How much pay should I ask for?

sjoe · Jan 17, 2004

salary rates vary widely over the country and even within a given state. check out http://www.salary.com and/or the several other sites previously mentioned on this fourm, as well as on the forum for whatever state you will be working in, for more information.

Speculating · Jan 17, 2004

Originally posted by grad
I am a new grad nurse looking for my first job. I had an interview today with the hospital I really want to work for. The only problem is that they told me starting pay was 17.85 an hour. That sound's low to me. Although I have no prior experience as a nurse, I graduated with a BSN and i'll be working in the emergency room. They also have no sign-on bonus. the salary does not increase when I pass my boards either. How much more can I get away with asking for? P.S. I live in Florida

$17.85 excluding differential sounds about right. Like you said you are a new grad with little to no experience. BSN's generally make about $1-2 more an hour than your typical ASN. I also live in Florida and after I graduated with my ASN I started working in the ER of a level II with a great deal of experience under my belt, so our paths were very much a like. I started out very close to the same rate you have been offered, and increased rapidly. I got three raises within my first year. Once you put a year or so in and get that oh so important experience then you can start naming your price. I might go as far as pushing for an even $18.00, but right now your a new grad without experience at this point the hospital holds all the cards and you have a pair of nines. I don't $17.85 is anything to lose face over.

MtnMan · Jan 17, 2004

37,000 for your first job is nothing to sneeze at. Prove your skills and get som blood under your nails before you get arrogant about what you know vs. pay. Get ACLS, PALS, and maybe some trauma training. and drop the attitude about your B.S. because there are LPN's out there in the field that will run circles around you not o mention in the ED Paramedics. Sit back and learn and then sell yourself to another outfit.

BTW what is a typical ASN vs a BSN???

dawndito · Jan 17, 2004

hey...does anyone happen to know the starting wages for lpn's in BC?? i cant seem to find it anywhere...the states, however, are starting to be a bit more appealing... :eek:

LilRedRN1973 · Jan 17, 2004

Wow...remind me NOT to move to FL anytime soon. I will be making more than that as a Nurse Apprentice with only 2 semesters of nursing school under my belt. New grads here start at $24-25 without differential and they usually offer a small sign on bonus of around $2000-3000, which you get AFTER completing your first year.

But I'm guessing the cost of living is MUCH cheaper in Florida than here and that probably balances it out.

pieWACKet · Jan 17, 2004

AS the first poster [much more succinctly] informed, Pay varies greatly by region.

A BSN differential has been factored into the NY State unionized hospital contracts since at least 1983 when I first started practicing there. I have not encountered a differential in Florida [where I also practiced in a woefully non unionized environment] or California [where I work in a local only union environent]. It was, at the time I left a staff position in NY [ 1996] 250$ per year, or about 12 cents an hour for a full time worker . BSN cost and time was, at least, recognized, and this was a union gained concession.

BSN programs promote BSN education and would have you believe it is the "wave of the future" [they told me that in 1979]. However, the reality is that a BSN does little to change your pay scale in bedside nursing, and if you stay at the bedside, it is not the most efficient, neither most economical vehicle to that work, neither the most common educational vehicle for sitting the RN boards. A BSN for bedside practice is useful as a stepping stone into advanced practice, being a requisite for advanced practice degrees. THAT is its worth. Had I known this when I started [ I am a BSN] I might have reconsidered needing it, for there is little to recommend the BSN to a nurse who is commited to the bedside in terms of economic incentive, recognition of the degree, or the quality of interface with others of the medical community within the hospital environment.

Nurses complain of two things and the shortage is resultant of those two things: salary and environment. That is, nurses complain of the environment in which nursing occurs and is accomplished and they also complain of the pay for that work which by necessity involves the environment in which nursing occurs and is accomplished. You are expressing a complaint, with pay.

Since hospitals regionally only compete against each other, you need to determine what the mean salary is in your area.They will not vary largely from it. You would do well to also evaluate environment and to determine if your possible employing hospital is on the Magnate hospital list, for this is the first index which measures how NURSES rate the hospitals for which they work in terms of their own ability to exert change in that environment, and it is VERY hard to gain magnate status. If having magnate status, then you can assume that the hospital you are considering has AT LEAST addressed the environment in which nursing occurs. Magnate status does NOT imply increased pay over the regional mean and only continued activism and pressure from the shortage will relieve that factor. It does however address the complaint of nurses regarding the environment and conditions under which they work and their ability to have voice within the hegemony [NOT to be underestimated]. Magnate status is provided by the ANA [American Nurses Association] and you should access [/url] http://www.nursingadvocacy.org/research/shortage/magnet_hospital.html. By taking Magnate hospital status seriously, and considering more forcefully hospitals meriting that status, and at least ASKING on interview [even though you know by perusing the link i gave you] IF that hospital is or is not magnate status assigned, you encourage pursuit of that status by hospitals. Believe me, all hospitals know about magnate status. It is much in the legislation and literature and achieving magnate status much promoted by the government. By commenting on magnate status or its lack in interview, we promote an encompassing change for regional hospitals in their competition based on this one, very important, nursing organization based, index, and show that even new grads "get" the concept of this very powerful index.

As for salaries, and your feeling the pay offered is not enough.

The following is from Regional Salaries 1992 and 2000. These figures reflect the AVERAGE salaries per region in 2000, with some comments on what has happened since then [through to the early years of the new millenium]. Since we all know that the average age of the RN is now mid 40s, we can assume that these AVERAGES reflect the pay of nurses in the majority performing the function for on average 20 years. I can tell you this. As a bedside nurse for 20 years, I do not expect you to make what I make, would be upset if you do, and value the other nurses near my intensive care work who bring excellent nursing judgement and undisputed expertise based on years of experience to their work, making them not only more cost effective,but also more worthy of higher pay. But, do not misunderstand me, I do expect you to make more than 17 y pica like they are offering for its effect is evident: you balk as have many other potential LONGTERM nurses who soon pursue other careers. However, averages in the region, are what you have to work with, for no hospital will far divert from the mean. If you are disatisfied then you need to get involved in the long hard struggle to promote your impervience to recitivism [ either to the hospital with which you are employed, or the profession as a whole] and must continue to work to ensure nurses are paid requisite to their responsability and work conditions FROM date of hire through experience and to end of career. Look carefully at what you are offered and what the average nurse in your region made in 2000 in the below. Remember that this is a composite sketch of nurses new like yourself [who have not shown staying power- thus furthering the shortage-and understandable] and nurses who practised throughout the periods defined [like me, who want, deserve and must get more than you as a new nurse gets].

"Pacific: Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington. Regional average annual salary for full-time RNs in staff positions:$49,825 in 2000 compared to $41,315 in 1992.(still the highest of all the regions).

Mountain: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,Utah, Wyoming. Regional average annual salary full-time RNs , staff positions: $49,825 in 2000 compared to$41,315 in 1992 (still the highest of all the regions); .

West South Central:Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas. Regional average annual salary for full-time RNs in staff positions:$40,222 in 2000; up from $33,641 in 1992.

East South Central: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee. Regional average annual salary for full-time RNs in staff positions: $37,364 in 2000; compared to $32,227 in 1992. Was the lowest of all the regions for salaries but West North Central now is now the lowest.

South Atlantic: Delaware, District Of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia. Regional average annual salary for full-time RNs in staff positions: $41,233 in 2000; compared to$34,058 in 1992.

West North Central:Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota.

Regional average annual salary for full-time RNs in staff positions: $36,958 in 2000; compared to$33,641 in 1992.

East North Central:Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin. Regional average annual salary for full-time RNs in staff positions: $40,455 in 2000; up from$33,453 in 1992.

Middle Atlantic:New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania. Regional average annual salary for full-time RNs in staff positions: $45,435 in 2000; compared to $37,225 in 1992.

New England: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont. Regional average annual salary for full-time RNs in staff positions in 2000: $45,534; up from $37,785 in 1992." **

Footnote 1- [MY COMMENT] The above statistics do not provide a breakdown of differentials occuring within the salaries provided. ]The difference in regional salary may in part reflect the highly variant pay or lack of it for periods of highest resource deficit [nights/ weekends/ holidays] and/ or variance in charge pay for each hour a staff RN is assigned that demanding duty. Identification of hourly pay per shift in each region, and differential pay in each region, would address this confusion.

VERY important: National Median RN Salaries 1996, and 2000, computed based on the above [ for staff positions ]

1992 Full time Staff RN: $36,073 National Median 2000 Full time Staff RN: $42, 983 National Median

Although the numbers appear improved, in fact, these salaries, when computed against inflation, show a LOSS IN INCOME for the full time staff RN from 1992 -2000. ANY improvements [seen most mightily in 2002 onward] to nursing salary and touted as 'nurses paid better than ever' reflect a backtreading to make up for the loss in salary we all experienced through the 90s into the early new millenium. We need more than just bringing us sort of on board with 1992 salaries when accounted for inflation. This is likely the reality shock you are experiencing in looking at your salary.

While you were busy pursuing whatever it is you were pursuing in the early-mid nineties, nurses like I and others were busy losing buying power, honing our skills, forced to ever more impossible efficiencies and experiencing a devastating crush against our profession. That truth is part of the attitude you have encountered here from others. But I do not feel you are not right to feel you deserve more.

**statistics e from **Statistics From NursingWorld.com. "Today's RN- Numbers and Demographics" citing Spratley, E. (March 2000)The Registered Nurse Population, Findings from the National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Bureau of Health Professions, Division of Nursing, Health Resources and Services Administration.

DustinRN · Jan 17, 2004

BSN nurses get paid approximately $0.50 more /hr in my neck of the woods. The real benefit comes if you want to move into management or advanced practice nursing.

GraduatingERRN · Jan 17, 2004

I will be graduating in May and was offered a position here in NC in a level II trauma ER with at starting salary of $17.75/hr + $4.44 shift pay. They are not offering sign on bonuses this year either!

Speculating · Jan 17, 2004

Originally posted by pieWACKet
AS the first poster [much more succinctly] informed, Pay varies greatly by region.

A BSN differential has been factored into the NY State unionized hospital contracts since at least 1983 when I first started practicing there. I have not encountered a differential in Florida [where I also practiced in a woefully non unionized environment] or California [where I work in a local only union environent]. It was, at the time I left a staff position in NY [ 1996] 250$ per year, or about 12 cents an hour for a full time worker . BSN cost and time was, at least, recognized, and this was a union gained concession.
BSN programs promote BSN education and would have you believe it is the "wave of the future" [they told me that in 1979]. However, the reality is that a BSN does little to change your pay scale in bedside nursing, and if you stay at the bedside, it is not the most efficient, neither most economical vehicle to that work, neither the most common educational vehicle for sitting the RN boards. A BSN for bedside practice is useful as a stepping stone into advanced practice, being a requisite for advanced practice degrees. THAT is its worth. Had I known this when I started [ I am a BSN] I might have reconsidered needing it, for there is little to recommend the BSN to a nurse who is commited to the bedside in terms of economic incentive, recognition of the degree, or the quality of interface with others of the medical community within the hospital environment.

Nurses complain of two things and the shortage is resultant of those two things: salary and environment. That is, nurses complain of the environment in which nursing occurs and is accomplished and they also complain of the pay for that work which by necessity involves the environment in which nursing occurs and is accomplished. You are expressing a complaint, with pay.

Since hospitals regionally only compete against each other, you need to determine what the mean salary is in your area.They will not vary largely from it. You would do well to also evaluate environment and to determine if your possible employing hospital is on the Magnate hospital list, for this is the first index which measures how NURSES rate the hospitals for which they work in terms of their own ability to exert change in that environment, and it is VERY hard to gain magnate status. If having magnate status, then you can assume that the hospital you are considering has AT LEAST addressed the environment in which nursing occurs. Magnate status does NOT imply increased pay over the regional mean and only continued activism and pressure from the shortage will relieve that factor. It does however address the complaint of nurses regarding the environment and conditions under which they work and their ability to have voice within the hegemony [NOT to be underestimated]. Magnate status is provided by the ANA [American Nurses Association] and you should access [/url] http://www.nursingadvocacy.org/research/shortage/magnet_hospital.html. By taking Magnate hospital status seriously, and considering more forcefully hospitals meriting that status, and at least ASKING on interview [even though you know by perusing the link i gave you] IF that hospital is or is not magnate status assigned, you encourage pursuit of that status by hospitals. Believe me, all hospitals know about magnate status. It is much in the legislation and literature and achieving magnate status much promoted by the government. By commenting on magnate status or its lack in interview, we promote an encompassing change for regional hospitals in their competition based on this one, very important, nursing organization based, index, and show that even new grads "get" the concept of this very powerful index.

As for salaries, and your feeling the pay offered is not enough.
The following is from Regional Salaries 1992 and 2000. These figures reflect the AVERAGE salaries per region in 2000, with some comments on what has happened since then [through to the early years of the new millenium]. Since we all know that the average age of the RN is now mid 40s, we can assume that these AVERAGES reflect the pay of nurses in the majority performing the function for on average 20 years. I can tell you this. As a bedside nurse for 20 years, I do not expect you to make what I make, would be upset if you do, and value the other nurses near my intensive care work who bring excellent nursing judgement and undisputed expertise based on years of experience to their work, making them not only more cost effective,but also more worthy of higher pay. But, do not misunderstand me, I do expect you to make more than 17 y pica like they are offering for its effect is evident: you balk as have many other potential LONGTERM nurses who soon pursue other careers. However, averages in the region, are what you have to work with, for no hospital will far divert from the mean. If you are disatisfied then you need to get involved in the long hard struggle to promote your impervience to recitivism [ either to the hospital with which you are employed, or the profession as a whole] and must continue to work to ensure nurses are paid requisite to their responsability and work conditions FROM date of hire through experience and to end of career. Look carefully at what you are offered and what the average nurse in your region made in 2000 in the below. Remember that this is a composite sketch of nurses new like yourself [who have not shown staying power- thus furthering the shortage-and understandable] and nurses who practised throughout the periods defined [like me, who want, deserve and must get more than you as a new nurse gets].

"Pacific: Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington. Regional average annual salary for full-time RNs in staff positions:$49,825 in 2000 compared to $41,315 in 1992.(still the highest of all the regions).
Mountain: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,Utah, Wyoming. Regional average annual salary full-time RNs , staff positions: $49,825 in 2000 compared to$41,315 in 1992 (still the highest of all the regions); .
West South Central:Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas. Regional average annual salary for full-time RNs in staff positions:$40,222 in 2000; up from $33,641 in 1992.
East South Central: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee. Regional average annual salary for full-time RNs in staff positions: $37,364 in 2000; compared to $32,227 in 1992. Was the lowest of all the regions for salaries but West North Central now is now the lowest.
South Atlantic: Delaware, District Of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia. Regional average annual salary for full-time RNs in staff positions: $41,233 in 2000; compared to$34,058 in 1992.
West North Central:Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota.
Regional average annual salary for full-time RNs in staff positions: $36,958 in 2000; compared to$33,641 in 1992.
East North Central:Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin. Regional average annual salary for full-time RNs in staff positions: $40,455 in 2000; up from$33,453 in 1992.
Middle Atlantic:New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania. Regional average annual salary for full-time RNs in staff positions: $45,435 in 2000; compared to $37,225 in 1992.
New England: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont. Regional average annual salary for full-time RNs in staff positions in 2000: $45,534; up from $37,785 in 1992." **

Footnote 1- [MY COMMENT] The above statistics do not provide a breakdown of differentials occuring within the salaries provided. ]The difference in regional salary may in part reflect the highly variant pay or lack of it for periods of highest resource deficit [nights/ weekends/ holidays] and/ or variance in charge pay for each hour a staff RN is assigned that demanding duty. Identification of hourly pay per shift in each region, and differential pay in each region, would address this confusion.
VERY important: National Median RN Salaries 1996, and 2000, computed based on the above [ for staff positions ]
1992 Full time Staff RN: $36,073 National Median 2000 Full time Staff RN: $42, 983 National Median
Although the numbers appear improved, in fact, these salaries, when computed against inflation, show a LOSS IN INCOME for the full time staff RN from 1992 -2000. ANY improvements [seen most mightily in 2002 onward] to nursing salary and touted as 'nurses paid better than ever' reflect a backtreading to make up for the loss in salary we all experienced through the 90s into the early new millenium. We need more than just bringing us sort of on board with 1992 salaries when accounted for inflation. This is likely the reality shock you are experiencing in looking at your salary.
While you were busy pursuing whatever it is you were pursuing in the early-mid nineties, nurses like I and others were busy losing buying power, honing our skills, forced to ever more impossible efficiencies and experiencing a devastating crush against our profession. That truth is part of the attitude you have encountered here from others. But I do not feel you are not right to feel you deserve more.

**statistics e from **Statistics From NursingWorld.com. "Today's RN- Numbers and Demographics" citing Spratley, E. (March 2000)The Registered Nurse Population, Findings from the National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Bureau of Health Professions, Division of Nursing, Health Resources and Services Administration.

Please, please, please condense.

fiestynurse · Jan 17, 2004

As a new BSN grad in 1978, my starting pay was $4.50/hr, with no new grad orientation program and very few benefits. I was basically thrown to the wolves! I almost quit nursing after my first year. I understand your frustration! You have worked your butt off obtaining your degree and now you want to be rewarded for that. I say be patient!

I think the most important thing that new grads need is a facility with a very good new grad orientation program and lots of educational support.

Also, Look past the base pay and review all the benefits that an organization is offering you.

1. Base pay

2. Differentials (Evening, Nights, Weekend, Charge)

3. Medical/Dental Benefits

4. Employer sponsored Retirement Plan (with or without match)

5. Vacation/Holiday/Sick Leave

6. Money for Continual Education

7. Disability Benefits

8. Meal or uniform allowances

9. Sign-on bonus

10. Relocation assistance

11. Mortgage/Rental Assistance Programs

12. On-site daycare

13. Clinical Ladder Programs or opportunities for advancement

14. Flexible scheduling