Fingerprints

[Americano]

California now requires all registered nurses to provide fingerprints as a condition of their state licensing. The fingerprint records will allow prospective employers to set their own policies for employment using public records.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-nurses-fingerprints26-2009dec26,0,3288465.story?track=rss

Is this necessary to protect citizenry from the fractional number of bad apples that exist in any profession? As an employer I'd know insurers will require the criminal check for employment purposes and tack that regulatory cost onto operations.

Or, is that regulation more of the same we've become accustomed to with our drift to fascism? Considering a cost/return factor I can't see how this benefits anything other than insurance actuaries relating to improved margins and information gathering entities charging an extra fee in pre-employment searches.

[cassandrabandra]

California now requires all registered nurses to provide fingerprints as a condition of their state licensing. The fingerprint records will allow prospective employers to set their own policies for employment using public records.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-nurses-fingerprints26-2009dec26,0,3288465.story?track=rss

Is this necessary to protect citizenry from the fractional number of bad apples that exist in any profession? As an employer I'd know insurers will require the criminal check for employment purposes and tack that regulatory cost onto operations.

Or, is that regulation more of the same we've become accustomed to with our drift to fascism? Considering a cost/return factor I can't see how this benefits anything other than insurance actuaries relating to improved margins and information gathering entities charging an extra fee in pre-employment searches.

thats bizarre. I can understand a police background check - but fingerprints?

[Americano]

thats bizarre. I can understand a police background check - but fingerprints?

Merely another step toward the microchip implanted at birth. "I'm sorry, your life tracking history shows attendance at a flying spaghetti monster worship event and that's forbidden in our hiring policy".

[The Drunk Girl]

I have a friend who visited either Florida or California a year or so back. While he was there, it appeared to him that a guy had cut line, when it was his turn in line he asked why that was allowed to happen and was told that the other man had a chip in his hand...:shrug:

But this does sound strange. I know when applying to nursing school here, I have to go to www.myvci.com (http://www.myvci.com) to get my background check for the university.

The following background checks will be conducted:



ID Search Plus (address locator)
County Criminal Record History (unlimited jurisdictions)
National Sex Offender Search
FACIS® Level 1 (current name only) includes, but not limited to:
- (OIG) Office of Inspector General List of Excluded Individuals
- (GSA) General Services Admin. Excluded Parties Listing
- (OFAC) Office of Foreign Assets Control SDN Search
- (ORA/FDA) Office of Regulatory Affairs/Food & Drug Administration Debarment List
- (ORI) Office of Research Integrity Administration Action List






Also, at the school I attended prior any type of criminal charge was looked into. The only thing that could be wavered was a DUI and that was only if it had been a certain amount of years prior to applying. It was a bunch of red-tape to go through just for that. So much shit seems to go on the nurse's registry, at least from what I have seen. Even messing up being a CNA, such as myself, can ruin your life and your possible future of being a nurse or anything in the medical field at that

But, this could be chalked up to difference in times??? (seeing how some of these acts were committed in the early 90s and 1980s). I don't know...

Personally, if I had to have my fingerprints taken I wouldn't mind. But that is only due to me having nothing to hide. In a way it does seem "reasonable" to do this. I don't know how many aides I have worked with that are hooked on cocaine or pills and continue to get jobs in this line of work. Not only are they addicts and come to work fucked up, but a majority have records a mile long and are in AA or NA. I never got this, but it isn't my business either until I have to pick up the slack because they're too high to function.

On the other hand, looking at the situation as it really is pisses me off. As Americano said, it's a way to control and discriminate (more emphasis on the control part). The government likes to put these little plans/ideas in effect and present them for safety reasons. Yes, it seems safe on the surface, but what really lies beneath?

[The Drunk Guy]

Just another way to keep poor folks down. Another "scarlet letter" to go along with all the others.

[Americano]

Just another way to keep poor folks down. Another "scarlet letter" to go along with all the others.

Used to be some states had lower professional licensing requirements, some just needed warm bodies and those were places where someone who had made a mistake could start over. Now that insurers have gained more and more control over who a company hires, with states providing the regulations, those opportunities are vanishing. Our public welfare rolls are destined for rapid expansion on all fronts.

[cassandrabandra]

Merely another step toward the microchip implanted at birth. "I'm sorry, your life tracking history shows attendance at a flying spaghetti monster worship event and that's forbidden in our hiring policy".

but ... but ... I don't even like pasta!

In the last few years I think a lot of things have been getting out of hand - and its not like this everywhere! does it really make us safer?

I don't think so.

[cassandrabandra]

I have a friend who visited either Florida or California a year or so back. While he was there, it appeared to him that a guy had cut line, when it was his turn in line he asked why that was allowed to happen and was told that the other man had a chip in his hand...:shrug:

But this does sound strange. I know when applying to nursing school here, I have to go to www.myvci.com (http://www.myvci.com) to get my background check for the university.





Also, at the school I attended prior any type of criminal charge was looked into. The only thing that could be wavered was a DUI and that was only if it had been a certain amount of years prior to applying. It was a bunch of red-tape to go through just for that. So much shit seems to go on the nurse's registry, at least from what I have seen. Even messing up being a CNA, such as myself, can ruin your life and your possible future of being a nurse or anything in the medical field at that

But, this could be chalked up to difference in times??? (seeing how some of these acts were committed in the early 90s and 1980s). I don't know...

Personally, if I had to have my fingerprints taken I wouldn't mind. But that is only due to me having nothing to hide. In a way it does seem "reasonable" to do this. I don't know how many aides I have worked with that are hooked on cocaine or pills and continue to get jobs in this line of work. Not only are they addicts and come to work fucked up, but a majority have records a mile long and are in AA or NA. I never got this, but it isn't my business either until I have to pick up the slack because they're too high to function.

On the other hand, looking at the situation as it really is pisses me off. As Americano said, it's a way to control and discriminate (more emphasis on the control part). The government likes to put these little plans/ideas in effect and present them for safety reasons. Yes, it seems safe on the surface, but what really lies beneath?

I recall a case of a girl who was kicked out of nursing school due to an event (think it was actually a misdemeanour rather than even criminal ) which had happened when she was under extreme stress. She had lodged an appeal - but I don't know what happened. I didn't see it as related to the school, or her career - I know nurses do experience a great deal of stress - but the situation had not happened in the workplace or on university grounds, but when she was on her own time.

[Lily]

California now requires all registered nurses to provide fingerprints as a condition of their state licensing. The fingerprint records will allow prospective employers to set their own policies for employment using public records.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-nurses-fingerprints26-2009dec26,0,3288465.story?track=rss

Is this necessary to protect citizenry from the fractional number of bad apples that exist in any profession? As an employer I'd know insurers will require the criminal check for employment purposes and tack that regulatory cost onto operations.

Or, is that regulation more of the same we've become accustomed to with our drift to fascism? Considering a cost/return factor I can't see how this benefits anything other than insurance actuaries relating to improved margins and information gathering entities charging an extra fee in pre-employment searches.

It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure I had to provide a fingerprint card before I was licensed as an RN in Florida. You don't have many rights to privacy as a nurse, really. Someone punches you in the ER and you get tested for drugs, as an example. Another nurse thinks you're "acting funny" and tells a supervisor, you could be subjected to random drug screening right then and there. Searches of your personal property is standard for any kind of suspicious activity, and refusing to submit can result in immediate termination. They got you by the short hairs.

[Michael]

...You don't have many rights to privacy as a nurse, really.

I get the impression that employees in USA don't have many labor rights at all. ;)

[Americano]

I get the impression that employees in USA don't have many labor rights at all. ;)

They don't. I do find the selective morality amusing; fingerprints, criminal record checks and drug testing as conditions of employment while the alcoholics continue to swill as much booze as they choose with no employment repercussions.

[The Drunk Guy]

They don't. I do find the selective morality amusing; fingerprints, criminal record checks and drug testing as conditions of employment while the alcoholics continue to swill as much booze as they choose with no employment repercussions.
Watch yer step, pal. :mad:

[Americano]

Watch yer step, pal. :mad:

I thought you had planned it that way.

Over the years I worked with so many functioning alcoholics it was almost funny. I left the work force just as drug testing was becoming standard for workman's comp policies but I'd doubt that any senior people are being subjected to random testing.

[The Drunk Guy]

I thought you had planned it that way.


I just happen to prefer the legal ones. ;)

[Americano]

I just happen to prefer the legal ones. ;)

Me too. The nice part being almost all are legal for me.