Across Ohio, and the nation, the drive is on to require a BSN to secure...or continue...employment in acute and critical care settings. While the research data shows improved outcomes in these settings with a high level of BSN staffing, there are problems with this push. Some systems are giving experienced ADN's as few as two years to secure their BSN, yet these healthcare systems are failing to meet the commitment expected of these ADN's with a commitment to these experienced ADN's in securing their BSN. Tuition reimbursement plans consistently fail to meet the cost currently incurred in returning to school.
I saw the hand-writing on the wall, and secured my BSN before it became mandated. But my employers tuition reimbursement plan at work covered, at best, half the cost of one semester. This lack financial commitment to the educational advancement of experienced ADN's leaves these nurses angry and upset..feeling hospital administration are trying to get something for nothing, perhaps in order to let attrition thin the ranks of ADN's in acute and critical care settings. This attrition will, in turn, allow healthcare systems to hire in new grad BSN's at a lower starting salary than the experienced ADN's they will be replacing.
Until nurses stop being doormats, start acting like the professionals we are, and demanding the respect and benefits that derive from that professional status...nothing will change.
I agree with alot of the post.on here. It is a perk! But to require a nurse who has 20+yrs as a critical care nurse or ICU nurse to return BACK to school to obtain a BSN is absurd! 20yrs of critical care/ICU experience with an ADN/DIPLOMA is worth its weight in gold! Im not sayin its "better" than a BSN but 20yrs or more of experience......thats priceless. IMHO.
Specializes in Critical Care, ED, Cath lab, CTPAC,Trauma.
There is a little know Fair wage and labor fact....If your employer mandates you to do additional training and your job is on the line...technically they are responsible to pay at LEAST part, if not ALL, of that training. Technically....It could be argued that they would have to pay you for going as well....like ACLS.
This has yet to be challenged and most facilities continue to pay tuition reimbursement which kind of absolves them of responsibility and the circumvent it by highly suggesting, instead of requiring, you to further your education.
required by law for certification of public and private sector employees within a particular governmental jurisdiction (
e.g
., certification of public and private emergency rescue workers), . . . [or] required for certification of employees of a governmental jurisdiction by law of a higher level of government (
e.g
., where a State or county law imposes a training obligation on city employees), . . . even if all or part of the costs of the training is borne by the employer.
29 C.F.R. 553.226(b)(1)-(3).
regulations for determining the compensability of training time applicable to all FLSA-covered employees, which are set forth in 29 C.F.R. 785.27 through 785.32.
Participation in training programs need not be counted as working time if all of the following criteria are met:
Attendance is outside of the employee’s regular working hours;
Attendance is in fact voluntary;
The course, lecture, or meeting is not directly related to the employee’s job;
The employee does not perform any productive work during such attendance.
29 C.F.R. 785.27.
“Attendance is not voluntary, of course, if it is required by the employer. It is not voluntary in fact if the employee is given to understand or led to believe that his present working conditions or the continuance of his employment would be adversely affected by non-attendance.” 29 C.F.R. 785.28. Further, “training is directly related to the employee’s job if it is designed to make the employee handle his job more effectively as distinguished from training him for another job, or to a new or additional skill.” 29 C.F.R. 785.29. As a result, time spent in mandatory training is generally compensable.
I think this is one of the reasons making BSN mandatory, by law, for working employees has never come to pass becasue the hospitals would have to bear the costs. They have found a creative way around this by changing requirements on new grads and new hires as they are not responsibility for paying if you are not already working for them.
The bad economy and the plethora of nurses in the market has made facilities bold and no nurse has challenged the law....which by the way would be free under fair wage and EEOC regulations and make a great class action suit.
We have been lead to believe that reimbursement is a perk...but once it is mandatory it is no longer a perk....it's the law.
Most every professional company offers some sort of tuition reimbursement! My husband's manufacturing job will pay for him to go back to school, even! What is absurd is accusing anyone of expecting a hand out, in relation to that benefit. When I was job hunting, finding an employer that valued education in its employees, was a must. The hospital I chose values education, by helping pay for it. I don't need to be coerced to further my education.. what a ridiculous statement! Maybe its regional, but I know very few professional companies around here that don't have some sort of educational credit. Around here it is an expected benefit by anyone in a legitimate career.
If it is "hand out" one wants to stand up against... try standing up against these hospitals thinking that they can have someone for nothing. In many other professions a higher degree demands higher pay. If nurses want to be seen as in a professional career, they should be expecting the same benefits as any other 9-5 office professional.
That being said, if your employer requires it, to keep your job, you're dang right I expect them to bear some of the costs!
I think there is a responsibility when they change the game; you're hired 20 years ago when a diploma or ADN was sufficient, then in order to satisfy Magnet (aka "Marketing Scheme"), they want those nurses, who were hired in good faith, to further their education.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against education. I am against staff being forced to further their education when it's done to further the agenda of the hospital. They want to say to the public, "Look at how many BSNs we have!"
So you're saying that you had 20 YEARS to get a BSN and didn't see the writing on the wall 20 years ago?
No, what the OP is saying is that a ADN/diploma degree was fine for years and now all of a sudden, those nurses must get their BSN or be out of a job.
I think that characterizing this as "all of a sudden" is a little disingenuous. As subee noted, "the writing on the wall" re: this issue has been pretty obvious for some time. Some people took the hint and went back to school; some people chose not to and chose to take their chances. We all make choices and have to live with the consequences.
Individuals, like myself, did do what we needed to do, which was attend and complete and approved nursing program, and all other terms deemed necessary by our respective states to sit for boards. The point that anyone needed to do what they needed to do, meaning get a BSN, is moot. That simply was not the case at the time, or it would have been required. There is a huge difference between a requirement, and an option.
We have seen this before, have we not? With nurses trained in a hospital setting, or diploma nursing.
I do agree with tuition reimbursement being equally available, but should the facility make new mandates that are not state required, then I think the training should be paid for by the facility for currently employed RN's. Should the state mandate something, then I do not feel it will be at the expense of long standing, current professionals, at least not to the tune of $30,000 to obtain a 'degree' in a field in which you already practice competently.
My initial goal was to obtain my BSN. However, I often ask myself now, "What purpose would it serve?" I have to ask myself that question when preparing to invest many thousands of dollars.
I know many of you will tote that one should want to better one's self professionally. That it is a mere sign of personal integrity. However, after viewing first hand many of the online BSN programs, and having peers who have recently completed said programs, I am second guessing my integrity should I jump into, and spend a lot of money on, a bunch of bologna. Particularly when pay scale in my area does not reflect the many thousand dollar deficit incurred.
There are plenty of opportunities for education within the nursing field. The idea that currently licensed professional nurses can't self direct their education is sad.
Bottom line for me, boards don't reflect the need for BSN preparation. If it becomes a standard, it should be reflected in the boards. Otherwise, we can all find better things to do with $30k should we so choose.
What purpose would a BSN serve? (you asked yourself). Preserving your ability to make a living seems like a good incentive to me. The state boards are only one entity that can define the basic degree. Market forces seem to be trumping state requirements in this case. Anyone who didn't get their BSN was living in a daze for the past three decades.
What purpose would a BSN serve? (you asked yourself). Preserving your ability to make a living seems like a good incentive to me. The state boards are only one entity that can define the basic degree. Market forces seem to be trumping state requirements in this case. Anyone who didn't get their BSN was living in a daze for the past three decades.
Market forces aren't calling for BSN in my area. Anyone who managed to practice nursing for 30 years on an ADN, and is still able to do so to date, probably isn't going to face unemployment at this stage in the game, and is probably thinking about retirement. Hospitals in my area are loyal to their employees.
caliotter3
38,333 Posts
I have never considered it an employer responsibility to provide my education. Quite frankly, I am very satisfied that they provide me a job.