Alberta's Top Paid Nurse Earns $510,000

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by opendoor

The points only determine pension reduction, not the actual amount you're entitled to. If a person only contributes for 10 years, it doesn't matter how many points they have, they'll still only get a pension that's equivalent to ~20% of their salary (~2% for each year of pensionable service). Whereas someone who contributed for 35 years would get 70% of their salary.

The reason they have that points system which incentivizes later retirement (particularly for people with less service) is because someone retiring at 65 is going to collect their pension for 10 years less on average than someone retiring at 55. And because that 10 years represents about 30-35% of the remaining life expectancy of a 55 year old, they reduce the pension by about 30% if you retire at 55 instead of 65 (unless you have enough service to mitigate that).

Yes, I understand the reduction part for the calculation vs the entitled pension. But the reduction part isn't even that high if you are sitting at 75/85. So as mentioned, the design is poor for younger individuals than older individuals, especially if younger individuals are burning out under IDGAF older individuals who control things.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Yes, I understand the reduction part for the calculation vs the entitled pension. But the reduction part isn't even that high if you are sitting at 75/85. So as mentioned, the design is poor for younger individuals than older individuals, especially if younger individuals are burning out under IDGAF older individuals who control things.

I mean, there's actually no reduction in your hypothetical example, because if you retire at 65 you get an unreduced pension regardless of how long you've worked or how many points you have. But obviously if you only have a few years of service, the pension amount will be miniscule (unreduced or not).

But how does that penalize younger people? Obviously they're going to reduce your pension if you want to retire at 45 or 50 as opposed to retiring at 65 with the same service. The former person would be collecting it for twice as long on average as the latter.

[darockwilder]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Perhaps I am wrong here but could this figure be just a typing and computer mistake? A fat finger hitting a wrong keystroke with no follow up? It's not like there is an employee actually writing out hand written paycheck's and signing them to question this.

People being pressured into or wanting additional overtime hours 100% makes sense.

I still think this was more of a result of some error as opposed to a super human nurse working insane hours with virtually no life.

The nurses and Dr's who make very high incomes while also working very hard, long and challenging hours is a different conversation. I can see a lot of younger nurses in their 20"s who are just really focused on work, their career, little time for the BS being the ones who make $150k-250k.

Considering this is a hockey forum, there is something to be said about the small segment of young people who are 100% focused in achieving this. The NHL #1 picks like Crosby, McDavid, Mackinnon etc are what separate them from others. Just being focused on the task at hand and not getting caught up in the pitfalls of youth can lead to very large payday's later. Obv not a direct comparison but I still think the $500k nurse was more of an error. Could be a Nurse Practitioner with a much higher pay to start as well as opposed to an RN working like a madperson as well.

NPs aren't in the union so they get far less opportunities for OT than an RN.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I mean, there's actually no reduction in your hypothetical example, because if you retire at 65 you get an unreduced pension regardless of how long you've worked or how many points you have. But obviously if you only have a few years of service, the pension amount will be miniscule (unreduced or not).

But how does that penalize younger people? Obviously they're going to reduce your pension if you want to retire at 45 or 50 as opposed to retiring at 65 with the same service. The former person would be collecting it for twice as long on average as the latter.

Because typically these types of pensions are deployed in organizations with lots of red tape. Individuals who are older are the gate keepers and younger individuals with significantly longer working years are passed by for older individuals above them. I'm not looking at it in a vacuum. Just pointing out it's a part of a bigger issue with how the system is designed for nurses. I've heard these complaints for decades from new nurses and existing nurses.

The pension thing is something that is a common theme for people I've chatted with who work at the city and occasionally nurses. Nurses usually complain about the day to day more though due to the insanity they deal with. They complain the older individuals above them nab the favorable schedules, block reasonable requests for long term improvements because it means that those individuals have to work a little harder, often get to the point of doing very little at work because they "earned it" etc. This isn't even adding in some of the dual title complaints of senior staffers I've heard of.

[calf]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont even know what to say. I've been doing Taxes for 20 years and I've worked some pretty crappy jobs in my life to pay for the education to do it and I am still staggered when I hear this.

"Overtime actually costs me money!!"

"If I make a dollar over my tax bracket all of my income is taxed at the higher rate!"

No....just...none of that is true. Those are not how these things work!

I feel like I've gradually slid into the sweet, sweet release of insanity having to explain these same things over, and over and over, and over....

The Geezer Coffee/Breakfast meets should be goddamned illegal. The Accountants and the Finance Advisors should team up all 'World Police' style and put a goddamned stop to this ridiculousness.

"Did you know that Income Tax is unconstitutional after the first World Waaaaaar....ohhhh GOD......why are you tazing me?"

Because thats BS! This is Canada! We dont have a Constitution and Income Tax is absolutely legal and mandatory, your pension is taxable and your BS is wrong! And you should feel bad for being so wrong! You know what makes people feel bad? Nothing like 10,000 volts!

"Hit him again!"

This is me, but when someone says "corporation or rich guy only did this thing for the tax write-off". No they didn't. If you spend $1 million on something to get a full tax deduction, you might save $250k in taxes, but you'll be out $750k net. That's not people make money.

[nik-]

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I mean, there's actually no reduction in your hypothetical example, because if you retire at 65 you get an unreduced pension regardless of how long you've worked or how many points you have. But obviously if you only have a few years of service, the pension amount will be miniscule (unreduced or not).

But how does that penalize younger people? Obviously they're going to reduce your pension if you want to retire at 45 or 50 as opposed to retiring at 65 with the same service. The former person would be collecting it for twice as long on average as the latter.

Under that points system, someone retiring at 55 with 20 years of service and someone retiring at 55 with 2 years of service get the same reduction to their pension of 30%. Obviously the 2 year guy will have a lower base pension, but I can see why the 20 year guy might think that was unfair.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Under that points system, someone retiring at 55 with 20 years of service and someone retiring at 55 with 2 years of service get the same reduction to their pension of 30%. Obviously the 2 year guy will have a lower base pension, but I can see why the 20 year guy might think that was unfair.

I don't really see why. It's a question of spreading out your payments over x remaining years vs. y remaining years. If someone retires at 55, they're taking a pension for about 50% longer on average than someone who retires at 65. So why shouldn't it be reduced on that basis? Any pension plan that wants to remain solvent needs to reduce payouts for early retirements.

And that's the worst-case scenario for that system. If the 20-year person worked to 57, they'd only have their pension reduced by 18% (vs 24% for the other person) and if they worked until 60, they'd have an unreduced pension (vs. 15% reduction for the other person).

If anything, the points system favors people in that situation. A lot of DB pensions have moved away from that and just have hard cutoffs for age and service. For the BC teacher's plan for instance, if you have fewer than 35 years service, you lose 4.5% for each year you retire before age 61. So a 55 year old with 30 years' service would have the same 27% reduction as a 55 year old with 2 years' service. The points system on the other hand would give the first person an unreduced pension.

[InglewoodFan]

My wife works for AHS and it seems this thread is making the rounds in some circles. I haven't really kept up on what y'all are saying but some of your "expertise" is pretty amusing to the folks who actually know what the rules are.

And no, I ain't saying **** because I respect confidentiality of my wife's job. But as one tip, the UNA contract is available on line if you really want to comb it for the details.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by calf

This is me, but when someone says "corporation or rich guy only did this thing for the tax write-off". No they didn't. If you spend $1 million on something to get a full tax deduction, you might save $250k in taxes, but you'll be out $750k net. That's not people make money.

Yeah...as someone who specializes in Tax I get this A LOT.

Biggest one? Cars.

Yeah, you can buy a car and 'write some of it off' but you're still going to be spending far more than you're saving, cash remains King.

What you have to think about is whether the utility and value that vehicle brings to your business will generate sufficient additional revenue as to cover the remaining cost/value of the vehicle.

Anyways, now we're getting waaay off the topic at hand.

I dont doubt that this Nurse made $510K, I just maintain that this should be taken for what it is, and that is shining a light on a significant systemic problem that has to be addressed.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by InglewoodFan

And no, I ain't saying **** because I respect confidentiality of my wife's job. But as one tip, the UNA contract is available on line if you really want to comb it for the details.

Details...........are you new to arguing on the internet.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I don't really see why. It's a question of spreading out your payments over x remaining years vs. y remaining years. If someone retires at 55, they're taking a pension for about 50% longer on average than someone who retires at 65. So why shouldn't it be reduced on that basis? Any pension plan that wants to remain solvent needs to reduce payouts for early retirements.

And that's the worst-case scenario for that system. If the 20-year person worked to 57, they'd only have their pension reduced by 18% (vs 24% for the other person) and if they worked until 60, they'd have an unreduced pension (vs. 15% reduction for the other person).

If anything, the points system favors people in that situation. A lot of DB pensions have moved away from that and just have hard cutoffs for age and service. For the BC teacher's plan for instance, if you have fewer than 35 years service, you lose 4.5% for each year you retire before age 61. So a 55 year old with 30 years' service would have the same 27% reduction as a 55 year old with 2 years' service. The points system on the other hand would give the first person an unreduced pension.

I think individuals with tenure just feel that it's unfair that someone could get a 27% reduction after spending 2 years there vs they spent 30 years there to have the same grind down. They aren't focusing on the fact one is probably tinkering with $2K before grind down vs the other is at $20-30K or whatever the number is prior to grind down. Many other companies consider you gold after about a decade and multiple decades, but the 85 point system doesn't care.

Add in some organizations where they'll slot older people in higher roles with little to no tenure to the organization, it's part of many moving parts for those below to feel that it is unfair, whether that is a valid sentiment objectively or subjectively.

I've seen some scenarios on a widespread scale where I feel it is objectively unfair. But I will agree with you that there are some other scenarios and in a vacuum the 85 point system isn't completely unfair. But I've seen some orgs loosely use it as almost like a KPI and that IMO is moronic.

Originally Posted by InglewoodFan

My wife works for AHS and it seems this thread is making the rounds in some circles. I haven't really kept up on what y'all are saying but some of your "expertise" is pretty amusing to the folks who actually know what the rules are.

And no, I ain't saying **** because I respect confidentiality of my wife's job. But as one tip, the UNA contract is available on line if you really want to comb it for the details.

I think most of us are just saying we agree the system is broken. But there is a lot of misunderstandings that occur within the system and those outside of the system trying to understand it.

Curious if I can ask, what are the thoughts on the article? Reasonably accurate or full of drivel? After a ball park running of the numbers, it seems like it's plausible, but also completely insane from a reality POV perspective.

[para transit fellow]

nevermind...

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

I think most of us are just saying we agree the system is broken. But there is a lot of misunderstandings that occur within the system and those outside of the system trying to understand it.

Curious if I can ask, what are the thoughts on the article? Reasonably accurate or full of drivel? After a ball park running of the numbers, it seems like it's plausible, but also completely insane from a reality POV perspective.

If AHS can be deemed broken because a small number of their employees worked a tonne of OT last year then a large number of private businesses would also need to considered as broken.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

If AHS can be deemed broken because a small number of their employees worked a tonne of OT last year then a large number of private businesses would also need to considered as broken.

Agreed, but no, that's not the path I'm trying to follow. I know some nurses who refuse to be full time because of the OT rules. I'd be curious to know if their concerns and reasoning is valid or based on some form of truth. They've been saying stuff like this for years before the pandemic.

Someone on the first page mentioned something relating to the same situation. It's not that the article and mere OT that is saying the system is broken, it's just one more facet out of seemingly like a dozen of things being mentioned (unconfirmed for accuracy) that has been complained about by nurses and externals alike for almost a decade.

I'm not clueless in understanding the article says that only a handful of scenarios like this arose. It's not an indication of a broken system, but it sort of is an indication of some of the maximums if the system was "stress tested" (pardon the pun).