RNs punch holes in overtime changes
By Glen Fest
January 28, 2004
An American Nurses Association representative testified before a Senate
appropriations subcommittee that proposed changes in overtime pay rules
by the Bush administration would "likely" produce more mandatory
overtime and less pay for registered nurses not covered by collective
bargaining agreements.
Patricia Hefner, RN, a member of the ANA-affiliated Pennsylvania State Nurses Association, told senators Jan. 20 that changes sought by the Department of Labor would create working conditions that would drive more nurses out of the profession and exacerbate the country's nursing shortage.
"Nurses across the nation are reporting a dramatic increase in the use of mandatory overtime," Hefner stated. "This dangerous staffing practice is having a negative impact on patient care, fostering medical errors and driving nurses away from the bedside."
Hefner was among six panelists who appeared before the subcommittee chaired by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., after Labor Secretary Elaine Chao addressed the changes at the hearing.
Chao said the department expects to implement the new rules March 31, according to news reports.
The plan, which does not require approval by Congress, has been embroiled in controversy because it would remove overtime protections for millions of higher-paid workers. But exactly how many people and what kinds of occupations would be affected are unclear.
The Labor Department says 644,000 white-collar workers would lose their overtime pay. But the proposal itself reads that an additional 1.5 million to 2.7 million "will be more readily identified as exempt."
Critics, including the union-backed Economic Policy Institute, say the new rules will eliminate the overtime protection rights of as many as 8 million workers, including police officers, firefighters and nurses.
In her testimony, Hefner underlined the dangers of hospital understaffing-such as patient acuity and medical errors-detailed in a report from the Institute of Medicine that recommended restricting nurses' shifts to no more than 12 hours in a 24-hour period, or 60 hours in a seven-day span. Hefner also cited a recent ANA survey estimating that 67 percent of registered nurses are working mandatory overtime each month.
"Expanding the number of professional workers-such as registered nurses-who are exempt from overtime protections, will lower the marginal cost of overtime for the employers," Hefner said. "Under this misguided proposal, nurses will be working the same long hours they now work-in fact, probably longer hours, without overtime compensation."
No officials from the American Hospital Association were present to testify, and none returned calls to NURSEWEEK for comment.
The ANA first voiced its opposition to the rules last summer, complaining the changes under consideration by the Labor Department would unfairly widen the "position of responsibility" standards in professional classifications. The rules also lower the threshold of educational levels, allowing RNs with two-year degrees to be reclassified as exempt by their employers, according to the EPI.
One proponent for the overtime changes, chief economist Ronald Bird of the corporate-funded Employment Policy Foundation, disputed that nurses would lose overtime privileges. Many nurses already are legally exempt under overtime rules, he said, but receive time-and-a-half overtime pay because hospitals have to compete against other institutions amid a tight labor pool. "The market factor is what compels overtime pay for nurses," Bird said.
The controversial changes by the Labor Department have been proposed because the present rules are outdated and confusing, and haven't been updated in decades, Chao said.
Contact Glen Fest at glenf@nurseweek.com
This report includes material
from the Associated Press