PRN vs full time

I work prn. Yes, I get paid more per hour than the regular staff folks, but no benefits (no sick leave, vacation, disability, retirement, etc.). I haven't ever asked, but I imagine I would get worker's comp if I were injured on the job because I am an employee, not a private contractor or anything. Worker's comp benefits are mandated by labor laws, not optional benefits that employers choose to offer. However, in general, you definitely are "less protected" than with a full-time, permanent, benefited position.

Yes, I am the first (RN) to get called off if census is low, unless someone else is asking to be called off (but I've never been sent home once I was at work), but the hospital wouldn't ever lay me off (dump me permanently) -- why would they? I don't cost them anything unless they actually use me, so why not keep me "on the books"?

Yes, since the economic downturn, my employer "healthcare system" sent around a memo to all the facilities/departments, telling them all to avoid using prn people unless absolutely necessary -- but, fortunately (for me), my facility is so poorly managed and has such high turnover that they've kept using me pretty regularly. I'm currently working full-time (for the time being) to cover for a staff RN who is on maternity leave. However, a couple other facilities within the same system that used to use me occasionally haven't asked me to work in over a year.

I've never heard of a prn position that guarantees you 40 hours a week -- doesn't that kind of defeat the whole point of being prn? (From the employer's point of view, I mean.) Is it a float pool type of arrangement? A permanent position where you just waive benefits?

Best wishes for whatever you decide.