Nurse Beaten by Patient Denied Request for Unpaid Time Off and Fired
Imagine being beaten on the job, needing multiple surgeries, and then being told that you can't have more time off and ultimately being terminated. This isn't just an example scenario for Tina Suckow, an Iowa nurse.
In 2018, TIna Suckow, a 49-year old nurse, was brutally beaten by a patient at a state mental facility in Iowa. Suckow had been employed there for over 4 years when the incident occurred. A "code red" alert was issued, and multiple staff members responded, one of whom was Suckow.
A patient, who is said to have been in a manic episode, was throwing furniture and threatening physical violence. Staff members brought in a "turtle shield,” an assault-protection device the facility had recently purchased, but not yet trained staff to use. Shortly after this device was brought out, Suckow became trapped between the shield and the patient. She was then beaten unconscious and hospitalized with injuries to her shoulder, knee, and head. She has undergone several surgeries and continues to need medical treatment today.
During the incident, officials at the facility didn't call law enforcement to investigate the situation, which has left Suckow feeling like a target. "I'm not the criminal here,” said Suckow, "I didn't do anything wrong.” The Nursing Director at the facility, Georgeanne Cassidy-Westcott sent an email two days after the incident informing staff about the opportunity to use the "turtle shield" and stated that while they had not trained on the use of the device, it was "fairly effective" when used in this situation.
Suckow contends that during her time off, she was not treated fairly. She reports that other staff who were off for medical reasons were allowed to send in paperwork electronically. However, Suckow was required to make a two-hour round-trip drive to deliver her paperwork in person.
After her federally mandated time-off ended, Suckow made two requests. First, she requested catastrophic leave, which would allow other employees to donate sick time so that Suckow could extend her time on payroll. This was denied. Her second request was for time off without pay. However, the state rejected this request as well and is protected to do so under a 2017 state law that limits government employee unions to negotiate on the employees' behalf for anything except pay.
According to a ucomm blog article, the union reports that terminations and forced resignations have tripled since the 2017 law went into effect. Some people in Iowa believe this number is low because it doesn't account for state workers who have been forced to resign and others who like Suckow, have been injured on the job. In fact, Suckow's state employment record doesn't even list her as being terminated.
Another result of this legislation is that hospitals are now struggling more with being understaffed, which places patients and workers at risk of more safety concerns. Danny Homan, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Iowa Council 16 told the Des Moines Register, "Any reasonable human being should have concern because if it's OK for the state of Iowa to treat workers this way, then Casey's can do it, Ruan can do it, any employers in the state of Iowa can do it.”
Even in light of this horrific situation that Suckow has endured, lawmakers still support the 2017 law. State Rep Steven Holt, helped to get the bill passed. He believes the changes have created a fairer balance between workers' rights and government operations. He told the Des Moines Register, "There are plenty of horror stories to go around in the old system as well.” Holt also believes that a connection between unfair treatment by managers can't be tied to the law.
Should lawmakers and citizens of Iowa accept the 2017 law because it's not "worse" than the previous law? Or, should the union and the employee have more rights in this situation?
She failed to consult an attorney, obviously. If she had, she would have been aware she could take as much time as needed without losing her job. If she was still having surgeries, she wasn't ready to be off worker's comp.
Unfortunately, this may not be the case. The state of Iowa does not like employees who file lawsuits against their employers. I was told by attorney once that if I wanted to continue to work in the state of Iowa I would not bring any type of case before the courts because the courts tend to find for the employer and once in the system I would be considered a "problem employee" and would probably never work in the state of Iowa again.
Also, I don't think it is OK for corrections officers to not be covered under the collective bargaining agreement either. I have a friend who is a corrections officer and I don't think it is right that he is not able to negotiate for his rights as well.
The original article goes into far more detail. I suggest anyone interested read it.
She is claiming the 2017 collective bargaining law, which was upheld in court, is the big argument. That's like saying the federal law that enforces public highways' grade and quality standards would have kept me from stubbing my toe on a cracked sidewalk. The article cites an employee that got a 1.1million dollar ruling for failure to provide him adequate accommodation under the American's with disabilities act. She is arguing that she never should have been removed from the payroll where as nothing is really said about her not being able to apply to get REhired. Something is amiss here. What about workman's comp vs FMLA? So she got fired because of a simple "can't perform work duties after 12 weeks? You're fired." policy. That's the policy. Who says she can't reapply? Also, nothing is said about, if she stays on the payroll without pay, does that mean the unit is down a nurse and stays understaffed because they can't hire anyone to fill the gap (that affects the whole unit by causing staffing limits/pt ratios). Also, exactly how long would she need to recover? a year? 2 years? Does she know? A lot is made about the 2017 law, but not a lot is made about her actual situation. If she is discriminated against by being KEPT from applying to be rehired, she could sue using the precedent of the 1.1million dollar case cited above. I just think we jump to blaming the law before simply trying to resolve a bad situation at the ground level first. The law isn't changing from a suit. The court has already decided. the legislature would have to change it. But I doubt the legislature would be persuaded by a case like this when other avenues haven't been pursued (like reapplying for a new position). Its not like she, a 4 year employee, had a HUGE amount invested in that one position.
So no, I disagree that we have to go the route of rewriting laws solely on the basis of situations like this nurse. A situation that would go that route is if something affects whole sectors of employees at once. Collective bargaining policy should be called into question on a bigger scale than the individual (hence the term "collective"). Again, if her remaining on the active employee list affects the unit in terms of staffing ratios or other issues, I can understand the unit wanting to be able to get her out so they can get someone else in to fill the position. There are more complicated issues in this individual case that don't necessitate blaming a state law. interesting read in any case.
This isn't to say I agree with the law. But cases like this IMO don't really directly implicate the law as the actual problem. Iowa appears to have a serious problem with lateral violence in state agencies. That should be addressed, absolutely. My argument is that the Suckow situation isn't a good basis to argue a law change.
Also as an aside, she really shouldn't have been attempting to restrain the pt. Apparently she got caught between the turtle shield and the pt and that's how she got injured. Why didn't she just get out of the way? I'm not blaming her but I get the feeling this could have ended better if she had just stayed out of the way and let the people with the shield handle it.
Specializes in Clinical Research, Outpt Women's Health.
I don't know. That all makes legal sense 10G, but she was doing her best to do her job and got horribly injured in that process. Seems like she should have been paid until she was physically cleared to resume her duties.
I'm not a lawyer. I did my best to wade through the law. I don't really understand the idea that no collective bargain can include agreements about anything other than wages :
20.22 Binding arbitration. 1. If an impasse persists ten days after the mediator has been appointed, the board shall have the power, upon request of either party, to arrange for arbitration, which shall be binding.
7. For an arbitration involving a bargaining unit that has at least thirty percent of members who are public safety employees, the arbitrator shall consider and specifically address in the arbitrator’s determination, in addition to any other relevant factors, the following factors:
b. Comparison of wages, hours, and conditions of employment of the involved public employees with those of other public employees doing comparable work, giving consideration to factors peculiar to the area and the classifications involved.
20.22 7b seems to suggest more than wages can be considered under arbitration.
20.9 Scope of negotiations. 1. For negotiations regarding a bargaining unit with at least thirty percent of members who are public safety employees, the public employer and the employee organization shall meet at reasonable times, including meetings reasonably in advance of the public employer’s budget-making process, to negotiate in good faith with respect to wages, hours, vacations, insurance, holidays, leaves of absence, shift differentials, overtime compensation, supplemental pay, seniority, transfer procedures, job classifications, health and safety matters, evaluation procedures, procedures for staff reduction, in-service training, grievance procedures for resolving any questions arising under the agreement, and other matters mutually agreed upon. For negotiations regarding a bargaining unit that does not have at least thirty percent of members who are public safety employees, the public employer and the employee organization shall meet at reasonable times, including meetings reasonably in advance of the public employer’s budget-making process, to negotiate in good faith with respect to base wages and other matters mutually agreed upon.
So, while "<30% non safety employee units" are less specified than >30% safety employee units, "other matters mutually agreed upon" seems to suggest that that the scope of negotiations could be more broad than the article suggests. I'm no lawyer but, seems to me its less cut and dried than "wages and nothing more." I also don't understand why the public safety employees are given so many categories of negotiation. Seems very unfair to other agencies. Yeah, this law needs a rewrite. Still, not "wages and nothing else."
I don't know. That all makes legal sense 10G, but she was doing her best to do her job and got horribly injured in that process. Seems like she should have been paid until she was physically cleared to resume her duties.
I completely agree with you. She should have gotten full base pay till cleared. But the article is skating to the sidelines. They blame the collective bargaining law, not the agency policies. If the article was an outrage piece about how unfair it is this nurse got fired, I'd be all for it. The policy of fired if not back in 12 weeks is CRAP. But the article is trying to go super broad and connect collective bargaining laws to her individual situation which, IMO is way off base. As far as I can tell, all she really needs to do is reapply. Also, she was actually asking for UNpaid leave which suggests to me that getting paid isn't the issue. Also, I wonder if long term disability was an option in her benefits package. I dunno. Something is weird about this situation...
"What the bill does: For non-public safety employees, contract negotiations would be limited only to wages. That’s a significant change from current law, which requires benefits such as health insurance, vacation time and seniority perks, as well as work conditions such as hours, overtime pay and evaluation procedures, to be negotiated collectively. Additionally, many of those items that currently must be bargained for would be explicitly banned from future negotiations, including insurance and seniority benefits and evaluation procedures," as stated in a Des Moines Register article. Here are the 5 key changes in Iowa's collective bargaining billJason Noble and Brianne Pfannenstiel, Des Moines RegisterPublished 7:25 p.m. CT Feb. 8, 2017
Just so you know...my husband is one of the state workers who was affected by this new regulation. All policies regarding leave, overtime, etc are being rewritten and the collective bargain unit has NO say and the workers have NO say in what is being done. The collective bargaining unit was actually doing an excellent job by protecting workers from the disparities Iowa sees in workers in the private sector. As an at will state, Iowa employers have a lot of freedom as far as termination of employees for ANY reason and the employer does not have to reveal those reasons to an employee.
From a brochure produced by the state of Iowa, "non-prohibited topics are “permissive,” and can be left in contracts or discussed in negotiations, as long as both parties agree. Examples include: Overtime pay Incentive pay for certain shifts, additional duties, years of service or other factors Hours and work schedules Breaks and lunch periods Vacation, sick leave, bereavement leave, holidays, or other time off Grievance procedures for resolving workplace problems “Just cause” standards to ensure due process in discipline Seniority Health and safety provisions Job postings, classifications, training," University of Iowa (Quick Guide to Understanding Public Sector Bargaining under Iowa ’s New Law, February, 2018 The University of Iowa Labor Center). Link may be found here: https://www.iowaaflcio.org/system/files/quick_guide_to_understanding_ia_public_sector_barg2018_1.pdf
The key to this that BOTH parties have to agree to negotiate the topic. If BOTH parties do NOT agree the issue may NOT negotiated giving the state a very broad breadth as far as denying workers rights.
The article mentioned legislation passed by Representative Steven Holt in 2017 limiting government employee unions ability to negotiate on the employees’ behalf for anything except pay, resulted in some of the anguish which this nurse-employee suffered from since that incident. All Republican party nurses should remember this dishonor toward their profession when it is time to elect their party's representative. Or, an across-the-aisle joint-effort by ALL nurses should be to elect a new State Representative. Nurses should always be united when it comes to caring for others, and this includes caring for fellow nurses. So stand up and be counted as a NURSE-FIRST -- and the reason that you became a nurse.
The article mentioned legislation passed by Representative Steven Holt in 2017 limiting government employee unions ability to negotiate on the employees’ behalf for anything except pay, resulted in some of the anguish which this nurse-employee suffered from since that incident. All Republican party nurses should remember this dishonor toward their profession when it is time to elect their party's representative. Or, an across-the-aisle joint-effort by ALL nurses should be to elect a new State Representative. Nurses should always be united when it comes to caring for others, and this includes caring for fellow nurses. So stand up and be counted as a NURSE-FIRST -- and the reason that you became a nurse.
Its not just Nurses, republicans have long lamented the power of unions, I said this and was downvoted by 4 people who clearly don't understand how the world works and don't have the conviction to quote me.
Republicans will always pass anti-union, pro employer legislation, it is what it is. Maybe Here.I.Stand etc can explain why they chose to down vote a factually accurate comment.
Its not just Nurses, republicans have long lamented the power of unions, I said this and was downvoted by 4 people who clearly don't understand how the world works and don't have the conviction to quote me.
Republicans will always pass anti-union, pro employer legislation, it is what it is. Maybe Here.I.Stand etc can explain why they chose to down vote a factually accurate comment.
You only get strong anti-unionisation in America.
I totally agree. As I stated on another comment, my husband is a member of a collective bargaining unit affected by the changes. I agree that the Republican legislators have anti-employee stance; therefore, I vote Democrat.
I know what FLMA is and why would she need to use it for a workers comp injury. Sounds like there is more to this story then what is being passed on.
If you work for the state of Iowa, which i do... even if it's work comp they make you use your fmla. You can use your sick leave and vacation to supplement the other 40% of your wages that work comp doesn't cover. If you don't have time to use to do that then you have to pay for your portion of insurance out of your pocket as well. You keep saying "there is more to this story." I beg to differ with you! State of Iowa employees are being screwed big time by our government. As an RN I am not paid time and a half for overtime. I am not able to comp any time and we are forced to work 16 hour shifts nearly once a week. So maybe you are the person who needs to get more facts about how poorly state employees are treated in Iowa due to current legislation....
If you work for the state of Iowa, which i do... even if it's work comp they make you use your fmla. You can use your sick leave and vacation to supplement the other 40% of your wages that work comp doesn't cover. If you don't have time to use to do that then you have to pay for your portion of insurance out of your pocket as well. You keep saying "there is more to this story." I beg to differ with you! State of Iowa employees are being screwed big time by our government. As an RN I am not paid time and a half for overtime. I am not able to comp any time and we are forced to work 16 hour shifts nearly once a week. So maybe you are the person who needs to get more facts about how poorly state employees are treated in Iowa due to current legislation....
I totally agree with you. My husband also works for the state of Iowa. The state is using the dismantling of the collective bargaining agreement to the utmost. As I understand it, the first thing the state did to Iowa nurses was change their status from nonexempt to exempt so that more hours could be required with no pay. Also, the states seems to be "making it up as it goes." Since the change took effect basically overnight, there were no policy or procedures in place to deal with this. The collective bargaining unit now has no say into the creation of new policy or procedures which now means the worker is at the mercy of the employer.
Msn1971
14 Posts
Unfortunately, this may not be the case. The state of Iowa does not like employees who file lawsuits against their employers. I was told by attorney once that if I wanted to continue to work in the state of Iowa I would not bring any type of case before the courts because the courts tend to find for the employer and once in the system I would be considered a "problem employee" and would probably never work in the state of Iowa again.
Also, I don't think it is OK for corrections officers to not be covered under the collective bargaining agreement either. I have a friend who is a corrections officer and I don't think it is right that he is not able to negotiate for his rights as well.