California Hospital bans hiring of Filipino Nurse

CALIFORNIA, United States—I love Filipino nurses.

Next to cheap garments at Wal-Mart and female impersonators, I’d have to put them on the top of the list as the Philippines’ leading export.

If the country had a team mascot, it would have to be the “Fighting Nurses.” (Notre Dame has the “Fighting Irish,” why not?)

So, of course, I’m alarmed by the news that a de facto ban against hiring Filipino nurses at the St. Luke’s Campus of Sutter Health’s California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) appears to be policy in San Francisco.

No Filipinos, as blatant as that. Just like the old sign that the Filipino National Historical Society displays, the one from the 1920s that reads, “Positively No Filipinos Allowed.”

You can take that sign and stick it on the door at St. Luke’s, right now, says the California Nurses Association, the nurses union.

And now it wants to do something about it.

The union wants the San Francisco Human Rights Commission to investigate the hospital. But that’s just the opening shot. The union intends to file a class action grievance against Sutter and CPMC.

The union provided compelling evidence which included signed statements by former managers and current job stats to back up the claim that Filipinos are being unfairly discriminated at St. Luke’s.

From numbers provided by CPMC, the numbers don’t lie.

Before the take-over of the hospital in 2007 the Filipino RNs at St. Luke’s were 66 percent of the nursing population.

Between 2007 and 2008, just 48 percent of new hires were Filipino.

From February 2008, when the nurses union and the community organized to stop the closure of St. Luke’s, to the present, the percentage of new RN hires who were Filipino dropped dramatically to just 10 percent.

They didn’t all just give up their RN credentials and take jobs as Wal-Mart greeters.

Nato Green, the labor representative who works at St. Luke’s said it’s no coincidence. “I believe this reflects Sutter’s decision to use race to divide workers and stop collective bargaining activity,” Green told me. “Going from 66 percent to 10 percent (of new hires) is a fairly remarkable coincidence.”

It all comes after the union forced Sutter to keep St. Luke’s open. The nurses union expected some push back, but not this.

“CPMC and Sutter have chosen to retaliate by carrying out a punitive, illegal, and immoral campaign of discrimination,” said Zenei Cortz, the California Nurses Association president. “There is no excuse for racial or ethnic discrimination. A hospital should be a center of therapeutic healing for patients, not a model for bigotry.”

The union also produced affidavits signed under penalty of perjury. Ronald Rivera, a former nurse manager, who worked there from April 2006 to April 2010 when he resigned on good terms, provided his testimony.

“One day I spoke with Diana Karner (VP of nursing) on the phone about hiring new RNs,” he attested. “Diana said to me that we probably should not hire any more foreign graduate nurses. She explained that patients complain because ‘it is hard to understand them and be understood by them.’”

Another signed affidavit came from Ronald Villanueva, who actually was sitting in and overheard the conversation between Karner and Rivera. “I was shocked and I wondered if she knew I was a foreign graduate nurse,” he wrote.

A third declaration came from Chris Hanks, who was the Director of Critical Care from 2008 to 2009 and reported directly to Karner. Hanks was alarmed when told point blank “you are not to hire any Filipino nurses.” Hanks challenged Karner at their weekly meetings, until Karner told him, “The Filipinos are always related, or know each other, and that’s not good. You’re not to hire them.”

Karner the VP of nursing didn’t return my telephone call.

Kevin McCormack, of CPMC’s media relations said she was out of the office and unavailable. What did he think of a ban on hiring Filipino nurses? “That would be illegal,” he said. “You can’t ban hiring specific groups.”

He called it “ridiculous” and implied it was a stunt by CNA to fan the ongoing dispute with CPMC.

But the numbers don’t lie.

The Filipino nursing staff at St. Luke’s is shrinking and it isn’t by accident.

If you’re a Filipino nurse wanting to get to San Francisco, the climate is getting ugly.


http://globalnation.inquirer.net/viewpoints/viewpoints/view/20100822-288174/California-hospital-bans-hiring-of-Filipino-nurses

The RN Contract Trap

For many foreign nurses (RNs) the chance to immigrate to the U.S. is the opportunity of a life time. For so many, immigrating to the U.S. is the reason they went to nursing school and took up the profession. Many others, such as marketing majors, physicians, computer engineers, etc. have switched professions to become nurses in order to immigrate to the U.S.

The shortage spurred the growth and creation of hybrid industries such as nurse registries and temporary nursing staff companies. These types of companies assign nurses on a temporary basis with their client hospitals, medical facilities, and private homes.

A nurse working for one of these companies for example, might find herself working at Hospital A for 2 days out of the week and Hospital B for 3 days. Then, a few months later, working 4 days for Hospital C. The RN goes wherever her employer has been contracted to provide services. She is not an employee of the hospital, but rather the registry company.

Because of the shortage, various RN employers (hospitals, agencies, RN staffing companies) heavily recruit for RNs overseas. Foreign RNs who wish to immigrate are delighted at the opportunity the recruiters offer and are often all too eager to sign up.

While this path may be one of the easiest ways to immigrate, it is not without its pitfalls. Employment-based sponsorship means the RN will be allowed to immigrate if the RN intends to work on a permanent basis for the petitioning employer. This is a critical condition of immigrating that carries consequences if not fulfilled.

During the typical recruitment process, the RNs are promised sponsorship in exchange for working for the employer. Contracts are prepared and representations are made regarding the nature of work, type of work, place of work, working conditions and wages. Many RNs are so eager to immigrate, they do not carefully read these contractual documents, ask serious questions regarding the terms and conditions, or have the contracts reviewed by their own attorney.

In the excitement of the prospect of immigrating to the U.S. many RNs are seduced with the notion that the dream job awaits them in the U.S. For some this is true, but for many, it has drastic consequences. The RNs gloss over the contracts and assume an attitude of, “I’ll deal with it later.”

The most common contractual clause that wreaks havoc on an immigrating RN’s life is the breach of contract damages clause. Most contracts typically require the RN to work for a specific number of years and failure to do so triggers the damages clause. The damages can range from $15,00 to $50,000 dollars!

Many RNs signing these contracts are unfamiliar with the litigious culture in the U.S. Some come to the U.S. and find the working conditions and salaries they were told they would receive are not the same as represented when first recruited. Some conditions are so unbearable.

For example, being placed in graveyard shifts in hospitals far from home. Or, not being placed in any hospital and collecting no salary while the sponsor tries to obtain a new client for the RNs placement. Many of these RNs then leave their employers and this is when additional tragedy strikes.

The employer begins a campaign of harassment and may sue for breach of contract and obtains a judgment against the RN for the penalty amount. The judgment typically comes with a wage garnishment order. This means the RN’s new employer is required to pay a portion of the RN’s wages to the sponsor to cover the judgment. Because RNs are in a licensed occupation requiring a reporting of where they work, it is very simple for the sponsor to locate the RN and exact the judgment.

But, worse than a breach of contract is the possible immigration consequence. The RN has obtained permanent residency because she stated she intends to work on a permanent basis for her sponsor. By leaving or changing employers shortly after entering the U.S., she has now opened the door for the Immigration Service to revoke the green card! Some employers immediately notify the Immigration Service when an RN leaves exposing the RN to possible green card revocation and deportation.

For many others, the immigration consequence comes several years later when the RN is applying for U.S. citizenship. The Immigration Service reviews the basis of the green card and determines how long the RN worked for her sponsor. If it determines that the RN has only worked for a short period of time, it may begin revocation and deportation proceedings against both the RN and her family members who obtained green cards through her.

These tragic consequences can be avoided by careful review in the beginning. For many of those currently in the position, there is still immigration and contractual relief available. The U.S. Constitution prohibits slavery and indentured servitude and because in many cases the sponsoring employer breaches the contract, the employee is not liable for any damages. This core constitutional value is the basis for providing relief to those forced to leave their sponsors. This will be the subject of our second part of this article.

Author's Note: The analysis and suggestions offered in this column do not create a lawyer-client relationship and are not a substitute for the individual legal research and personalized representation that is essential to every case.

Nurses to Bermuda

30 REGISTERED NURSES

Job Order Registration No.: 1039
Validity Date: Mar 30, 2008

work site: Bermuda Islands, British Indian Ocean territory

prospective principal: Calcara International Health Care

proposed salary: $74,808 per annum

skills required:
2-3 years current post grad exp in the field they have selected. Good English language with TOEFL or IELTS with overall score of 506 for TOEFL. IELTS score 7.0 in each category. ICU & CVVHD courses would be an asset.

Apply personally at UNIPLAN, 302 JP Rizal St., Project 4, Quezon City. Look for Mr. Bueno

Other Details:

RN's are as follows:
ICU 5
O.R. 6 (maybe combination of ODP's)
SCBU/NICU 3
PACU 2
CONTINUING CARE 4
Medical 5
Surgical 5

UNIPLAN OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT INC.
POEA License No. : POEA-375-LB-011604-R
Address : 302 J.P. Rizal St. Proj. 4 Quezon City
Tel. No. : 9115181, 401-6664; 401-9708

-posts from nelle