Can they make you work full time and not pay you benefits?

[jxRN]

Hey lovely nurses, so recently I just accepted a Per-diem job offer. They said there's a nurse on maternity leave, and would like me to cover her full time, 40 hours a week- if i want.

my Questions are :

1) is there a law saying that you can just hire per diem nurses and give them full time, without requiring to give employee benefits..???? is there such a thing as, if I work over a certain hours, they're mandated to give me some sort of benefits?????

2) do per diem nurses get a cap on the number of hours they can work per week.? and if you go over that cap, the employer has to offer benefits?

3) They also offered XX amount of dollar per hour. does that mean if i switch to full time or part time in the future, that hourly rate decreases?

4) how long does maternity leave last??

5) did you ever negotiate salary? what about your first job?

sorrie newbie here. thanks for your help

[carolinapooh, BSN, RN]

I've been searching to validate this and glean some details and haven't found anything yet. Can you back this up with something independently verifiable?

I found this - but it's saying there is no law requiring health insurance:

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Benefits.pdf

On insurance.ca.gov, I copied this from a document that seems to say UNIONS are required to provide health insurance:

INTRODUCTION: COMBATTING INSURANCE FRAUD

As consumers, we all need insurance to protect us from the consequences

of both minor and catastrophic losses. In some cases, such as automobile

insurance, we are required by law to buy insurance. We are also required by

mortgage lenders to buy homeowner’s insurance. All California employers

are required by law to buy workers’ compensation insurance, and many

employers are required by union contracts to provide health insurance to

their workers.

Not trying to nose in; health insurance and reform are a big thing with me and I find state law interesting. (As a side note, I also learned that California allows insurers to block you from group coverage d/t a preexisting condition UNLESS you're eligible under HIPAA. Way to go CA.)

[elkpark]

I found this - but it's saying there is no law requiring health insurance:

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Benefits.pdf

On insurance.ca.gov, I copied this from a document that seems to say UNIONS are required to provide health insurance:

INTRODUCTION: COMBATTING INSURANCE FRAUD

As consumers, we all need insurance to protect us from the consequences

of both minor and catastrophic losses. In some cases, such as automobile

insurance, we are required by law to buy insurance. We are also required by

mortgage lenders to buy homeowner's insurance. All California employers

are required by law to buy workers' compensation insurance, and many

employers are required by union contracts to provide health insurance to

their workers.

I think what the bolded statement means is that many employers are obligated under the contracts negotiated by unions to provide health insurance -- not that unions are required by the state to provide insurance (that's what it reads like to me, anyway).

I do know there was a new law passed recently in CA that requires at least some employers (restaurant and bar owners) to provide health insurance for their employees, because I recall seeing TV news coverage of many restaurant and bar owners whining about how this was going to put them out of business. This was maybe within the last few months ...

[kaliRN]

"I've been searching to validate this and glean some details and haven't found anything yet. Can you back this up with something independently verifiable?"

I have edited my original post. On reading - it did not convey what I intended it to. The U.S. Department of Labor has information on the topic, regarding ERISA and COBRA and employee plans to which I was referring.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/health-plans/index.htm

There needs to be equality in health insurance coverage in California. I read a lot of code when helping a fledgling business owner get established. Sorry for making such bold statements without quantifying the exception (it essentially negates my point). What I was trying to convey is this: Any employer is mandated to provide the same coverage options to all full-time employees IF they provide such coverage to one. Small businesses (over 15 or between 2 and 50 have code geared specifically to them, but are not exempted from this rule).

[elkpark]

I'm still trying to dredge up from the recesses of my memory what I heard -- I think it may have been a San Francisco city ordinance.

[carolinapooh, BSN, RN]

I think what the bolded statement means is that many employers are obligated under the contracts negotiated by unions to provide health insurance -- not that unions are required by the state to provide insurance (that's what it reads like to me, anyway).

I do know there was a new law passed recently in CA that requires at least some employers (restaurant and bar owners) to provide health insurance for their employees, because I recall seeing TV news coverage of many restaurant and bar owners whining about how this was going to put them out of business. This was maybe within the last few months ...

COOL - I do think that should be the law if the business is over a certain size.

[carolinapooh, BSN, RN]

"I've been searching to validate this and glean some details and haven't found anything yet. Can you back this up with something independently verifiable?"

I have edited my original post. On reading - it did not convey what I intended it to. The U.S. Department of Labor has information on the topic, regarding ERISA and COBRA and employee plans to which I was referring.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/health-plans/index.htm

There needs to be equality in health insurance coverage in California. I read a lot of code when helping a fledgling business owner get established. Sorry for making such bold statements without quantifying the exception (it essentially negates my point). What I was trying to convey is this: Any employer is mandated to provide the same coverage options to all full-time employees IF they provide such coverage to one. Small businesses (over 15 or between 2 and 50 have code geared specifically to them, but are not exempted from this rule).

Yeah, I found the COBRA thing too. And I think the other thing is Federal law as well (providing same options to all).

[elkpark]

COOL - I do think that should be the law if the business is over a certain size.

I would much rather see us sever the relationship between employment and health insurance and go to a single-payer system.

[kaliRN]

"I'm still trying to dredge up from the recesses of my memory what I heard -- I think it may have been a San Francisco city ordinance."

Don't review San Francisco health care law: Administration | Business Insurance

Interesting.

Apologies OP, for sliding off a bit on your post ... More than you ever wanted to know?

[cb_rn]

I just wanted to say once, at this tiny hospital, I switched to per diem and got a whopping raise of....$1 an hour. Some premium, huh?

but I had a job, so I will not complain.

[jxRN]

cool beans :)

my bf likes to read up on all those health law stuff. i'll let him read it. i'm sure he'll find it interesting haha

[GM2RN]

One hospital where I work is a union hospital and the union contract stipulates that if any per diem employee workes full-time hours for 6 months, the employer must provide health insurance for the following 6 months. If you will be working for a union hospital, check the contract to see if this type of situation is provided for.

[carolinapooh, BSN, RN]

I would much rather see us sever the relationship between employment and health insurance and go to a single-payer system.

THAT's actually what I'd like to see - but since that's not happening in the immediate future, the second alternative is to require it.

I would personally love to see Big Insurance spontaneously combust. All at the same time. Preferably in the winter so I can save on fuel.