lemur00

Don't confuse love and "love-bombing". People clap and post memes, meanwhile in my province we've been working without a contract for two years while we battle a pay cut and for our hard won right to determine staffing. To be fair we're better off than a lot of nurses. But it tells you how much love there is that marginally decent working conditions are considered giving us "too much". They don't love us, they just need us to overexpend ourselves for them yet again and when the dust settles they can go back to kicking us and telling us we're greeedy for wanting decent pay and staffing. This is just manipulating us to do more with less once again and more likely it will become an expected norm as we "proved" we could do it. There is research showing that people tend to be fine with exploiting those who do a "passion" or "calling" kind of job. This is a narrative that is pushed on us every time we are called "heroes". Well, you accept that mantle then you better act like a hero and be selfless. I say let them prove they support us by supporting unionization, manditory ratios, raises, better safety measures, et c. Then we might believe the sappy memes. And that I think might be the real value of the otherwise empty accolades. We may be able to leverage this good will to shame people into supporting our demands for better working conditions. But that has to come from us. As the self-help people used to say, no one is really going to love you if you don't love yourself.

It would be a stereotype if I had assumed this was always the case, which my wording intentionally precludes. It is, however, a generalization that has been shown to have an evidence base, both anecdotally and in various types of research.

It really isn't. A 50/50 split doesn't mean just money. Often in a financially unequal relationship, the disparity is made up for in other ways. For example the 1950s housewife that's been thrown around worked as the manager of the household for free. So she in essence "earned" half that income by making it possible for her husband to work. The income disparity was offset by other contributions. Women were fine with running the household, cooking, cleaning, et c because their husbands made bigger financial contributions and it felt like everyone pulled their weight. This is of course the "invisible work" of feminist lore. In modern times, most women are working equally and earning outside income but still bear the entirety of the household management role. Even if their husbands and children do chores, it's because the "manager" notices and asks/demands it be done. This actually makes for a less equal contribution breakdown with men of the modern era generally contributing less to a home than they have at any other time. There area a lot of reasons for that, but it has bred resentment in many women who don't need their spouses for income and begin to wonder what they're actually good for. They think "can't he *at least* match my income so its not 70/30 in EVERYTHING?" Money is often cited as the issue because for some time that was the thing men contributed, but it is really just a general disparity in contributing anything. What is interesting to me is that the invisible manager is the same role nurses take on at a larger scale--that of care coordination and management, of making sure everyone is doing their job. It's almost second nature for nurses. We're good at over-functioning to meet pt needs. At catching everyone's mistakes or making them do what needs to be done or doing it ourselves when they won't. And many of us like to have that control over everything, even if we hate that it isn't noticed or appreciated. Of course, just like in a home, this creates an environment where others increasingly under-function, expecting us to pick up the slack. And then we get burnt out. So I think we can all understand the op's problem on some level. When you are getting it both at work and at home, it's hard not to be resentful. The only real answer is to stop over-functioning, which is a very hard thing to do, especially for nurses. That's where counseling is helpful, the kind that helps you to take ownership of a situation and also helps you set boundaries. I'd also say to op that it's really important to realize that what you expect from your loved ones, your job, et c may be totally *reasonable*, but not necessarily *realistic*. That is, maybe people should get it but they might never be able to. From experience, it's a bitter pill to swallow but it gives you a different perspective and often allows you to start moving forward.

All this trouble could have been saved with an oxford comma ? Ie "...garbage shifts, and positions no one can fill..." Oxford comma ftw. That said, I would guess like others that the position is for one of multiple ICUs, or floats between them. Otherwise something may have changed within the facility, *or* manager is trying to see how desperately she wants a job and what she'll accept. Either way, it's good that this was mentioned early. Now all she has to do is politely and firmly say she's interested in only icu--the position may materialize after that if she's that strong of a candidate. And if they really are pulling a bait and switch, it's not a place she'd likely want to be anyway. Having a regional system we never deal with this, but experienced critical care positions are usually hard to fill. I can't see why they'd want to let someone that could fill one slip away and I would guess they'd find a position that was acceptable to her.

Extenuating circumstances are a thing when it comes to real justice. And the purpose of law is ostensibly meant to be justice (though it rarely is). This is why most law systems have moved to a focus on rehabilitation rather than retribution. Retribution might feel right, but it rarely serves anyone. For those who said it, it means nothing to justice that you personally wouldn't "forgive". That's simply an emotional reaction. Justice is also rarely cut-and-dried. Nor is the justice system always concerned with justice. Many missteps from the war on drugs to life sentences for felony murder to notorious plea bargains show this. Much of it is politics used by the powerful against the powerless, as it's quite clear this case is. Because we know how the health system really works, I think most of us are capable of seeing through the smokescreen the hospital is using to deflect any blame from its own practices. If several people in administration were also charged for the decision-making structure that led to the nurse being unable to perform certain parts of her duties (specifically the monitoring), that might change things. But they aren't. Additionally the charges do not appear to fit the crime. Claiming "reckless" homicide clearly is making a judgement about the thought process of the nurse that I'm not sure can be supported. This requires that she knew she was putting the patient at risk and proceeded knowing this. I think that would be very difficult to prove, especially if they're using pyxis override to do it. They *should* be fully aware that everyone needs to do this all the time simply because pharmacy hasn't processed stat orders. Pushing in this direction anyway suggests strongly that this is an intentional deflection and that she is their scapegoat, just as every poor person with a crack rock was to the "tough on crime" advocates of the 90s. Sure they did something wrong, but they were punished in proxy so that the real problems that put them there would not have to be addressed. Iirc, this same hospital was forcing nurses to do housekeeping duties. This would be at least one systemic contributing factor, and I'd guess there is likely no real union in this hospital either. How many tasks was this nurse expected to do in 12 hours that she felt she needed to hurry the process on in this way? I think this shows there is a discussion that needs to happen and that is how we as nurses are shouldering the Sisyphan burden of jobs that multiple people couldn't get done, plus everyone else's jobs, plus dealing with assaults and harassment and then blamed for all of them when we simply couldn't do the impossible. And now charged. It's very much a reality of nursing that we were taught "best practices" and then quickly learn we will never be allowed to practice that way by hospital administrations. I am personally convinced best practice guidelines exist solely to provide a framework for blaming a single nurse when things go bad due to systemic failures, as I suspect had happened here. They don't want you to actually follow them. As I've said previously, I think this can be proven by the fact that "work to rule" is an effective labour resistance technique. Nursing is like spinning straw into gold. This situation shows it and raises the question, how do we say "enough"? How do we protect the lives of patients and ourselves against what the profession is being turned into? It's something we need to answer sooner rather than later.

Yeah, most discussions of "PC" succumb quickly to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. It's helpful to actually define political correctness. Political correctness in the 90s had to do mostly with allowing marginalized groups to have a say and was concerned with diversifying conversations and education in particular. It eventually came to mean being considerate of the cultural differences between oneself and others. Since then it has become an epithet for anyone who is more sensitive than I am on a subject, like it's twin term, "snowflake". No one applies it to themselves. It has also basically become a tool of manipulation, as this controversy showed. No one cared about this tacky song until the ominous banshee wail of "political correctness" threatened to steal it away from us! DUN DUNDUN. To arms people! Save the saccharine drivel! What's interesting about the song controversy is that it could have just been dropped quietly. Times change. People used to keep slavery memorabilia that makes their grandchildren cringe. It's schlock and schlock doesn't age well. No one would have missed it much. But that's not what happened. Instead it was played for outrage and attention, and of course the ominous spectre of "PC" was dragged out like a modern krampus to terrify everyone. Christmas is always ripe for exactly such schemes, which is why we need to be wary of them. The real "sensitivity" was on the part of those manipulated to be sooo upset they were going to lose a cheesy song no one cared about the year before (I note cynically that the popularity of the song also soared--suddenly it was being played everywhere as an act of "resistance"). It's not like something as culturally significant as Handel's Messiah was being threatened, just this song written in a time when wife beating was played for humour and women were portrayed as idiots who needed a man to tell them what to do. It isn't even a Christmas song. So what exactly are we losing again and why does it matter? Oh because we don't want evil "PC" to win. Right. It seemed to me this was simply another divisive social media manipulation devised in time for Christmas and had nothing to do with being considerate of others but was designed to do the opposite. In fact social media tends to exploit the more tribal and antagonistic aspects of human nature in exactly this manner. Then the anti-pc brigade, having chosen their "side", complain that everyone is too sensitive. The irony is more tangy than miracle whip. Maybe the acceptance of differing points of view starts with you and me, and not those other people. And maybe it's not going to kill us if one cheesy song doesn't get constant rotation. Maybe there are more important things to worry about.

In Canada we have long mat leaves so positions are usually filled temporarily for a year and a half to cover that leave. In SK we can also revert to our original line in three months if we don't like the new position. It makes the moves less risky to make but also means a lot of people bounce around. I boomeranged to a job because I had taken a temp line to get out of there then was forced back when it ended. In desperation, I took a line in a totally different field and hated it so I reverted and returned the second time before finally getting a permanent line on the unit I wanted to be on. That all happened over the course of a year. The first time I came back I was miserable and got out as soon as possible. The second time, because I had chosen to revert and accept the risk of returning, it was more positive.

I feel your pain. We had a pt that somehow obtained the site manager's number and called to complain vociferously that the nurses were purposefully neglecting her by refusing to get her water and ice while they ran a code in the next bed. You laugh so you don't cry.

It's true. I was a 45 year old bitter divorcee in a child's body. My dad called me "little grandma". One time we were discussing crazy things kids do, and I noted that I never did any of those things. My dad replied "that's because you were never a kid".

On nights we rearrange the teams or work a team alone (we have rn/lpn teams in most facilities and units), or there will be float coverage (not necessarily someone on the unit though). We also have evening and weekend managers who can approve calling in people from other units, close beds, or sometimes they will help if the situation warrants it. Still we're not expected to remain after the shift is done. Rural is a little different due to having less staff, but usually the oncoming nurses are expected to figure out how to cover all patients if relief isn't found. Eta: additionally our union just won a fight to enshrine in the contract language that gives charge the right to call out overtime in the absence of a nurse manager. This is because the regions are creating planned shortages and not calling out shifts, hoping that people won't notice or something. They don't really want to give people that much OT.

I always found this odd. None of the facilities I've ever worked in has made staff stay. You can choose to stay for a while for ot, but if you're working 12s you can only stay for 4 hours anyway because it's against the law to work more than 16 at a time here. And most people will only extend if it's their last shift in a row. The incoming nurses are expected to cover the patients, never the nurse from the last shift. When you're short staffed on a shift, people take a bigger patient load or educators and charge help on the floor. We do extra things to help them, but when our shift is done, we go home without a second thought.

We've been short of urinals and had cutlery removed in the last year or so (this is in Canada). We were told it was because of the stupid lean process though. The service aid had a bunch of urinals secretly hoarded in a locked room no one ever uses on my old unit but I found them.

I did with no harm. Since there is only one employer here, I didn't need to say who it was. They are listed as my employer, which I've tried to make private but it keeps showing up. That just means being careful about posting, which probably isn't a bad thing and something I don't do a tonne of anyway.

My understanding of HSPs is that they process sensory input much more intensely and thoroughly, thus less input is needed and also tolerated. The downside of that is that the threshold for sensory input becoming annoying or overwhelming is lower, because the senses are much more strongly attuned. I have a lot of the traits of an HSP; my sense of touch in particular is more developed than most people, as is my ability to see in the dark. For example I never use a flashlight to do night rounds--I can see the patients perfectly well, and often can do many tasks in semi darkness just fine. But correspondingly, I can't stand bright lights, sunny days et c. I remember when I was a student, we were all rotated into er by one of our instructors who worked there. Everyone was so excited to go except me. Sure enough I hated it.

If they do, they'll have to do away with shift work and other stressors, since these contribute to obesity. ... That said, if a facility wanted to help improve employee health, there are a lot systemic changes that can be made from the top with no change in the employee's lifestyle. Social determinants and all that.