automan2013

Hello fellow nurses. By now you may have heard about this "credit reporting agency" called Group One HR Solutions. Due to some due diligence I have recently uncovered some interesting laws that Texas nurses are SUPPOSED to receive. The first thing I discovered recently is this: look this stuff up by googling it please Tex LA. Code ANN. 103.003 (b) "an employer may not disclose information about a licensed nurse or LVN that relates to conduct that is protected under sections 301.352 or 303.005 occupations code". Further, "The employer must provide an affected nurse an opportunity to submit a statement of reasonable length to the employer to establish the application of Section 301.352 or 303.005, Occupations Code". The second thing I discovered was this: Texas Statutes - Section 303.005: REQUEST FOR PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE DETERMINATION: Texas Statutes - Section 303.005 (h) and (i) (h) "A person may not suspend or terminate the employment of, or otherwise discipline or discriminate against, a nurse who in good faith requests a peer review determination under this section or a person who advises a nurse of the nurse's right to request a determination or of the procedures for requesting a determination. A violation of this subsection is subject to Section 301.413 (i) "A person who is required to provide, on request, a nursing peer review committee determination under Subsection (b) shall adopt and implement a policy to inform nurses of the right to request a nursing peer review committee determination and the procedure for making a request". Please keep in mind this is not legal advice. I am merely stating the statutes as they are written. The gist of it is that if an is terminated for any reason given that may fall under a nursing CONDUCT ISSUE is supposed to be afforded a peer review for the alleged conduct. Further the statute also states that they CANNOT TAKE ANY ADVERSE ACTION while the case is pending. (b) A person may not suspend or terminate the employment of, or otherwise discipline or discriminate against, a person who reports, without malice, under this subchapter. Well I thought that made for some very interesting reading. Please take a look at those statutes yourself and see what you think. Thanks, Good Luck

RNBRICKHOUSE, Can you send me a link where I might apply for an IT position within Dell Services? Even a phone number or other contact info would be helpful. I have looked in Indeed and others but I am unable to find the position you mentioned. I am like many of the nurses here who have been blacklisted for vindictive reasons and have been unemployed 2 years as a result. I have a degree in nursing with over 10 years clinical experience and 5 years military experience. Thanks

@Telia, Wow. You are a nurse I presume? Aren't you supposed to be open minded, non judgmental of the human condition? If not how is it that you are a nurse? So it's okay with YOU that after years of nursing school it's okay that an educated nurse resort to working at Burger King because of either a mistake that was made or a result of a vengeful supervisor? Help me to understand your view on the justification of that statement. The real issues here is the result of the blacklist, and the list itself. The list itself may be unconstitutional in that it denies the individual due process. If the users of the list have adopted a policy not to hire anyone on the list, then the list poses a threat to the future employment of the person on it. So although the list may only be libel or slander, the result is much greater than that. Excerpt from The Fifth Amendment: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; This list being detrimental to those appearing on it violate the most basic right of due process (unconstitutional). First the person doesn't know of the existence of the list. Second, they don't know they are placed on it. Third, they aren't given the opportunity to dispute the information on the list. There is a fundamental flaw resulting in the denial of due process. Anyone else have a take on this? George