0.9 is not full time?!

KelRN215, BSN, RN · Mar 28, 2012

At my current facility, 30 hrs/week or more is considered full-time for benefits. 20-29 hrs is a part-time benefits-eligible position, with benefits costing about 2x as much as they do for full-time employees. Changing 0.9 to "part-time" for benefits status does not violate any laws. In Massachusetts, employers with greater than (I believe) 10-11 employees are required to offer health insurance but there's nothing in the law that says that they cannot charge part-time people more. In the new position that I am taking, I will be working for a smaller employer and the cost of benefits differs for people who work 20-29 hrs, 30-34 and 35-40.

Esme12, ASN, BSN, RN · Mar 28, 2012

Well .9 FTE is NOT full time. Full time per federal law is 40 hours per week of 1.0 FTE. To work 3, 12 hour shifts was considered a "bonus" to paid for 40 with full time benefits. Heck, I remember a Baylor program where I worked every weekend 24 hour nights and was paid full time wages. Ahhh the good ole days.

Yes, they can do it legally. Yes it's because they can, because there is a plethora of nurses (one of the reasons I think the "nursing shortage was so heavily shoved down every one's throats) and you just can go and find another job. Flood the market and the value diminishes....supply and demand.

Yes Obama care addresses it, but I think it will cause more costs and trouble than it solves and more government in anything right now won't imporve the situation until they all stop behaving so badly.

Time will tell.

Double-Helix, BSN, RN · Mar 28, 2012

I know there are some hospitals that do not consider 36 hours per week full time. I think they are only doing this in order to save money on their insurance costs. That's the only reason this would make sense.

llg, PhD, RN · Mar 28, 2012

I've worked at several different hospitals -- and they have handled it different ways. My favorite way was to pro-rate the benefits based on the budgeted position. For example, a true full time (1.0 FTE) person got 100% of the benefit offered. Someone working .9 would get 90% of that amount and have to pay the other 10% out of pocket if they wanted that benefit. Someone who worked .5 would get 50% and so on.

That seemed fair to everyone -- and I don't remember anyone complaining about it.

evolvingrn, BSN, RN · Mar 28, 2012

there is no difference in benefit premiums if your work 20 hours or more a week, that is standard for acute care facilities in our town.

merlee · Mar 28, 2012

In most places, 3 12's was considered full-time and came with the entire package. Now the admins are looking for ways to cut costs. This is sad, and very disappointing.

Time to look elsewhere, or talk about a union.....

best wishes!

FlyingScot, RN · Mar 28, 2012

This is why I love my 4-10's.

anotherone, BSN, RN · Mar 29, 2012

Our hospital just quietly transitioned to a new policy, wherein 0.9 FTE nurses (3 12 hour shifts) are not considered full-time. They reassure us that this policy only affects new nurses, and old 0.9ers will be grandfathered into full time.
Of course, some of us just recently moved to 1.0 status because they asked us to, so we're not happy that we can never go back to 0.9 without paying sky-high part-time insurance premiums!
Has anyone else heard of this? They're insisting that the "0.9 = full time" thing was an incentive to attract nurses in a shortage. I think they're just lying. I thought the whole idea was that employers wanted nurses to go to 12 hour shifts (which nurses wanted as well) because it's financially better for the company, but the only way they could convince anyone to do that was to make three 12's count as full time.
I think the take-home message here is "It's a bad economy, you're not going to find a job anywhere else, so eat it."
Anyone else's thoughts? What's the history of this?

Yes, I know some facilities, big mega teaching hospitals, not just tiny snfs etc, where 0.9 is PART time. There is no message other than, get used to it or get another job because there are plenty of new grads to hire. They make that very clear at those places. My thoughts are the employer can do what they want, in this regard, and those that don't like it can look for a job elsewhere. Although personally I am not a fan of two 8s two 12s,five 8s, or 3 twelves and one 4 hour shift, or any other combination.

CCRNDiva, BSN, RN · Mar 29, 2012

Well, nurses at my old hospital did not have a choice re: 12 hr shifts. 8 hr shifts were eliminated long ago. Only OR, PACU, or management are allowed to work 8 hr shifts. They even made all of the PCAs go to 12s. We earned less vacacation as a .9 employee. Funny thing is, we were required to work extra shifts whenever they decided "to meet the needs of the unit) whether FT, PT, or per diem. (Big part of why I no longer work there)

snuggles49 · Mar 29, 2012

why is it so many people have such negativity toward thier employer ? (quote:the employer always finds a spin for a negative policy and they expect the employee to fall for it, hook, line, and sinkercaliotter3 .)(quote:hospitals sometimes try things that are not quite legal.sailornurse ) is it just healthcare facilities that peoplefind issue with or other places of employment also?? because it seems most feel hospitals tend to screw them over. hospitals are a business whether you like it or not . they have to make money in order to survive and keep people employed. benefits esp healthcare are very expensive for an employer to pay whether in health care or not.

my employer, acute care hospital (small rural, aprox 300 to 400 employees) considers 0.9 a fulltime position with benefits (health insurance, pension, life insurance, vacation, sick days, paid holidays, overtime for working holidays, overtime for anything over 12 or 8 hours in a shift and overtime for any hours over 40 in a week.) most nursing areas work 12 hour shifts, or 8 hour with on call pay. also, we employ pt with benefits. (quote:so they convince the employees that the 12 hours for 36 hrs with full time benefits is better in the long run.caliotter3 ) actually, working 12 hour shifts is better.. you work 3 days and have the other 4 off and if you do it right you could work a m-t-w and not come back to work until the following week f-sat-sun. you have a 8 day vacation and have used no benefit time to cover it. how can you beat that. i know one employee who works f-sat-sun-m-t-w and has two 8 day stretchs off so he can work occassional at another job..and he functions very well on a med surg unit with 6-7 patients doing primary care. doing 12 hour shifts you only work 12 days out of a month as opposed to 8 hour shifts working 20 days if you are an 80 employee of 18 for a 72 hour employee guess what most people pick???

last comment...how can .9 be considered pt when a 1.0 is only 8 more hours. do you know how they get these numbers...

for a .9 you divide the number of hours they work you ..in this case 72 by the number of hours in a typical work week of 8 hour shifts (80 hrs) by 80 and this equals your fte. if you are 80 hr bi-weekly you are a 1.0

MN-Nurse, ASN, RN · Mar 29, 2012

I think the take-home message here is "It's a bad economy, you're not going to find a job anywhere else, so eat it."

I think the take home message is that I am thankful for my union and am going to do everything I can to fight the current union busting "Right to Work" garbage going on in my state.

subee, MSN, CRNA · Mar 29, 2012

I don't want a nurse taking care of me who is working the third day of 3 12's in a row. Poor judgement on both the nurse and the employer for allowing it to happen.