[1] https://www.nwahomepage.com/knwa/mercy-employees-frustrated-...
I would rather have a job that pays $X but offers flexible work hours and vacation time that allows me to be a better parent, than a job that pays $1.5X but won't let me take a day or afternoon off to (e.g.) take my kid to the doctor, etc.
Granted, that probably applies more to WFH desk jobs than front-line nurses.
I'd suspect that it's less of an absolute "magic number" and more like a ratio compared to the alternative. Like a 2X or 3X salary increase, maybe more.
If I was making $30K a year (slightly less than the national individual median income) and had kids, I'd have to strongly consider a $150K job that could open up a completely different set of opportunities for the kids. In a lot of places in America that's a leap from "borderline poor nutrition and you better hope you're smart enough to earn a full college scholarship... and try not to get shot in the meantime" to "safety, healthy food, and we're able to invest in your future."
If I was already making $125K a year that $150K wouldn't be so persuasive. Not upending my life for that.
Although, I suppose, once we start talking nannies and tutors we're probably looking at closer to $250-$500K anyway. A full-time nanny is... well, a full-time employee.
Interesting case. I'm not a lawyer and have only given this a quick read, but it seems that the amount she could owe back was essentially unbounded, the longer she was there the more she could owe back. That was a major factor in the decision against Buc-ee's. See pages 8 and 9, in particular. I don't think this would work against bonus claw backs in general, only if they were similarly considered unreasonable and also only in TX, whose laws were violated in this case. (EDIT: Or states with similar laws, obviously.)
A $10k signing bonus that has a bounded and shorter obligation period could be considered reasonable.
> As noted above, an enforceable covenant must contain limitations as to time, geographic area, and scope of activity to be restrained that are reasonable and do not impose a greater restraint than necessary to protect the employer’s business interest.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/BC/htm/BC.15.htm
Sections 15.50 and 15.51 are the relevant parts.
Last, 28 / hour is fairly low for an RN. While indeed shows a median salary of 28.30 in New Orleans, it seems like most companies in the area are hiring at 54-64 dollars per hour setting the median for the pandemic at 46.52 per hour.
If she can nearly double her pay, who cares about 10k... I've never seen a company try to enforce these.
The comment you reply to is giving really bad advice to ignore it. That sort of clause is valid and the company may or may not action it. You don't know.
What your friend should do is interview for other companies and mentions to the HR interview that she has to refund 10k if she leaves now, and ask whether they would be able to cover it. It's routine for companies to offer a sign-on bonus to cover this sort of things and you can expect the same claw back clause attached for one year.
Alternatively, if she has the money AND can get a job that pays significantly more, she can switch anyway, the worst that can happen is that she has to pay some money if the company asks.
Don't start me on EMTs working 24 or 48 hour shifts for $11/hr.
Money can't buy happiness, but not being able to take care of your basic bodily needs can absolutely buy unhappiness.
No but not having enough will make you unhappy, and keep you trapped there.
Usually when someone says this to me, I respond with "then you're spending your money poorly". What I mean to say is that more money buys more flexibility and options, which should lead to more opportunities to leave unhappy situations or at least add more happy situations. Note that this is a generalization so there are plenty of edge cases to counter this.
My guess is that there is a very strong diminishing returns effect to the utility of money, and that, at some point, other effects start to dominate. Perhaps what's happening with health care workers is a case study for what's going on there.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom...
I should have qualified in my parent post that it assumes all else being equal.
But both cost money.
Generally Speaking in all but the biggest cities that is probably around the 60K-70K annual mark anything over that a person might put other things ahead of salary
However if you are working for $60K you bet you ass MONEY is how a company should be showing their love...
But it doesn't work if you're struggling to make ends meet. There are hospital workers who don't have health care because they can't afford it for example.
I believe the GP was referring to the other "stuff" companies try to do to get you to feel like they care about you, but that don't impact your ability to make your own choices about your life the way more time or money do.
e.g., "free" swag, company-wide retreats/outings
I wouldn't give that flexibility up for double the pay. If I'm ever in a job where they routinely abuse off hours or disapprove of taking time off, I'll be looking intensely for something to replace it.
Also I did end up returning to that company after 4 years and was able to get an even bigger raise upon my return. As always the best way to increase your pay is by leaving, so sad to be honest.
I just recently moved from a place with very good culture and benefits to a contracting company with much worse benefits. Just going from five weeks vacation to two weeks alone really stings. And my pay only went up 10% ... it wasn't only the money, it was because I wanted something new, but I still have a growing sense of regret.
In the case of hospitals, it’s almost always the top brass’s lack of willingness to hire more people that causes the greatest pressure of culture. Without a person willing to argue that the admins should be paid less so that each individual doctor has more time for each patient, the culture will remain toxic due to the stress that causes the doctors.
Money can't fix that.
Her point was for many medical personnel, it's not about money, it's about being exhausted and burnt out.
However, the bedrock of our society has been a growing working age population that is OK with meager wages and quality of life at work, allowing us to lives more luxurious than otherwise could be. This dynamic should change once the working age population decreases relative to the old age population who need the services.
Among physicians and medical researchers with PhDs, though, you'll find very little resistance to vaccines.
We shouldn't treat the opinions of a CNA who might have had as few as 85 hours of education as "the opinions of a medical professional" - -that- is entirely valid. Their opinions can be credible, and they can have valid concerns, but they're not held higher because they have a cert or license or degree.
This thread was about people perceiving a new vaccine, as one not tested enough.
This is vastly different from someone which has resistance to vaccination overall.
I am quite concerned that such mislabelling of people, could lead to disaster.
[1] https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/ [2] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.102797
Then so was the comment it was responding to
So here, the poster asserts that they find it notable, as in worthy of remark, that within the domain of healthcare people are opting out. The poster does not make any conjecture or assertions aside from that, the poster does not lean on any position nor support one from the authority of the "healthcare worker" mosaic. Instead, the poster very simply states that it is remarkable that that cohort chooses to remain unvaccinated without any further context.
The proceeding post moves to make assertions and stratify the cohort into classes, and implicitly posits the superior decisionmaking of the educated, arguing at what is in actuality a phantasm, as the parent did not postulate anything whatever. I suspect he projected some archetype onto the parent, hazarded induction, and argued with an appeal to authority in an attempt to make a point that needn't be asserted in the context.
I have real work to do.
Whether or not medical consensus has been more predictive than a coin flip historically is an empirical claim. I have no idea if it's true, but that seems doubtful. It's particularly interesting to cite penicillin as an example of medical authorities being wrong. Child mortality has dropped more than a hundredfold in the United States since the invention of penicillin. Not that penicillin is solely responsible for that, but I have to question whether possibly negative developmental effects you are trying to cite here really offsets the negative effects of children having potentially deadly infections. I had a severe case of pneumonia when I was 5 and would have died if not for antibiotics. Death is surely the worst possible negative developmental effect.
And you've managed construe a total misapprehension of my intended point. A fairly simple medicine that has been deployed for a very long period of time, very well studied and understood, can still generate novel information. My point wasn't to squeeze mortality rates or make positions on the use and importance of penicillin, simply to evince readers the point there are still unknown unknowns, in practice, of something that's been widely proliferated for nearly a century.
This isn't to knock those concerns. But while neither an MD, an LPN, or a layperson is an epidemiologist, we should be exalting the opinions of them by virtue of their authority. Not because you _need_ to be an epidemiologist to have a valid opinion, but because the above buys you no more merit, in and of itself.
> "I want to see more testing done," she says. "It took a long time to get a flu vaccine, and we made a COVID vaccine in 6 months. I want to know, before I start putting something into my body, that the testing is done."
> Many of her co-workers share her feelings, she said.
Would have been nice if the article included responses to these concerns. Plenty of shaming about how dangerous passing covid to patients can be, but I didn't see anything that actually addresses the confidence problem.
edit:
Looks like a different hospital worked on the confidence problem with some success:
> "There was a lot of hesitancy and skepticism," says William Schaffner, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious disease at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. So the infectious disease division put together a multifaceted program including Q&As, educational sessions, and one-on-one visits with employees, "from the custodians all the way up to the C-suite," he says.
Today, HHS data shows the hospital is 83% vaccinated. Schaffner thinks the true number is probably higher, about 90%. "We're very pleased with that," he says.
Here's one simple question: who's liable for the damages/complications from the vaccine.
The answer: it's complicated.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-c...
https://fortune.com/2021/04/07/covid-vaccine-safety-is-astra...
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-are-pharmaceutical-compa...
But why should it be? If you trust your product, that's a no-brainer to cover the consumer for damages. If you don't...
This assumes a lot of things about the US legal system that aren't really true. A company can get sued for anything. And the cost of litigation is nontrivial. In the US, by default, each party is liable for their own litigation costs. This means that if 20000 people decide to sue Pfizer (you know, 1% of 1% of the vaccinated in the US), Pfizer now has to deal with the litigation costs of tens of thousands of lawsuits. Even if they win every single one, they're paying for hundreds, or even thousands, of lawyer-years in billables.
And while many of those might just be people hoping for a quick buck, or people with legitimate concerns who are ultimately mistaken, some will be agenda-driven people with funding to make the cases last, and whose goal is to make Pfizer look bad, because those people think vaccines are dangerous and the people who make them should be punished.
And Pfizer is on the hook for all of that even if there are no damages. Zero, zilch.
They can recover those costs if the lawsuit is frivolous. And we're talking about a billion dollar company racking billions in profits fighting in court against... sick people robbed of their health's. A balanced fight indeed.
No, in this hypothetical, we're presuming that the vaccine has no side effects. So these people aren't sick people robbed of their health, but either mistaken or agenda driven.
> They can recover those costs if the lawsuit is frivolous.
This is a high bar and isn't always even possible, depending on the jurisdiction. Often it requires things like the person filing the suit to know the suit is frivolous.