Am I reading this right...?

nuangel1, BSN, RN · Sep 18, 2007

i can't speak regarding your institution .i don't know your contract .but in my hospital overtime is anytime worked past 40 hrs or past your scheduled shift whether thats 8hrs or 12 .i am a 36/40 employee.i am scheduled to work 3 12's a week and get pd 40 at straight time.but if i stay beyond my 12 shift anything after 12 hrs is ot .meaning time an a 1/2 .but if i work an additional 4 hr shift then i get pd 40 hrs at regular time plus 4 hrs straight time .ie that 4 shift is pd at straight time.anything i work after 40 hrs is ot.we have mandatory ot also .so if i work 12 hrs i can only get mandated for 4 more hrs at time and 1/2 .

kanzi monkey · Sep 18, 2007

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.

this is a good question. I tend to agree with your interpretation--I think consulting your union rep should be your next step.

The contract at my hospital states very nearly the same thing--however, it specifies that in order to get OT when working over your shift time, your normally scheduled hours have to be a minimum of 8 hours. We also have 4 hour shifts--but our contract pretty clearly excludes this group from getting OT unless they're over 8.

But if your contract doesn't specify this, then I think you are right. The reasoning behind paying OT for going beyond regular shift time is simple--it is acknowledging that the nurse did not PLAN to stay this length of time, and therefore is sacrificing her/his pre-scheduled NON-work time. For me, my pre-scheduled non-work time IS more valuable than my scheduled hourly wage, and I appreciate that my union and my institution agree on this (not that we don't get discouraged from 'putting in'--but that's another story).

So, regardless of shift length, any hours in excess of what was planned are inherently more valuable. Granted, our contract doesn't include the 4 hour shifts--but since it is clearly in the contract that way, people working a 4 at least know where they stand, and can decide whether or not they feel it's necessary to address that when the next negotiations come around.

-Kan

TazziRN, RN · Sep 18, 2007

I must disagree. If you read the OPs post again, it doesn't say shift. It says scheduled shift. Her scheduled shift is 4 hours, thereby making anything over that OT. Also, I do believe that they might owe you back OT if they haven't paid it b4 and should have. You may want to look into that, as well.

Read my post again

TazziRN, RN · Sep 18, 2007

I will dig further into the contract to see if a work day is defined, but I'm pretty sure it isn't. There are a few gray areas in the contract that can be interpreted different ways, this being one of them. Just needed some other points of view before I decide to pursue this any futher. Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

Mmm, I didn't mean defined by the contract, I mean defined by Labor.

kanzi monkey · Sep 18, 2007

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

kanzi monkey · Sep 18, 2007

Mmm, I didn't mean defined by the contract, I mean defined by Labor.

What do you mean by this?

kanzi monkey · Sep 18, 2007

Sorry, but I disagree with you. Overtime is anything over 8 hours (or 12 depending on the place). A full workday is determined to be an entire shift. 4 hours is a half shift, even if that's all you're scheduled for.

"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.

icunurse42066 · Sep 18, 2007

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

TazziRN, RN · Sep 18, 2007

what do you mean by this?

"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 · Sep 18, 2007

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.

treysdaddy08 · Sep 18, 2007

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.

treysdaddy08 · Sep 18, 2007

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.