0.9 is not full time?!
- 3Mar 28, '12 by simveeOur 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?
- 3Mar 28, '12 by sailornurseTime for you to call the labor board in your state and find out what the legal aspects of the hospital's move means for you and for the new employees. Hospitals sometimes try things that are not quite legal.
When the Family Medical Leave Act first came out (1993 or so) I was pregnant and our human resources department was "misinterpreting" it. When I was put on bedrest and could not work, the HR person tried to tell me that for every day I had called in sick due to the pregnancy, the days would be deducted from the 12 weeks allowed. I informed her it was up to my doctor to determine when I was medically cleared to return and that they were "mucking" with a federal law. I called the labor board and he already knew the lady's name! The man at the labor board ended up getting 2 extra weeks from the hospital for me.
The whole thing was stupid as they had plenty of openings for RN's and the law is meant to protect my job for me, hold an RN job somewhere in the hospital, it's not for them to dictate your return date from a medical procedure.
So call your labor board!!!
- 9Mar 28, '12 by caliotter3"It's a bad economy, you're not going to find a job anywhere else, so eat it" sums it up nicely. The employer always finds a spin for a negative policy and they expect the employee to fall for it, hook, line, and sinker. This is one of the reasons I do not support twelve hour shifts. No employer wants to pay eight hours straight time and four hours overtime, so they convince the employees that the 12 hours for 36 hrs with full time benefits is better in the long run. I am tired after eight hours and I believe I earn overtime. If I were getting full time benefits for 0.9/FTE, I would feel I earned that also. This would be a burr under my saddle.
- 3Mar 28, '12 by MunoRNCurrently there is no requirement that employers provide health insurance to anyone, part or full-time (except for MA I believe). That will change in 2014 when PPACA (Obamacare) will require large employers to offer plans to employees and full-time will be defined as greater than 30 hours, although that assumes PPACA will still be around by then.
- 0Mar 28, '12 by Fiona59Same as Joanna. Our employer regards full time a 77.75 hours over a two week pay period. Anything less and you are a part timer.
I can pick up enough extra hours to make full time hours over the time period and I'm still considered part time for pension purposes.
Our benefits (medical, dental, disability) package is the same as full timer except that disability payouts are based on our official position size (which I haven't worked in ten years).