Alberta's Top Paid Nurse Earns $510,000

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Buff

Stat holidays is time and half, of course. But they have deemed around 4 or so days to be super stat holidays. That means they get double time. Christmas is one of those days. I know a nurse who games this and I'm not sure if I can get all the details correct but here is my attempt to explain it.

They influence the schedulers to get shifts and the take turns with a coworker as to who calls in sick on the superstat. The person who has it off gets double time, OT and its usually an over night shift so there is an overnight premium and also a weekend premium if it lands on a weekend. Someone making $50/hr is suddenly getting almost triple the wage for that one shift.

Perhaps if they were treated better and had more support they would be less likely to do this sort of ####ery. I'm sure a few would, but in a happy work environment where you respect your employer this is much less likely to happen. In short, we do it to ourselves.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Dion

I always pushed the I want time off in leu of any overtime.

This was often my thought, until it got to the point where you couldn't ever take any of your in lieu time off. Now I just want the OT earned paid out in the period I earned it.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

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.

Private sector pensions are not even a thing anymore. Many offer RRPS matching, but once you’re no longer employed with them there’s nothing on the books.

There are long-term expenses associated with hiring a public sector worker today that private-sector employers don’t have to worry about.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Torture

Only true if it's a DC pension which fair, is most private companies but there are companies in the private sector that have DB pensions and carry a liability. (Or that have now closed DB pensions they're still carrying liabilities for)

Even in the public sector, if you only worked for a few years, the "expense on the books" is not going to be large because you didn't accrue much pension benefit.

We’re talking about hiring today, now. Private DB pensions are not a factor.

My dad worked for 40 years as a CA, mostly for private employers or in his private practice. But he did work for 4 years late in his life for the federal government. He has been receiving a modest federal pension for 20 years. Not a huge expense for the government. However, he was also eligible at retirement for a federal health care benefits plan. That has cost the government a lot of money over the last 20 years.

Government departments absolutely do calculate the long-term costs associated with every hire. And given how hard it is to lay someone off from the public sector, and how scary public balance sheets already look going forward, each new position is given more scrutiny than a new hire in the private sector.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by FormerPresJamesTaylor

I refuse to believe CliffFletcher just randomly said something with no base in reality

Which formerly banned poster are you again? How many sock-puppets is this now?

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Which formerly banned poster are you again? How many sock-puppets is this now?

Less than the amount of discussions you've abandoned when called out on your consistent mistruths.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by FormerPresJamesTaylor

Less than the amount of discussions you've abandoned when called out on your consistent mistruths.

Well the thing is, he's not wrong. Sure, there's a vesting period, but that vesting period is generally two years. So, you hire someone and they work for say 5-10 years and you're paying them until they die with the DB plan. I have no interest in getting into this little grudge match, but that's how these plans operate, and that's also why the private sector has very little interest in offering them to employees.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

We’re talking about hiring today, now. Private DB pensions are not a factor.

Are you trying to give the folks who think working OT will result in a smaller paycheque a run for their money in the make things up department?

[Torture]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Government departments absolutely do calculate the long-term costs associated with every hire. And given how hard it is to lay someone off from the public sector, and how scary public balance sheets already look going forward, each new position is given more scrutiny than a new hire in the private sector.

My point was that the expense on the books "until you die" if you work only a few years is a small one because you haven't accrued a large pension benefit (or potentially haven't even vested).
I wasn't saying that government departments don't calculate long term costs.

Anyways, I don't think we really disagree, we're just saying things differently. Yes, DB pensions have long term costs and risks associated with them, but if you only work a couple of years that pension liability is pretty low. Yes most private sector employers provide DC pensions or RRSP matching nowadays so so that their cost is limited to the timespan the person is employed.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by FormerPresJamesTaylor

Less than the amount of discussions you've abandoned when called out on your consistent mistruths.

He’s about 5,000,000 times a better poster than you are. Please don’t go bully people away just because you disagree with them. If he’s spitting mid truths at least point them out and explain why it give evidence.

[DoubleF]

Are some of you talking about the 85 point/factor retirement scale?

https://www.pspp.ca/page/when-can-i-retire

This is one of the more easily exploited retirement arrangements I've seen. It attracts older IDGAF type people into roles where they just sit around for a decade or so to max out their scale and this likely after a lucrative career in O&G. Younger people who work there have to toil for longer to reach the scale. It's an awful design.

People literally show up at age 55 and work till 65. Then they're walking away with 75 out of the 85 points. Someone at age 30 starting at the same place, 20 years later, they're only at 70 points (Age 50 + 20 years service). It's kinda unfair.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Are some of you talking about the 85 point/factor retirement scale?

https://www.pspp.ca/page/when-can-i-retire

This is one of the more easily exploited retirement arrangements I've seen. It attracts older IDGAF type people into roles where they just sit around for a decade or so to max out their scale and this likely after a lucrative career in O&G. Younger people who work there have to toil for longer to reach the scale. It's an awful design.

People literally show up at age 55 and work till 65. Then they're walking away with 75 out of the 85 points. Someone at age 30 starting at the same place, 20 years later, they're only at 70 points (Age 50 + 20 years service). It's kinda unfair.

Also, pension benefits are calculated on an average of your highest years of earnings which tend to be late career, so early career doesn't really count a whole lot.

Anyways, PSPP is Federal so wouldn't apply to nurses. AHS is on the Local Authorities Pension Plan. Probably similar-ish design and formula, but I can't be bothered to look it up.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Torture

Also, pension benefits are calculated on an average of your highest years of earnings which tend to be late career, so early career doesn't really count a whole lot.

Anyways, PSPP is Federal so wouldn't apply to nurses. AHS is on the Local Authorities Pension Plan. Probably similar-ish design and formula, but I can't be bothered to look it up.

I know municipal uses a similar plan. I agree with you that AHS probably has something based on a similar design.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

He’s about 5,000,000 times a better poster than you are. Please don’t go bully people away just because you disagree with them. If he’s spitting mid truths at least point them out and explain why it give evidence.

Trying to bully someone and then telling them not to be a bully is pretty weak.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Trying to bully someone and then telling them not to be a bully is pretty weak.

Uh huh, sure thing. You're pretty much captain of the brigade on this site so I'll take what you say with a boulder of salt.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Uh huh, sure thing. You're pretty much captain of the brigade on this site so I'll take what you say with a boulder of salt.

Is this “brigade” in the room with us right now? Can you point it out to us?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Are some of you talking about the 85 point/factor retirement scale?

https://www.pspp.ca/page/when-can-i-retire

This is one of the more easily exploited retirement arrangements I've seen. It attracts older IDGAF type people into roles where they just sit around for a decade or so to max out their scale and this likely after a lucrative career in O&G. Younger people who work there have to toil for longer to reach the scale. It's an awful design.

People literally show up at age 55 and work till 65. Then they're walking away with 75 out of the 85 points. Someone at age 30 starting at the same place, 20 years later, they're only at 70 points (Age 50 + 20 years service). It's kinda unfair.

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).

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Is this “brigade” in the room with us right now? Can you point it out to us?

Nah, there's not much point to that. Wouldn't achieve anything. None of those folks seem to do any self-evaluation.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Nah, there's not much point to that. Wouldn't achieve anything. None of those folks seem to do any self-evaluation.

Ah, so there’s many of them? And these “folks”… do you hear them often? Would you say that some of them are… how did you put it… 5,000,000 times better than other folks? Are they the ones that help you come up with these rankings?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Private sector pensions are not even a thing anymore. Many offer RRPS matching, but once you’re no longer employed with them there’s nothing on the books.

There are long-term expenses associated with hiring a public sector worker today that private-sector employers don’t have to worry about.

What planet are you living on? Private sector pensions, both DB and DC plans are still very much a thing, for lack of a better term.