legal to me.

However, even if it is illegal ... Texas RN's would need some kind of well funded organization ... union or otherwise ... to fight it.

:typing

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Apr 17, 2006

Membership is voluntary in a right to work state, but a union cannot negotiate a deal that is better than for non-union employees. So, any deal the union negotiates has to apply to non-union employees, as well.

That includes salary, conflict resolution, the whole deal.

Would you pay dues for things that you can get without having to pay dues to get? And that is the point. A union might well pass but, since it's benefits are mandatory but dues are voluntary, that union can never get decent membership.

As a result, very few unions fight to get into a 'right to work' state. Those states would surely increase the unions' numbers, but it would cost the union to maintain those numbers in those states.

I personally live in Texas and I'm anti-union. Unions don't offer anything I want.

'But you can be fired without cause' - yes, but I can leave without cause. This works both ways. In order to get the real benefit of being in a union, you have to have seniority. You are either embedded to the system, or indebted to it. And I like mobility; it's one of the real benefits of being an RN, I can work anywhere.

'But Unions negotiate better wages' - Sorry, I haven't seen that. I make very good wages right now.

'Unions protect ratios' - Texas has a 'safe harbor' provision under it's NPA that allows nurses a process to defend against understaffing. And it IS effective because it's tied to liability. If I declare 'safe-harbor', I am legally transferring liability for an unsafe assignment to management. And my experience: management NEVER fails to address the situation.

I agree that Group One is wrong. I would never work for a Group One hospital. These hospitals ARE primarily limited to the DFW area, though. And, I think GO is the reason why unions will eventually get a foothold in Texas. And the hospitals in DFW that unionize as a result of their coercive tactics with GO - they totally deserve it.

~faith,

Timothy.

Sheri257 · Apr 17, 2006

I agree that Group One is wrong. I would never work for a Group One hospital. These hospitals ARE primarily limited to the DFW area, though. And, I think GO is the reason why unions will eventually get a foothold in Texas. And the hospitals in DFW that unionize as a result of their coercive tactics with GO - they totally deserve it.

True ... but, as you pointed out with this quote ... unions might not have incentive to do it.

Would you pay dues for things that you can get without having to pay dues to get? And that is the point. A union might well pass but, since it's benefits are mandatory but dues are voluntary, that union can never get decent membership.
As a result, very few unions fight to get into a 'right to work' state. Those states would surely increase the unions' numbers, but it would cost the union to maintain those numbers in those states.

As the fight over the ratio law demonstrates ... it takes a lot of money to win these battles for RN's. It took the unions five years to get the law passed. Then the union had to go to court multiple times to defend the law. All of this cost a lot of money ... it wasn't cheap ... because you're fighting the entire hospital industry.

So if the odds are stacked against the union where the law makes it very difficult to get that membership base and, consequently, the dues money to pay for these things ... how can they launch a battle to take on Group One? It doesn't seem to be a likely scenario.

:typing

leigh21 · Apr 18, 2006

I have to think about my family. I cannot even imagine moving them from their friends and loved one's due to DFW hospitals and their malicious tactics. This was not something even mentioned in Nursing School. The union thing, if it is the future of Texas, I will have to cross that bridge when it gets here. Right now, I have to focus my attention on clearing my name with GO. I have e-mailed every news station in the metroplex and went back to look at Fox4 and Becky Oliver is there!! I initailly contacted the "iteam" but since I was e-mailing I contacted her as well. I have it set up with just a few clicks of the mouse, every day until I get some sort of response I will resend my e-mail to every news station in DFW again.

RN34TX · Apr 18, 2006

'Unions protect ratios' - Texas has a 'safe harbor' provision under it's NPA that allows nurses a process to defend against understaffing. And it IS effective because it's tied to liability. If I declare 'safe-harbor', I am legally transferring liability for an unsafe assignment to management. And my experience: management NEVER fails to address the situation.
~faith,
Timothy.

I'd like to point out here that "Safe Harbor" has it's limitations in protecting nurses and does not even come close to being any type of equivalent to CA's mandatory staffing ratios.

When declaring "Safe Harbor" during an unsafe staffing situation, you become shielded from any disciplinary action from the TX BNE if something were to go wrong or a patient gets hurt or killed because of an unsafe assignment.

It does not, however, provide any protection whatsoever from a patient or family bringing lawsuits against the nurse if something goes wrong during their shift and someone gets hurt or killed.

This is a very important distinction for nurses practicing in a state that is consistently among the highest in the nation in lawsuits brought on by patients and family members.

My malpractice premiums skyrocketed (more than tripled) when I moved to TX and this is why.

I'd also like to point out that although I've never had to declare Safe Harbor myself, I've worked on units where it was done and witnessed severe retaliatory action against the nurses who declared it.

Nothing unusual in a Texas hospital.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Apr 18, 2006

I'd like to point out here that "Safe Harbor" has it's limitations in protecting nurses and does not even come close to being any type of equivalent to CA's mandatory staffing ratios.
When declaring "Safe Harbor" during an unsafe staffing situation, you become shielded from any disciplinary action from the TX BNE if something were to go wrong or a patient gets hurt or killed because of an unsafe assignment.
It does not, however, provide any protection whatsoever from a patient or family bringing lawsuits against the nurse if something goes wrong during their shift and someone gets hurt or killed.
This is a very important distinction for nurses practicing in a state that is consistently among the highest in the nation in lawsuits brought on by patients and family members.
My malpractice premiums skyrocketed (more than tripled) when I moved to TX and this is why.
I'd also like to point out that although I've never had to declare Safe Harbor myself, I've worked on units where it was done and witnessed severe retaliatory action against the nurses who declared it.
Nothing unusual in a Texas hospital.

Yes and no.

1. You're right, it doesn't shield from civil damages, but, big BUT here, it does shift the blame to the hospital. A nurse that can show that s/he tried to get the hospital to address the concern through safe-harbor is a very credible witness. I find it difficult to believe that a jury would find against that nurse and much more likely to believe that a declaration of safe-harbor would cause such a verdict to go much more against the hospital. This is why hospitals, in my experience, bend over backwards to address safe-harbor issues.

2. The law specifically shields against retaliation even though you and I both know that retaliatory action can and does occur anyway. I agree, I would never declare safe-harbor lightly as it could be a CLM (career limiting move).

But, if I had to choose between my job or my license, IT IS AN EFFECTIVE TOOL. It is a limited protection, I agree. But when used, it is a potent one.

Basically, safe-harbor is nurse initiated peer review of the nurses above them for staffing decisions. That DOES make waves. The first time it was used, my decent sized hospital didn't even have a standing peer review committee to forward the complaint. They do, now. (I actually suggested to the nurse that first declared it that it might not be to our advantage to teach the hospital how to do peer-review. But, if you can't use it, it's of no value. . .)

~faith,

Timothy.