scottp118

The article about nurse overcrowding in MN somehow scared me a little, even though I'm in MD and know it probably shouldn't have. Here's a link to Newsday, but the article was in MANY newspapers: http://www.newsday.com/news/health/wire/sns-ap-too-many-nurses,0,3041539.story?coll=sns-ap-health-headlines Thoughts anyone?

I just read recently that 47 percent of the current U.S. med school enrollees are women. Right around the same percentage for law school, too. I think the only area of higher education where women were still underrepresented was grad school for the "hard sciences" - physics, chemistry, etc.

Wow, Dixielee and husband, that was a *fantastic* post. It could not have been said better. Thank you for taking the time to write that! And to the original poster, I'm going to tag along with them and just say "what they said!" It is true, people are too concerned with status, especially when younger. I'd say you should try to pick something that feels right in your heart, something you could do for all the right reasons, and don't worry so much about what others will think of you when you start answering their "so what do you do?" question . . . .

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!

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! Scott

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): http://community.nursingspectrum.com/MagazineArticles/article.cfm?AID=12383 http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairpay/fs17n_nurses.htm And here is the ANA statement before congress, which is interesting, but is based on the older version of the new rules (heheh): http://www.nursingworld.org/uan/testimony512.htm 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

Question: What percentage of RN's are salaried, and what percentage are paid by the hour? My assumption is that the VERY LARGE majority of nurses "in the trenches" are paid hourly, no? (It seems this would almost HAVE to be the case.) And it's not until you get to the level of nurse practitioner that you'll find more of the salaried employees, correct? 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. :) (Although, this all creates some interesting incentives for hospital administrators doesn't it(???). . . hmmmmm . . . especially when considered along with the mandatory nurse/patient ratio laws that many states are (or will be) considering . . . . Should be a very interesting few years ahead for healthcare in the U.S.) Scott

One thing no one has specifically mentioned... these new overtime rules were not adopted by CONGRESS; this was all done administratively, completely within Bush's executive branch. (These aren't new overtime "laws," in other words, but are "just" regulations written by this administration's Dept. of Labor... though the rules will nonetheless basically have the weight and effect of law....) To those of you who say it doesn't change anything, well... at many places it likely will not, at least not soon, since there's such a severe nursing shortage right now. However, it DOES get their foot in the door, and in geographic areas where the shortage is not now so severe, or wherever/whenever it eases, I doubt it would be long before employers (i.e., the mean and greedy hospital administrators, heheh) took away nurse's time and a half. My understanding is that Congress TRIED to use the power of the purse to stop the Dept. of Labor from taking away overtime from those who were already receiving it (and yes, that includes most nurses), but Congress was pressured out of its stance by the current administration.... I am not a nurse yet (I start an accel. 2nd Bac. program at the end of the month), but this all still worries me... a LOT. I find it VERY disturbing that such a fundamental change in workers' rights can be accomplished through only one branch of government's administrative processes. It almost seems evasive and backhanded... IMO, of course. So... y'all can do what you want, but I know who "I* will be voting for come November. :) Scott

Hi everyone. I'm new to this board, and can't quit reading all the great posts. (What a fantastic resource!) I'm switching careers, start an accelerated BSN program in about 2 weeks, and have what is probably a naive question. But I'll go ahead and ask it anyway: how easy or difficult is it to switch between specialties once you take your first job out of school? Are people pigeon-holed pretty quickly? I ask because, for me, one of the attractions to nursing (besides the more obvious ones) is that it seems to be very broad, with one educational pathway giving you access to so many different types of jobs. I've always been somewhat restless (professionally, that is!), and usually feel I need to make changes every several years or so, move on and be exposed to new things, etc., so... would someone who wanted to sample lots of different specialties have any problem doing so? Do people do this typically, say, something like med surg for a few years, then ICU for a few years, then ER, etc.?? Or are there some barriers I'm not aware of which prevent this kind of lateral movement (certificates, specialized training?) Does the possibility vary by region, urban vs. rural, etc? It seems like the so-called nursing shortage should make this somewhat possible, but I just don't know how much the tasks, experience, etc. overlap. I'm worried because a lot of my classmates say they already know their specialty, while I have only a vague idea.... (Maybe Med Surg, maybe ICU. I know I'll get a better idea after clinicals!) Anyone have any thoughts, advice, or suggestions on this? Thanks!

Hey there! Just to let you know, there ARE others like you. I'm also leaving the practice of law (general practice, insurance litigation) to start over in nursing. I find it really comforting to hear that there are others making the same decision, and for the same reasons, so... thanks! ;-) Anyway, nice to meet y'all! My name is Scott, I'm 32, and I start an accelerated 2nd bachelors program at the University of Maryland in 2 weeks, which I couldn't be more thrilled about. An ex girlfriend of mine was a med/surg nurse in the area, and that's what originally got me thinking about the career change a few years back. I DO remember all of her complaints well (staffing, condescending docs, floor politics, scheduling, difficult patients and families, etc...), so HOPEFULLY my expectations about what nursing "really" is are realistic, and I'm not being driven too much by idealism. We'll see.... (I'll keep ya posted! ;-) I just felt I wanted something more positive and fulfilling than law, with more purpose, and more human contact... and the *constant* conflict and haggling in my old life made me feel like a glorified car salesman or something, and a salesman I just am not.... Anyway, yes, there are others like you! Scott P.S. - I just discovered this site last week, and have been spending WAY too much time reading all these threads. Fantastic info, so thanks everyone. (My favorite thread: the "What really grosses you out?" discussion! (Chicken feathers?!?! Heheh!) Great anecdotes!)