Alberta's Top Paid Nurse Earns $510,000

[Stillman16]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I guess, but it still sounds highly dubious. I know this is anecdotal, but I've got a couple nurse friends who say it's not that hard to be "generous" in logging your OT hours. Not sure what actually entails, but you would hope someone audits the OT tracking system.

One possible explanation I can think of here, is the worker MIGHT be a work to rule kind of person, and booked OT for every minute extra they “worked”.

In this type of union environment, if you work a certain minimum (say five minutes extra) it automatically would be rounded to the nearest 15 min (up). So on the odd shift, not a big deal, and most wouldn’t bother claiming it, but the work to rule would stretch a 2-3 min extra to 5 min to get the extra 15 min OT pay, and over a year could really add up!

[para transit fellow]

Before we declare this is "impossible," seems to me that we should actually read the collective agreement for details of overtime and mandatory overtime.


https://www.una.ca/document/provinci...tive-agreement

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Stillman16

This is technically correct, but the “triple” also includes the stat pay that EVERYONE that works in Canada is entitled to.

So it’s still only double time really, as compensation for working while the majority of people are home enjoying time with family (Christmas, Easter, Family Day, etc).

Many jobs like this one would, typically, allow a worker having a day off on a holiday, to bank the stat time, to take it off at a later date, since the worker is needed on their regular shift rotation. However, if the worker is unable to use the stat time they bank, or choose to take it in extra pay, it would also inflate their annual earnings.

I myself, in a different field, but similar union environment, had 80 hours of banked stat time I wasn’t able to use the previous year (due to lack of staff, increased co-worker sick time, etc), and it was paid out, which bumped my perceived salary….I prefer to have the time off….but during the pandemic, not much was happening anyway I guess.

Also, after reading the article, it appears it was an immigrant nurse, which from my personal observances at my work place, coincides as the immigrants are far more eager to accept the OT (especially in excess) than the Canadian raised employees….the Canadian raised ones may not accept much if any, leaving the eager ones even more to take.

I'm not sure how you get that this person is an immigrant?

And honestly, it's preposterous. If someone is adding a few minutes here or there to their OT (in relation to your next comment) and that puts over over $500k a year, someone ought to be having a conversation with them. Surely, in a system that is struggling for funding, that kind of thing has to be rooted out immediately?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I guess, but it still sounds highly dubious. I know this is anecdotal, but I've got a couple nurse friends who say it's not that hard to be "generous" in logging your OT hours. Not sure what actually entails, but you would hope someone audits the OT tracking system.

I would imagine/hope someone making $500k is at the top of the audit list.

[TorqueDog]

A nurse making $510k in a year is indicative of a problem.

It's not a problem that they earned the money.

It's a problem that:
- a nurse working hard enough to make $510k a year is going to be completely wiped out every day, working at the limits of their physical and mental faculties on very, very little rest.
- patients are being looked after by a nurse who is not getting sufficient rest and may be prone to making mistakes.
- $510k a year -- which could hire ~6 RNs or ~8 LPNs and dramatically improve the resulting level of care -- is being spent on just one.

Having known a few nurses myself, Locke hit the nail on the head; nurses making deep six figures even half-way to the amount we're talking about are not doing it purposely and certainly are not enjoying it. Hell, the ones that don't even come close to this are overworked to death.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not sure how you get that this person is an immigrant?

And honestly, it's preposterous. If someone is adding a few minutes here or there to their OT (in relation to your next comment) and that puts over over $500k a year, someone ought to be having a conversation with them. Surely, in a system that is struggling for funding, that kind of thing has to be rooted out immediately?

It would take a heck of a lot more than work to rule to make $500K

[CliffFletcher]

Public service sectors would rather pay overtime than hire more workers because each new person added to the payroll carries a hefty, long-term cost in benefits and pensions that make budget projections look scary.

[Lanny_McDonald]

An ICU nurse in the time of COVID and a labor shortage? Yes, they can make a lot of cake. As others have said, it is likely short-term as they are burning out and will end up escaping the profession.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not sure how you get that this person is an immigrant?

And honestly, it's preposterous. If someone is adding a few minutes here or there to their OT (in relation to your next comment) and that puts over over $500k a year, someone ought to be having a conversation with them. Surely, in a system that is struggling for funding, that kind of thing has to be rooted out immediately?

I think a quick logic test shows that's not going to be a huge source of extra income. Let's say they do that every shift and work 7 days a week, that's an extra 1.75 hours logged per week, or 91 per year(doing this 365 days a year). I have no idea the pay, but let's say $100 an hour. That's only $9100 extra a year. And I feel like I was generous on all my factors.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Public service sectors would rather pay overtime than hire more workers because each new person added to the payroll carries a hefty, long-term cost in benefits and pensions that make budget projections look scary.

Is this a fact, or conjecture? It makes sense, but I question if these sectors have that kind of long term planning going on.

[edslunch]

Understaffing has been a known issue for years. Surely someone can calculate how much money is spent on excess OT and come up with a pretty big budget to hire more nurses while likely saving money overall. If there are loopholes in OT rules close them. If there are artificial barriers to hiring and training more nurses remove them.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Public service sectors would rather pay overtime than hire more workers because each new person added to the payroll carries a hefty, long-term cost in benefits and pensions that make budget projections look scary.

Are public sector pensions based on regular salary only or total including OT? If the later then the OT situation also impacts future obligations.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Public service sectors would rather pay overtime than hire more workers because each new person added to the payroll carries a hefty, long-term cost in benefits and pensions that make budget projections look scary.

Every professional position, regardless of it being public or private sector, have similar commitments. Benefits are benefits and pensions are no different that 401ks or RRSP programs. They both shake out in the wash.

Public sector is in tough to hire because budgets are tight, are planned out a full year at a time, allow for zero slush fund, and then have to recruit with less salary available. It is tough to get appropriate talent in a timely fashion, so you have to rely on the workforce you have and pay the OT until you start cutting into contingency funding. At that point you have to make hard decisions about revenue and services.

[Bill Bumface]

There's a bunch of angles on this. A lot of it is government and union insanity. Knowing some nurses and hearing about the weird angles people abuse sick days, overtime etc. sounds basically like every other professional union jobs I've encountered.

Then you get bureaucrats who don't understand what is happening on the ground pulling strings in a totally illogical way just making everything worse.

I'd be curious to know how the less insane countries deal with staffing and managing these positions, because this can't be the best way to do it.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Are public sector pensions based on regular salary only or total including OT? If the later then the OT situation also impacts future obligations.

Not sure how it works in Canada, but in the states your pension contributions are based on total earnings including OT. Cops and firefighters make out like bandits by abusing this option.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

The nursing union is preventing more 0.5 allocations for shifts. Many nurses are moms or young moms with families to support.

If they provided more part time jobs (not 0.1s or 0.8s, actual 50% time gigs), there’d be way more nurses and way less need for OT. From what I understand, it is the union not listening to its workers on this one.

Is this the case? Honest question because I have heard the issue is the opposite. There are so many part time positions that it is making it unattractive to new nurses because it is difficult to find an actual FT position. Anecdotally my niece graduated last year from nursing and has not been successful in finding a FT position. Temporary contract work and working several position to make up enough hours for full time pay has been her career so far.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Every professional position, regardless of it being public or private sector, have similar commitments. Benefits are benefits and pensions are no different that 401ks or RRSP programs. They both shake out in the wash.

Public sector is in tough to hire because budgets are tight, are planned out a full year at a time, allow for zero slush fund, and then have to recruit with less salary available. It is tough to get appropriate talent in a timely fashion, so you have to rely on the workforce you have and pay the OT until you start cutting into contingency funding. At that point you have to make hard decisions about revenue and services.

Public service retirement benefits and pensions are paid for life, even if you worked for only a few years. You’re an expense on the books until you die. In the private sector once you quit or are laid off, the employer doesn’t owe you another penny.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Public service retirement benefits and pensions are paid for life, even if you worked for only a few years. You’re an expense on the books until you die. In the private sector once you quit or are laid off, the employer doesn’t owe you another penny.

This is not accurate. Private sector employees are entitled to the pensions they have contributed to regardless of whether or not they are still with that employer or the nature in which their employment ended.

[Bonded]

Could have been a nurse anesthetist or something like that as well. I think they make 200k or something without OT

[Ozy_Flame]

Let the pitchforks and burning at the stake with no hope for context commence!