l&m nursing 'resolution' doesn't fix the problem
[color=#6f6f6f]theday, ct - 1 hour ago
she added that if nursing were “a field that had more males in it ...,” management might have sent a different message. three other nurses said applying ...
those fighting words got the sparks flying.
l&m has a high percentage of part-time nurses — 70 percent, versus a national average of about 40 percent.
management tried to hike the percentage that part-timers pay toward insurance costs; nurses wanted it frozen as is.
working part-time is a “luxury,” hospital spokesman kelly anthony said monday, “and with that luxury comes the responsibility of paying a greater share of your medical benefits.”
Last edit by NRSKarenRN on Dec 22, '06
Dec 22, '06
That comment is totally out of line. What does working part time versus working full time have anything to do with medical bennies? Always picking on the nurse, yet no one can live without her/him.
Dec 22, '06
The high cost of healthcare and employers disrespect for nursing work are not unique to this facility.
...It costs $16,050 to provide benefits for an employee and his or her family, said Anthony. L&M picks up over $12,000 for a full-timer, but can't afford to do the same for someone working 20 hours, he said.
“We would tank, just like GM,” he said, if they didn't control health insurance costs.
Yet the country may just tank if we don't find a way to redirect more of our resources away from making war and making the rich richer, and toward those who do the hard work of healing. Federal statistics predict a 12 percent nursing shortage in 2010, 20 percent in 2015, and 29 percent by 2020.
Full-timer Carol Kenyon of Gales Ferry, 57, an RN for 35 years, is alarmed by those statistics and joked — sort of — that she may have to work until she's 80.
“Happy holidays,” she said.
“Same to you,” I replied.
“Oh, I'll be at work,” she said. “Somebody's got to do it.”
Indeed. We should all be thinking about that.
Article display page - theday.com
Dec 22, '06
I don't understand the problem here. I have worked in four facilities in three states and every one of them had a higher premium for the part-timers.
Dec 23, '06
often, part time employment status is the employers option.....this way they have a person that can work extra without it being over time; it would seem there should be some benefit to the employee in this situation .....getting their health benies would be one way
Dec 24, '06
Guess I'm a little lost here. I've worked in a variety of fields -some blue collar, some not. In every case, the part-timer didn't automatically get healthcare -but by that same token, they didn't have their 'co-pay' taken out of their paycheck -which resulted in higher take-home pay (per hour etc). Standard practice in MOST industries, so whats the issue? I always get my ire up when someone tries to push the "its because most nurses are female' bit -this is the first time I've worked in a field where the vast majority of the employees were female. This is self-serving crap. Its because part-timmers don't USUALLY get full benefits like full-timers, in ANY industry. There are exceptions, but they aren't the rule.
Dec 24, '06
it has been my experience, that it is NOT that uncommon to receive health ins as a parttimer....sometime 1/2 time and sometimes needing 32 hours....add to that, that sometimes the employer purposefully hires parttimers...sometimes to cushion the staffing as i said before, and sometimes it IS used to avoid the health ins benie, were it IS not provided except for absotutely full time.....which can be 37.5/40 hours a week...
Must Read Topics