A friend of mine is a manager who recently went to a management seminar. It was the same old thing until they asked what peoples' biggest problems are. One person said "employees under 30," and everyone in the room agreed. They find this demographic to be needy and entitled (I'm sure this does not apply to everyone, but is a much bigger trend than in past years).
My department recently hired MANY new nurses, and all but one is under 30. They call in when they are hung over, go home early, and they're lazy at work. The only thing I can depend on them to do is get their coffee break. I'm sure these nurses have many fine qualities, and maybe the rest of us are just martyrs (put in the full 46ish hours a week, mop our own ORs, etc), but it's just a whole different attitude. People in other departments note a similar trend. Radiology techs will refuse to go to certain cases because it will interfere with their lunch.
I'm sure I will get a bunch of posts from 20-somethings about how hard they work, and I'm sure there are some out there who really do work their tails off. But managers (and coworkers) are starting to take note of "generation me."
why so negative... maybe i really do work with a great group of nurses, of all ages. and, if those rose colored glasses are tainting my view of my colleagues, i think i'll just keep them. it's nice to have a positive outlook, not to be discriminated against, nor discriminate those around me. i think the nurses are great, our patients do as well, so i'm content.
it's not negativity, it's statistics. if you only work with 2 or 3 nurses, then odds are they are as great as you paint them. if you have a group that's much larger than that, you're gonna have some that are not so great. that's just the way it is.
my post wasn't an attempt at self righteousness, just standing up for the nurses that are affected by the op.:)
you are only affected if you allow yourself to be.
I can't be the only new grad who is wondering where these slackers are finding jobs at?
I am another one that has seen slackers in all generations. In fact, I am solidly generation X at 38 years old and remember back in college my generation being the "slacker, directionless" generation. So now I am considered more reliable now? SWEET! Too bad it hasn't helped much with getting a job at a decent facility, but maybe one of those young slackers will get the boot soon
Not really related to the thread in general, but rather your post in specific.
You don't hire new grads in those areas and don't hire grads without specific experience in those areas, right? I would then contend your input is irrelevant, since your hospital does not want to engage in providing these type of experiences to ANY nurse, new grad or otherwise.
It is a good thing every hospital does not follow the same line of thinking (see what I did there ) as, if they did, you would have no nurses to hire.
Another thing to think about: You came on a public forum and admitted making a conscious decision to violate Title VII. You might think those "kids" don't have what it takes, but they aren't the ones throwing these potentially detrimental things out there on the interwebs.
Also, your math could use a little work, as 1998 HS grads would be the general cutoff for "20 somethings" :)
The OP didn't say that the hospital doesn't hire new grads anywhere, but in critical care areas where, rightly so in my opinion, they have the right to require experience for those areas. That is NOT a Title VII violation.
It used to be that NO new grads anywhere were hired into critical care areas without at least one year of floor nursing experience first. From personal experience, I think it's a good thing if the clock is rolled back a bit on this one.
Some who graduated in 1998 might be just 20 by now if their birthdays fell right. But even if they managed to have an ADN by now, they still would not have any relevant experience based on the OP's criteria. Hence the 1995 cutoff date.
Even as far as hiring ward clerks, etc, we sift through applications and throw out anyone who graduated highschool after 1995. We simply want mature adults. Yes, this selection process means we probably miss some great candidates, but the truth is, a 20something would be bored with us old battle axes, so they are better off going someplace where they are going to have more peers their own age.
With this very discriminatory process, you have automatically written of several talents, all because of your assumption that these "children" won't meet up to the dictates of you "adults"( I use that term very losely).
Well, I am just a little sceptical of said statement. I find it rather interesting that somebody on a hiring committee would be so carefree when describing their hiring process. Especially, since it is quite possible to find out who somebody on this site really is and where they are located. So, the statement was careless at best...
OP you are very ignorant to stereotype these younger nurses. Age has nothing to do with it. I have seen older nurses do the same as you describe SOME younger nurses doing. Yes, I am the exception. I work dang hard for my license and have love being a nurse. I have a great work ethic. I just like everyone else will also have room to grow.
Down boy! Geeze, you people take this all too seriously. It's just a friendly conversation.
They might hire a new grad on the med-surg floor (not in recent years b/c they don't have to, lots of better candidates), but no, no way would we ever take one in ED or CCU. We don't want to train people new to the specialty, we want prior experience in the area. We are very firm on that issue. We can be picky b/c we have about 50 apps for the very rare opening.
We had a tech in the ED for about 9 years before and during her nsg education and we wouldn't hire her right out of school either, and we LOVE her. We told her to give us a call in about 5 years. Now we did have a m/s nurse transfer to ED this year, but she's been a nurse for about 10 years I guess and we only gave her a prn triage position. She's going to have to earn her wings, so she's still FT on med-surg and is learning the ropes in the ED over time.
We simply would never train a new critical care nurse. We gets lots of interest form the major university med centers in the surrounding areas, and don't have trouble getting strong candidates when we need someone, which is about once every 2-3 years. No way we'd consider anyone that didn't come with a lot of tertiary care experience. It is just too dangerous here b/c there is no help or backup. Whoever is in the unit is on their own and better be able to handle anything that comes up. We don't generally keep very high acuity medical patients unless they are just too unstable to transfer, but you know surgeons! We have some extremely complicated surgical cases, and we simply can't have nurses who don't have extensive critical care experience. I think it is totally different to be a new critical care nurse in a university center, for example, where there are every manor of professional and ancillary personnel available 24/7 and a strong staff education department. We have to drive 60 miles to the mothership hospital just to take CPR for crying out loud, no way we can adequately educate a neophyte, lol. We just don't have the necessary resources to support anyone who isn't already up to speed.
As far as hs grad dates, I think GM2RN cleared that up, and it was a little tongue in cheek and not a precise rule, lol. Ws look for the person who is the best fit, and someone 15-20 years younger than the rest of us is probably not going to be a good fit.
Not really related to the thread in general, but rather your post in specific.
You don't hire new grads in those areas and don't hire grads without specific experience in those areas, right? I would then contend your input is irrelevant, since your hospital does not want to engage in providing these type of experiences to ANY nurse, new grad or otherwise.
It is a good thing every hospital does not follow the same line of thinking (see what I did there ) as, if they did, you would have no nurses to hire.
Another thing to think about: You came on a public forum and admitted making a conscious decision to violate Title VII. You might think those "kids" don't have what it takes, but they aren't the ones throwing these potentially detrimental things out there on the interwebs.
As far as hs grad dates, I think GM2RN cleared that up, and it was a little tongue in cheek and not a precise rule, lol. Ws look for the person who is the best fit, and someone 15-20 years younger than the rest of us is probably not going to be a good fit.
how do you know if you never give someone the chance to try?
im just a pre-nursing student but even after you tried to further explain urself it still seems like discrimination.
I mean, if you had a 26 year old with three years of experience, wouldn't that be enough? it seems a little odd to me that you would "chunk" this type of person's application based on graduation date instead of experience and how good a worker they are? IMO, what you are doing isnt right even if it is, and it doesnt sound like it is, somehow legal
but again, im not a nurse or a lawyer so that's just what i think
I think it's unfortunate that the manager's answer to the question posed was nurses under 30 when the real 'problems' are laziness and calling into work when hung over. This says something to me about this particular management's ability to find solutions to the problems it identifies. After all, there's not much you can do about 'being under 30'. Sub par performance and frequent unexcused absences on the other hand, can and should be addressed.
I don't like seeing all of Gen Y unfairly labeled any more than I do the Boomers or Gen X. Being 'of' any of those generations is NOT a problem.
The OP didn't say that the hospital doesn't hire new grads anywhere, but in critical care areas where, rightly so in my opinion, they have the right to require experience for those areas. That is NOT a Title VII violation.
It used to be that NO new grads anywhere were hired into critical care areas without at least one year of floor nursing experience first. From personal experience, I think it's a good thing if the clock is rolled back a bit on this one.
Some who graduated in 1998 might be just 20 by now if their birthdays fell right. But even if they managed to have an ADN by now, they still would not have any relevant experience based on the OP's criteria. Hence the 1995 cutoff date.
They can require experience, yes. However, that doesn't give them a pass on other discriminatory hiring practices, which Linearthinker, freely and without solicitation, stated they practice.
Your math is suspect too, BTW, unless they graduated when they were 8-9 years old.
Frankly, I wish there were more folks who would be happy to come on an open forum and admit to illegal discriminatory hiring practices. It could lead to a cottage industry
GM2RN
1,850 Posts
you are only affected if you allow yourself to be.