I was just reading in todays Sunday paper that in 2 weeks new OT laws will take affect and could affect nurses. thanks GW. Well when I first read about this a while back when first proposed it mentioned LPN being exempt from the 40 hour law but this article says RN is affected. I did mention that this could really impact the health care industry if nurses not getting OT.
Well I am still a student but wondering just what is up with the new OT laws and how they will affect those of us in the profession.
Has anyone heard much on how these laws will affect nurses and exactly who is considered exempt from OT.
Anyway, thankfully, the bottom line is that anyone who is paid by the hour cannot lose their time and a half overtime . . . . Should've put that very important point in the last post. :)
That's not necessarily correct. This is what the ANA has to say about it:
A worker can be exempted from overtime protections under one of these categories if he or she meets a two-pronged test:
Duties: her/his qualifications and duties must meet the standards outlined in the regulations;
Salary: and s/he must be paid on a salary basis an amount more than $455 per week.
Although the Department of Labor correctly asserts that the status of salaried registered nurses remains unchanged under this new rule, it ignores the fact that most registered nurses are paid on an hourly basis. Registered nurses have long met the "duties test" to be considered learned professionals; however, because most registered nurses are paid on an hourly basis, they do not meet the second prong of the existing rules, i.e., the salary component, and therefore are entitled to overtime compensation.
While the "duties test" has not changed, the definition of a salaried employee has been altered to allow salaried compensation to be calculated on an hourly or a shift basis, on top of a guaranteed minimum. This creates a degree of legal ambiguity that employers may try to exploit. Creating doubt about registered nurses' right to overtime pay threatens ongoing efforts to retain and recruit nurses - particularly in a time when mandatory overtime is a common practice and RNs are in short supply.
ANA also is concerned that, if the economic disincentive of paying time-and-a-half is removed, employers are even more likely to rely on mandatory overtime as a regular nurse-staffing tool. A survey by ANA found that more than two-thirds of nurses already report working some form of mandatory, or unplanned, overtime every month.
Specializes in Trauma,ER,CCU/OHU/Nsg Ed/Nsg Research.
Thanks for reiterating that, Lizz. I don't know how to make it any clearer that RNs are left exposed to OT wage exemption under this bill. Firefighters and the police won back their OT pay protection. Attempts at amending the bill to protect RNs have been blocked. You all know healthcare administration well. Do you not think they would stoop to giving us mandatory OT and not paying us time and a half for it? Realistically, we know they are capable of implementing this if we let them. I suggest that all of you future nurses make sure and inquire about this in your first job interviews. Get your prospective employers' OT policies in writing.
Thanks for posting that link Lizz. Very informative! My understanding though (and keep in mind, I have been wrong before!) is that the provision the ANA is speaking of in that policy statement (the DOL provision which allowed certain learned professionals who were paid by the hour to nonetheless have their hourly wage extrapolated into a salary, making them salaried, and thus ineligible for time and a half), was removed from the final rules. And this was thanks to MANY complaints by registered nurses. Some clarification from someone who knows for certain is in order, now that the rules have been published in their final version. (FYI, I have read in several places that even under the old rules there was no guarantee of time and a half overtime for RN's . . . .) In the meantime, until someone can offer some really juicy facts, here are some interesting links that MIGHT help put some of us at ease (heheh):
So . . . having said all that . . . , and though I think most RN overtime pay is implicitly protected, how upsetting is it that police officers, fire-fighters, other first responders and LPN's had their time and a half overtime SPECIFICALLY protected, while RN's did not? It's a bit of the slap in the face by this administration, isn't it, as if they're TOTALLY out of touch with the shortage issues, nurse to patient ratio issues and *respect* issues that are (it seems) pushing so many nurses away? (And again, this was not really ever a Congressional issue - there was no bill that had to be passed for these new regs to take effect; these are EXECUTIVE branch regulations. The good guys in Congress did try to stop the regs from taking effect, but was unsuccessful.) Anyway, yes, though I don't think RN's will be affected, I will probably still find myself asking questions about overtime compensation on my first interviews!! (See how confident I am of the "implicit protection" Bush's new regs give nurses? ;-)
Thanks for posting that link Lizz. Very informative! My understanding though (and keep in mind, I have been wrong before!) is that the provision the ANA is speaking of in that policy statement (the DOL provision which allowed certain learned professionals who were paid by the hour to nonetheless have their hourly wage extrapolated into a salary, making them salaried, and thus ineligible for time and a half), was removed from the final rules. And this was thanks to MANY complaints by registered nurses. Some clarification from someone who knows for certain is in order, now that the rules have been published in their final version. (FYI, I have read in several places that even under the old rules there was no guarantee of time and a half overtime for RN's . . . .) In the meantime, until someone can offer some really juicy facts, here are some interesting links that MIGHT help put some of us at ease (heheh):
So . . . having said all that . . . , and though I think most RN overtime pay is implicitly protected, how upsetting is it that police officers, fire-fighters, other first responders and LPN's had their time and a half overtime SPECIFICALLY protected, while RN's did not? It's a bit of the slap in the face by this administration, isn't it, as if they're TOTALLY out of touch with the shortage issues, nurse to patient ratio issues and *respect* issues that are (it seems) pushing so many nurses away? (And again, this was not really ever a Congressional issue - there was no bill that had to be passed for these new regs to take effect; these are EXECUTIVE branch regulations. The good guys in Congress did try to stop the regs from taking effect, but was unsuccessful.) Anyway, yes, though I don't think RN's will be affected, I will probably still find myself asking questions about overtime compensation on my first interviews!! (See how confident I am of the "implicit protection" Bush's new regs give nurses? ;-)
Scott
Let me ask all of you this. If a hospital did not pay you time and a half for overtime, how long do you think it would keep its nurses? I know I wouldn't work somewhere if they didn't pay my ot at time and a half. I would find another job that didn't require overtime or paid me time and a half. I don't think hospitals want to get into a position where they would likely see a mass exodus of RN's. I could be wrong though. Does make me wish we had the option of union's in AZ.
And thank you for this link. This key paragraph is pretty scary, at least the way I read it:
Registered nurses who are paid on an hourly basis should receive overtime pay. However, registered nurses who are registered by the appropriate State examining board generally meet the duties requirements for the learned professional exemption, and if paid on a salary basis of at least $455 per week, may be classified as exempt.
Looks to me like the Department of Labor is, in fact, saying RN's are a learned profession that "may be" exempt from overtime. (Kinda interesting that LVN's are not.)
At the very least, it looks like the language is so ambiguous that employers will probably be able to do what they want anyway. And that could mean no OT for a lot of people.
And thank you for this link. This key paragraph is pretty scary, at least the way I read it:
Registered nurses who are paid on an hourly basis should receive overtime pay. However, registered nurses who are registered by the appropriate State examining board generally meet the duties requirements for the learned professional exemption, and if paid on a salary basis of at least $455 per week, may be classified as exempt.
To me, the key phrase in that whole paragraph is "if paid on a salary basis," and I think that offers more security to typical RN's than lots of people are thinking. Yes, that gets us back to your original post, and the ANA's concerns about the higher-ups backhandedly classifying hourly nurses as salaried, but... I think the parts of that particular reg that the ANA was most concerned with were deleted and reworded. And I still think it would be VERY difficult for a hospital to casually classify an obviously hourly employee as salaried just to avoid compensating for overtime. To me, just given the nature of hospital work (24 hours open, weird shifts, day-night rotations, on-call hours, census changes, cancellations, shift-trading, having to pick up hours here and there, etc.), it would be obvious to even a 12-year-old that hospital RN's are HOURLY employees. (I know that in one way this all seems circular, but it's really not! Heheh.) And thankfully there will no doubt be further protection for us by state laws, for those who don't already have it. I've already read of states planning to pass laws that say people who did receive overtime prior to the new regs must continue to get it. (Do a google news search.)
Here's a weird thing though. . . and this is just speculation, really, but I find it still a little disconcerting. . . I was thinking that perhaps the nurses who work non-hospital jobs, like in a private Dr.'s office or something, or who work the same days and shifts week after week without ever varying their schedule or total hours much . . . THESE are the ones who could probably most easily be classified as salaried. And that kinda illuminates a neat irony here: the ones who are probably MOST vulnerable to losing their overtime are the very ones who never work overtime anyway! Or, in other words - Hahah, in your face George W. Bush! (Kidding!)
Anyway, fun thread. I intend to get very active with these kinds of legal issues once I'm licensed, and hope other will too! If we stick together they'll have no choice!
And I still think it would be VERY difficult for a hospital to casually classify an obviously hourly employee as salaried just to avoid compensating for overtime. To me, just given the nature of hospital work (24 hours open, weird shifts, day-night rotations, on-call hours, census changes, cancellations, shift-trading, having to pick up hours here and there, etc.), it would be obvious to even a 12-year-old that hospital RN's are HOURLY employees. (I know that in one way this all seems circular, but it's really not! Heheh.) And thankfully there will no doubt be further protection for us by state laws, for those who don't already have it. I've already read of states planning to pass laws that say people who did receive overtime prior to the new regs must continue to get it. (Do a google news search.)
Yeah. The problem, of course, is if the industry decides to do that, then what do you do if the language is ambiguous. Also, how much can state laws help? Isn't it possible that this federal reg supercedes that?
Yeah. The problem, of course, is if the industry decides to do that, then what do you do if the language is ambiguous. Also, how much can state laws help? Isn't it possible that this federal reg supercedes that?
It's been a while since I've thought long and hard about labor law/federalism/etc., (hey, it's not something I do for fun!), but my recollection is that federal law completely preempts state labor law in only a few specific areas, those where the feds have made it unambiguously clear that "yes states, here, we ARE preempting you." (They can do that - they're the feds!) And overtime pay is one area that the states do still have a say in. I believe the underlying principle is that states can create statutes that offer MORE protection to an employee, but not statutes that offer less. So no, as far as I know, there is nothing to stop states from stepping up to bat here and protecting RNs' overtime. So . . . let's all start writing letters to our state legislators right now!
:)
RedBait
69 Posts
Thanks, I like that one myself ROTFL