Originally Posted by rn/writer
Overtime was designed to compensate employees who put in an extra long day (or week) and to make employers "count the cost" before asking them to do so. It doesn't seem unreasonable to have to work five hours instead of four. Most of the hospitals I'm aware of don't give time and a half after eight, but only after forty hours. Otherwise all the folks working twelve-hour shifts would qualify. And then to save monsy, the powers that be would be likely to switch back to eight-hour days, five days a week instead of the three twelves which many of my co-workers greatly prefer.
I don't mean to sound critical, but I'd be happy the hospital offered 4-5 hours shifts in the first place. Be careful you don't jeopardize such a rare opportunity.
I think the point that some unions are trying to address is that it is not unreasonable to allow an employee, rather than an institution, define what constitutes an "extra long day"
So, for example, I only work 8 hour shifts, and I'm part time. I'm also a full-time student and have numerous time-consuming activities that need to be scheduled and completed in a timely manner. So, I may work an 8, and then go to school for 6 hours. Or go straight from a day of class to a night of work. If I end up having to stay an extra hour at the end of my shift, even though it's only 9 hours and some other nurses are there for 12, I actually AM working an extra long day based on my own individual schedule.
Now, if I pick up an extra shift, but don't go over 40 hours, I DON'T get OT--because it was planned in advance and did not cut into other activities. Also, if I switch into a 12 hour shift, I don't get paid OT (unless I go over 12) because the shift was scheduled in advance.
This is kind of a novel way of acknowledging nurses' lives outside of work, and I think it fundamentally respects the employees' right to plan their own lives. If I have a situation that requires I stay at work beyond my shift, I will. I may be late to class, get marked down. I may be late for a meeting, or a clinical rotation. Maybe I leave my husband stranded for a while, or my dog (god forbid) develops a UTI cause she has to pee so bad...
If you, rn/writer, want to work 4-5 hour shifts and have a reason that is important to you (it doesn't have to be important to anyone else), then you should make acquiring a 4-5 hour shift schedule a priority in your life. but this quote makes it sound like you think the OP isn't grateful for the shift that she/he has:
I don't mean to sound critical, but I'd be happy the hospital offered 4-5 hours shifts in the first place. Be careful you don't jeopardize such a rare opportunity.
Contracts aren't "books of priviledges" for nurses--they are documents recording how nurses and employers agree to define the rights of those nurses at that institution. Another poster earlier said something like the OP won't "win" that argument--but it's not an argument. It's already been discussed on the table, and is now defined in legal terms. Whether or not he/she is interpreting it correctly can be addressed by key voices that contributed to drafting that document. The OP doesn't have to argue anything, and by freely asking questions regarding her benefits she is exercising her rights as an employee. Perhaps, if it turns out she has correctly interpreted her contract, then yes--if all the OT she put in was recorded she would have the right to request back pay. Also, the hospital would have the right to limit 4 hour shifts.
But if that were the case, that's the hospital's perogative. It is NOT the hospitals perogative to not pay OT to people who should be getting it.
It's not fair to suggest to the OP that she is "jeopardizing" anything--if she has identified a problem where people aren't getting compensated in accordance with their contract, it needs to be addressed--not ignored because she thinks that she might not get to keep a shift she likes.
-Kan
Would you like to comment?
