[TazziRN]

Originally Posted by kanzi monkey

What do you mean by this?

Originally Posted by kanzi monkey

"an employee working in excess of the employee's scheduled workday shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half (1-1/2) for all excess time worked..."

This definition does not correspond to your definition. Since it's from the contract at the OP's institution, this is the relevant working definition. A full worday is determined to be "the employee's scheduled workday"--which may or may not equal an 8 hour shift.

I pulled this from the California Labor site, which defines when overtime is to be paid. I know that all states may not think the same way, but this is what I meant by Labor's definition versus the contract's.

"In California, the general overtime provisions are that a nonexempt employee 18 years of age or older, or any minor employee 16 or 17 years of age who is not required by law to attend school and is not otherwise prohibited by law from engaging in the subject work, shall not be employed more than eight hours in any workday or more than 40 hours in any workweek unless he or she receives one and one-half times his or her regular rate of pay for all hours worked over eight hours in any workday and over 40 hours in the workweek. Eight hours of labor constitutes a day's work, and employment beyond eight hours in any workday or more than six days in any workweek is permissible provided the employee is compensated for the overtime."

I am fully aware that many places have 10- and 12-hour shifts, but people working those shifts do not work more than 40 hours a week on a scheduled basis. People who do 12's get straight time, with the possible exception of shift diffs, but the overtime would kick in at more than 36 hours for that week.

Someone pointed out that the 4-hour shift is a scheduled shift even if it's only 4 hours. True, and things can be tweaked in terms of deciding what constitutes a full day, but until and unless the OP's contract is changed to specify that 4-hour employees are included, the standard understanding would win out here, and that is that a full shift is at least 8 hours.

[kanzi monkey]

Originally Posted by icunurse42051

I really do not believe that the question posed by the OP can be answered by anyone here unless the entire contract is posted to be read. We do not know for sure if they were talking about F/T employees or not. All we saw was a portion of the contract. I agree with the poster who said to consult your union rep. Me personally, I would be highly hacked-off if someone received time and a half for five hours and I received straight time for 12 hours. IMO

It's your choice to work 12 hours at a time. If you want to schedule shorter shifts, your should try to arrange that. But unless you are, for example, staying 12 hours when you only planned on 8, then there is no reason to pay you OT. If someone scheduled to work 4 has to stay 5 and ends up missing a meeting, a class, a bus, being late to their moonlight shift, not picking up the kid on time, etc, they should be compensated as per the contractual agreement. Likewise, if you work over your scheduled 12 hours, you should get OT. Working a long shift does not make your NON-work time any more important than someone who works 4.


As far as interpreting the OP's contract, I paritally agree with you. But the quote she posted specifically addressed the fact that the OT hours that are being described are hours in excess of the worker's scheduled shift, and NOT hours over 40 (which we all know is federally mandated OT). So, unless she is specifically reading from a part of her contract that is addressing only people who work FT as defined by her institution, then that statement probably applies to her.

[kmcnelly]

Originally Posted by TazziRN

Read my post again

I did read your post again. And as you said, a contract is a binding agreement between nurses and employers on how they agree to mandate their working environment. They specify that overtime shall be any hours in excess of their SCHEDULED WORKING SHIFT. The do not specify a 'normal' working day, or an 8 or 12 hour day. They specify the word SCHEDULED. Contracts are legal and extremely technical. They are not drawn up by a NM and a hospital admin just sitting there thinking "they'll know what we mean". They are drawn up by lawyers who know that wording in a contract is CRITICAL. If she is promised OT for hourse beyond her scheduled working shift, and she is scheduled 4 hours, then legally she must be paid OT for any time worked over those 4 hours.

[kmcnelly]

Originally Posted by xptp29a

I've got some issues at work regarding overtime and I'd like to know what you think about it.

My union contract states, "...Further, even though the total hours worked during a week may not exceed forty (40) an employee working in excess of the employee's scheduled workday shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half (1-1/2) for all excess time worked..."

The part-time evening shifts in this hospital department are four hours long, but we often have to stay later to accomplish the tasks (five hours is typical). No person on evening shifts ever has over 20 hours per week, let alone 40 hours. I average 12 hours per week. We have never been paid over time when we stay past four hours.

I had a meeting with my supervisor who thinks what the above union contract is saying only applies to those who are working 40 hour work weeks and 8 hour days. I don't agree and believe what is said in the contract applies to me.

What do you think? I've already spoke with my union steward and they agree with me. Is the contract wording misleading? Just wanted some input.

Remember one thing. This is a contract. This is binding. Semantics are crucial in contracts.

This contract does not say "what would be perceived as a normal work day". It doesn't specify number of hours worked, FT, or PT. It actually does address only one specific. The employee. It says "...an employee working in excess of THE EMPLOYEE'S scheduled workday...". So FT or PT doesn't matter here. What matters is the employees scheduled workday and whether they work more than that day.

Also, OT regulations are mandated by the state so that employers do not hire people who will 'promise' to work 40+ hours at straight time. It is made for the benifit of the employee. If an employer chooses to pay overtime sooner than he/she is legally obligated, said employer has every right to do so. So a 40+ OT is not set in stone. If an employer wanted to they could pay OT after 10 hours. It just wouldn't be economically (sp?) phesable.

[kanzi monkey]

Originally Posted by TazziRN

I pulled this from the California Labor site, which defines when overtime is to be paid. I know that all states may not think the same way, but this is what I meant by Labor's definition versus the contract's.

"In California, the general overtime provisions are that a nonexempt employee 18 years of age or older, or any minor employee 16 or 17 years of age who is not required by law to attend school and is not otherwise prohibited by law from engaging in the subject work, shall not be employed more than eight hours in any workday or more than 40 hours in any workweek unless he or she receives one and one-half times his or her regular rate of pay for all hours worked over eight hours in any workday and over 40 hours in the workweek. Eight hours of labor constitutes a day's work, and employment beyond eight hours in any workday or more than six days in any workweek is permissible provided the employee is compensated for the overtime."

I am fully aware that many places have 10- and 12-hour shifts, but people working those shifts do not work more than 40 hours a week on a scheduled basis. People who do 12's get straight time, with the possible exception of shift diffs, but the overtime would kick in at more than 36 hours for that week.

Someone pointed out that the 4-hour shift is a scheduled shift even if it's only 4 hours. True, and things can be tweaked in terms of deciding what constitutes a full day, but until and unless the OP's contract is changed to specify that 4-hour employees are included, the standard understanding would win out here, and that is that a full shift is at least 8 hours.

There is probably some stipulation that allows ths hospitals to NOT pay OT for regularly scheduled 12 hour shifts--I know different types of organizations have certain exemptions. For example, I used to work on a large-scale farm--during harvest we'd work 18 hour days, 90 + hour weeks. Not a cent for OT.

As far as defining a work day goes, however, the wording in the contract implies that it is the regular schedule of the employee that defines what constitutes a full workday. IF the hospital schedules 4 hour shifts, then a 4 hour shift would define that "employee's workday". Now, as I said earlier (and I know I can be long winded, so if you missed it I don't blame you) my contract is worded very similarly to her's, however mine specifies that the OT applies only if you work 8 hours or more. So, if she worked at my hospital, she'd be out of luck.

You know, I guess all I'm thinking here is that, hey, if we work in a society where certain occupations defy "normal" workday standards (nursing, farming )
then it makes sense that the definition of a "workday" ought to be flexible. So, if her hospital's contract really includes paying OT to minimally part-time employees, that just makes sense and seems fair to me. But another poster was right. I don't have the contract in front of me. Drat.

The concept of working a 5 day workweek, sleeping at night, eating normally, etc. is very far from me. It's almost 4 in the morning, it's my day off, and I'm thinking about cooking something for dinner right about now. Nurses do exceptional work, they also have exceptional schedules.

Anyway, talking too much again.

Have a good (insert time of day it is to you)!

[icunurse42051]

Originally Posted by kanzi monkey

It's your choice to work 12 hours at a time. If you want to schedule shorter shifts, your should try to arrange that. But unless you are, for example, staying 12 hours when you only planned on 8, then there is no reason to pay you OT. If someone scheduled to work 4 has to stay 5 and ends up missing a meeting, a class, a bus, being late to their moonlight shift, not picking up the kid on time, etc, they should be compensated as per the contractual agreement. Likewise, if you work over your scheduled 12 hours, you should get OT. Working a long shift does not make your NON-work time any more important than someone who works 4.


As far as interpreting the OP's contract, I paritally agree with you. But the quote she posted specifically addressed the fact that the OT hours that are being described are hours in excess of the worker's scheduled shift, and NOT hours over 40 (which we all know is federally mandated OT). So, unless she is specifically reading from a part of her contract that is addressing only people who work FT as defined by her institution, then that statement probably applies to her.

I know that I work 12 hour shifts by my choice and I'm not saying that my NON-work time is more important than anyone else's, all I was trying to say was that until we can read the entire contract and get the exact wording re: F/T vs P/T, it's hard to say if the OP deserves OT pay or not. Now that being said, I have never worked for a facility that has a union, but I do travel nursing and in my contract it says I am to work 3 12 hour shifts (36 hours a week) and would be paid OT for anytime above 40 hours. So, if i work 16 hours each day for 2 days that week and only worked 8 the last day, then I would not get OT for the extra 8 hours I worked those 2 days. I don't know if that made any sense or not, after all, it is 0300 where I am, and you take what you can get at this hour HA HA!

[rn/writer]

Originally Posted by kanzi monkey

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

This isn't about being fair or unfair. We all have to count the cost of the decisions we make.

I didn't say she would be wrong to pursue this. That's her choice, of course. The reality is that four-hour shifts are not common and that is something to take into consideration.

As other posters have noted, even in places where you get time and a half after eight or twelve hours when those are your scheduled shifts, four hour shifts would normally be excluded.

She needs to clarify the contract. What she does after that is her prerogative. But an informed decision takes many factors into account, one of them being that you can win the battle but still lose the war. Then again, you could also win both. The point is that a prudent person weighs all of the information before selecting a course of action.

Which is moot if the passage in question doesn't apply to four-hour shifts.

[caroladybelle]

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 money, 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 have to agree with this.

Unions can control alot but the employer has the easy option of changing shifts to something that they find less costly unless contracted otherwise. And many of those changes may end up hurting the nursing staff more than just working 4.5 hours at straight time.

I do know of facilities where "rules" stipulated that anything over 8 hours per day was to be paid at time and a half, regardless of whether total weekly hours exceeded 40.....they found 12 hour shifts quickly being phased out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much like in the auto industry, unions can do good but the regs can backfire with unintended consequences for the rank and file.

[cmo421]

Originally Posted by xptp29a

I've got some issues at work regarding overtime and I'd like to know what you think about it.

My union contract states, "...Further, even though the total hours worked during a week may not exceed forty (40) an employee working in excess of the employee's scheduled workday shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half (1-1/2) for all excess time worked..."

The part-time evening shifts in this hospital department are four hours long, but we often have to stay later to accomplish the tasks (five hours is typical). No person on evening shifts ever has over 20 hours per week, let alone 40 hours. I average 12 hours per week. We have never been paid over time when we stay past four hours.

I had a meeting with my supervisor who thinks what the above union contract is saying only applies to those who are working 40 hour work weeks and 8 hour days. I don't agree and believe what is said in the contract applies to me.

What do you think? I've already spoke with my union steward and they agree with me. Is the contract wording misleading? Just wanted some input.

Ok, I will get hammered for this one. This is one of the biggest problems with unions. Micro managing work hours. I have been a union person for all of my career,but unions can go over board. OT pay is killing most hospitals today. A very needed policy, but too often taken advantage of. Four hours work,even if a "designated" shift, should not be eligable for OT. Come on,let's be fair now. How many professions can say they are afforded the flexable shifts we are? Let's keep this benifit,we do not have many!
At the facility I work in now, the OT is really over extended. We have a union that gets us time and a half and also double time for some shifts. We do not have 4 hr shifts,unless you take call. When we take call for 4 hrs and get called in, it is at time and half,also receive call pay. If the four hrs call is attached to a shift(before or after) we get double time.
We have come a long way and more then deserve the money we get and more. I am just saying that we should not bite the hand that feeds us, unless bitten first,,,lol

[agent66]

Originally Posted by xptp29a

I've got some issues at work regarding overtime and I'd like to know what you think about it.

My union contract states, "...Further, even though the total hours worked during a week may not exceed forty (40) an employee working in excess of the employee's scheduled workday shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half (1-1/2) for all excess time worked..."

The part-time evening shifts in this hospital department are four hours long, but we often have to stay later to accomplish the tasks (five hours is typical). No person on evening shifts ever has over 20 hours per week, let alone 40 hours. I average 12 hours per week. We have never been paid over time when we stay past four hours.

I had a meeting with my supervisor who thinks what the above union contract is saying only applies to those who are working 40 hour work weeks and 8 hour days. I don't agree and believe what is said in the contract applies to me.

What do you think? I've already spoke with my union steward and they agree with me. Is the contract wording misleading? Just wanted some input.

I read it as ANY hours over your scheduled shift is OT, regardless of total hours worked in the week. Evening shift seems to be the worst for getting off on time , esp 4 hours. I put in for overtime for any time over the prescheduled shift, but being reasonable of course. Running my butt off and working is one thing but if it was quiet and suddenly busy last 30 minutes of shift then I do not. In our contract we are also entitled to a fifteen minute break in the 4 hour shift, which of course no one takes, so I take that into account as well when pondering signing in for the OT. I have already given them fifteen minutes for free, and if I stay 30 more minutes, then certainly yes I will sign in.