FYI : California Employment Law 2019

Cytotechnologists, pay close attention, because this info applies particularly to you.
We at Quest obey all laws, local, state, and federal. How Labcorp pays their cytotechnologists premium time (only legal under a union contract), rather than overtime gives the Labcorp an illegal unfair advantage.

Many employers misclassify workers to avoid giving them California overtime pay and minimum wage. But their workers can file a lawsuit for misclassification and can recover penalties as high as $25,000 per worker.
Aggrieved workers can file a lawsuit, under California’s Private Attorney General Act, to recover a share of the total labor code penalties that the state of California is entitled to. In the case of misclassification, the California labor commission is entitled to between $5,000 and $25,000 for each worker that the company intentionally misclassified


Voluntary Off-the-Clock Work That Employers Don’t Know About or Authorize
Employers in California sometimes try to argue that they don’t have to pay their employees for off-the-clock work because the employee didn’t have authorization to work extra hours. These employers argue that if their employees want to work extra hours, it’ll be on their own dime.

But that’s not the law in California. The California Supreme Court has said that if an employer knows or should have known that an employee was working off-the-clock, and they “stood idly by,” the employer has to pay for those hours.

This rule stops employers from winning the argument that extra or overtime hours were unauthorized. If the employer required an employee to finish a workload that was impossible to complete in the allotted time, an employer may be required to pay for off-the-clock hours spent to finish the task. Often, the employer “should have known” that it wasn’t possible to finish in the allotted time.

Mandatory Overtime: Employers sometimes force employees to work past 8 hours a day or more than 40 a week, but don’t pay overtime rates. Depending on circumstances, it may be illegal for an employer to require an employee to work mandatory overtime.

Overtime Pay Waivers: An employee’s right to collect overtime pay cannot be waived. An overtime pay waiver in an employment contract is invalid under California law. An employment contract also cannot waive the CA overtime rates (time-and-a-half and double time), even if the employment agreement specifies that overtime will be at a particular (lower) rate.

Unionized Workers: Employees that are unionized are an exception to the general rule in California that workers get time-and-a-half and double pay. California allows unionized workers to agree to a different overtime rate in a collective bargaining agreement, as long as the worker earns a wage premium for overtime hours that is at least 30% of California minimum wage. Based on California’s 2019 minimum wage, union workers must earn a premium wage of at least $3.30 an hour for overtime work.

Myth #1: Unauthorized Overtime Is Not Compensable. Sometimes, an employee feels like they must work extra hours to finish all the work that their employer has assigned. They think: there’s just not enough hours in a day! Often, they don’t even report the hours on their time sheet. But when the employee quits or is fired, they want to know whether they can sue to recover overtime pay, even though the employer did not specifically authorize those hours. The general rule in California is that employers must pay for unauthorized overtime hours if the employer knew that the employee was working overtime, or if the employer should have known the employee would need to work overtime to finish the job.

Myth #2: Rest Breaks Are Not Included When Calculating Overtime. Employees in California are entitled to paid rest breaks every 4 hours. When calculating overtime hours, California employers are required to include rest breaks towards the total hours worked.

 

First, thank you for the info. If anyone has the same question that I had about the legal length of paid break time, it is 15 minutes every 4 hours for an 8 hour day. You lunch is a minimum of 30 minutes, but on you dime.

Uhmmm. Good to know.

 

Cytotechnologists should be happy to have any job. It is a dying field big time.

 

Hahaha. Without cytotechnologists, you wouldn’t have a job at all, you managed care babysitter.

 

Listen and learn, son. There is a huge Cytotech shortage. Most Cytopathologists already have at least 2 jobs. So don’t get it twisted. Didn’t you get your EKRA memo? You are doomed, son. So stop throwing stones. Walmart is hiring.

 

That's correct. Most cytotech's have at least 2 Jobs also.

 

Where is there a shortage? Areas with no schools I guess? Lot of cytopath labs have consolidated. when you search indeed, you don't come up with that many real jobs (100 maybe?). There is a huge surplus of techs where I live and many are leaving the field cause the pap tests are drying up.

 

Your technical skills are more important than where you live. If you live in California, and cannot find a job, there is a good chance that you are not a good tech and you need to leave the field. It might help you if techs followed the laws restricting the number of slides the can legally screen in 24 hours. However, head hunters are blowing up my phone in search of cytotechs for jobs all across the country every day-

 

When did not being good at a job be a reason for not being hired at Labcorp? Just look around at all the senior management!

 

I work in cytology and there is rarely a job opening in my state due to us still having a school.

I hope there is a shortage but the job market changes rapidly in this field due to small size. I worry that nongyn volumes are going to drop now that companies like Guardant360 are entering in the picture. Their blood test for nonsmall cell lung cancer mutations made the news last week. It outperformed tissue so that could mean less biopsies and tissue testing in the not too distant future.

How are techs not following the laws? They are doing more than 160 imaged paps a day since that is the limit in California?

 

Firstly, no, the slide limit in California is 80 slides or the equivalency of 80 slides if you use the automated imager microscope. If you are doing a full manual review of the recommended 20% of work performed on imager, and you have a mixed workload of non imaged slides and computer imaged slides, you might be able to screen 100. And secondly, of course, they are reading more than 80. No one is policing them. No one should have to police them. Why anyone would want to go to cytology school these days, I find mysterious indeed.

 

Do very many labs define a percentage for full manual? I haven't seen any. It is a race to get the techs as close to the limits as possible. In the case of California 160 slides. For those of us in 48 states besides New York it is a race to 200. Labs that force more productivity are able to seduce physician offices with more "freebies" like low client pricing etc. This field is a race to the bottom.

Don't fret, HPV testing has been approved for primary screening and will be putting us out of a job. It is inevitable at this point. The schools are closing, few people are entering the field due to all the uncertainty about it's future. At some point we have to transition to molecular and let the "last of the mohecans" finish screening the remaining Paps before closing the door on this field for good.

 

Give us all a break and stop trying to change the subject. The fact is, these labor laws apply whether you are painting a wall or screening a pap.

Also, you have to be either tone deaf or trolling. Of course, the recommendations did not come from a commercial lab. The study and recommendations came from the American Society of Cytopathology. 80 slide max, NOT 160. No one can screen 160 slides accurately.

Recommendations:

1. Cytotechnologists’ workday should not include more than 7 hours of gynecologic (Pap test) screening in a 24 hour period, provided there are no additional duties or distractions. Based on the
available evidence that fatigue and discomfort increase over time, it is considered good practice that the above time periods apply to a 24-hour period. Non- screening time of gynecologic specimens must include at least two paid mini-breaks of 15 minutes each, and a 30 minute lunch break, in an 8-hour day. Breaks constitute a complete break form microscopy work, and may NOT include other activities such as data entry, quality assurance, and non-gynecologic specimen immediate evaluation and screening.

Time allotted for breaks is intended for mental and muscular rest, so it can not be “worked through”. Employment for less than 8 hours must also assume non-screening time of gynecologic specimens, including breaks, prorated to the total number of hours worked. For example, a person scheduled to screen Pap tests for a 4-hour shift, should have at least one 15- minute paid break, and one 15 minute lunch break, totaling to 3 ½ hours of actual gynecologic screening, and 30 minutes of non-screening. We encourage further studies of the effects of breaks lasting different intervals on screening sensitivity.

2. The current FDA workload limits for automated image-assisted screening methods, including the ThinPrep Imaging System (TIS) and the FocalPoint GS are 200 and 170 slides/day, respectively. These rates are extremely high and may be associated with significant reduction in sensitivity.

Recognizing that individual cytotechnologist productivity may vary, based on recent and current available literature, we recommend that the average laboratory cytotechnologist productivity not exceed 70 slides/day using the CMS recommendations for calculating workload (imaged slide only = 0.5 slide, full manual review = 1.0 slide, imaged + manual review = 1.5 slide). This is assuming a manual review (MR) rate of imaged slides to be at least 15-20%. For example, with a 20% MR, maximum # of slides examined per day will equal 80 slides “field of view (FOV) only” (calculated as 80 x 0.5 = 40) PLUS 20 slides FOV+MR (calculated as 20 x 1.5= 30). So the total # of actual slides screened in this example is 100 slides (FOV and 20% MR). This slide rate must be prorated for employment of less than 8 hours/day, based on the actual number of hours a person screens. For example, a person scheduled to screen Pap tests for a 4-hour shift should not screen more than an average of 35 slides/per that shift, using the CMS recommendations for calculating workload. The percentage of imaged slides that undergo full manual review should be at least either 15%, or twice (2x) the epithelial cell abnormality (ECA) rate, whichever is greater. The epithelial cell abnormality (ECA)-adjusted workload measure is a promising method for calculating and monitoring cytotechnologist workload, and can be correlated to desired laboratory screening sensitivity. This method may be especially useful in the setting of higher ECA rates. Further studies of this method are necessary before full endorsement is possible.

Note: Turnaround Time (TAT) should not be used as a quality metric in evaluating cytotechnologist performance, but may be used in monitoring staffing needs and laboratory workflow. It should never be used as a means of pressuring Cytotechnologists to increase their productivity at the expense of compromising the quality of the Pap test evaluation.

Cytotechnologists’ workday should not include more than 7 hours of gynecologic (Pap test) screening in a 24 hour period, provided there are no additional duties or distractions. Data suggests that most cytotechnologists have decreased screening performance over the length of the day, and that breaks away from the microscope are necessary to maintain concentration and avoid mental fatigue (1,12). It is also apparent that in some laboratories, cytotechnologists are allowed to screen Pap tests for longer than 8 hours, as long as they don’t exceed the FDA imposed workload limits (TM Elsheikh, personal communication). Further studies of the effect of screening between 5 and 7 hours a day are suggested.

Future studies examining cytotechnologist workload should use actual hours of screening rather than lesser number of hours extrapolated to 8-hour days The workload limits set for the original FDA TIS trial as well as the original FDA BD FocalPoint GS Imaging System trial were based on extrapolated data. Subsequent studies have consistently suggested that these limits are too high, and that performance begins to decrease (lower sensitivity, less accurate classification of abnormal cases) after 4 hours for most cytotechnologists( see #1 above). Taken together the data suggests that extrapolation is not an acceptable method to obtain reliable workload limits.

3. We recommend that the average laboratory cytotechnologist productivity should not exceed: 70 slides/day using the new CMS recommendations for calculating workload (imaged slide only = 0.5 slide, full manual review = 1.0 slide, imaged + manual review = 1.5 slide). This is assuming a manual review (MR) rate of imaged slides to be at least 15-20%. For example, with a 20% MR, maximum # of slides examined per day will equal 80 slides FOV only (calculated as 80 x 0.5 = 40) PLUS 20 slides FOV+MR (calculated as 20 x 1.5= 30). So the total # of actual slides screened in this example is 100 slides (FOV and 20% MR). Data for this comes from two separate sources. First, review of studies documenting switching from manual to automated screening have shown a consistent increase in abnormality rate when workload is restricted to these values, and a consistent decrease in abnormality rate when workload exceeds these limits. In addition, studies examining abnormality rate when cytotechnologists are asked to increase their workload over a relatively short time period also show a consistent decrease in abnormality rate above these workloads. We understand that rate of screening varies from hour-to-hour, screener-to-screener, and slide-to-slide. This variation is expected as the complexity of the slides examined varies and performance of the cytotechnologist changes over time. These recommended screening rates are, therefore, recommended for a laboratory average, not for an individual cytotechnologist performance.

4. The proportion of imaged slides that undergo full manual review should be at least either 15%, or twice (2x) the epithelial cell abnormality (ECA) rate, whichever is greater. This is based on the results of survey data presented by Ms. Fern Miller at the ASC National meeting in 2009. The vast majority of laboratories were manually reviewing at least 15% of their cases. Also, studies demonstrated that as workload and productivity increases, there is tendency for lower percentage of manual review performed, and decreased detection of abnormalities in the Pap test.

5. The ECA-adjusted workload measure is a promising new method for calculating and monitoring cytotechnologist workload, and can be correlated to desired laboratory screening sensitivity. This method may be especially useful in the setting of higher ECA rates. Further studies of this method are encouraged before full endorsement of this method, by this Task Force, is issued. Although the ECA adjusted workload (ECA rate x actual number of slides screened, where each slide, imaged only or manually screened, is counted as one, not 0.5 or 1.5) is a relatively new quality assurance measure, it is the only measure that has been directly correlated with screening sensitivity. The ECA adjusted workload has been shown to directly correlate with screening sensitivity at the level of ASCUS, LSIL, and HSIL in the original FDA TIS trial, and using the same data comparing manual and automated screening in actual practice. Preliminary data suggests that a very high sensitivity (approaching 100%) for ASCUS and worst diagnoses can be achieved when the workload (using ThinPrep imaging system) is no more than 700 cases/day/ECA (70 slides screened with an ECA of 10%, expressed as 70 x 10).

 

Recommendations are just that. You don't have to follow them. They aren't in the CAP guidelines where they need to be.

You will be painting walls pretty soon as this field continues to die off.

 

Ok, 160 cases is what I meant to say not slides. The labs that will win are the ones pushing their techs as close to the max as possible. That is how cytology has always been. Quality doesn't seem to matter

 

sounds like some quest employee is jealous cause LabCorp is beating them in california

 

california is the land of Aids and I’m infected

He was confused. Yesterday was Ash Wednesday not Easter. But he loves to eat those little crackers - they make him feel clean.

 

Do you know how the number 160 slides came to be? The Cytyc lobbyist, who wrote the legislation was asked what the slide limit should be by the legislator who submitted the legislation on automated assisted cytology. With no studies or information concerning fatigue or increased loss of sensitivity with increase in workload to support a response, he just said off the top of his head, double the slide limit. And so it was. You see, the automated system would not be cost effective for a lab if it did not allow for an increase in production. So back to the days of pre CLIA 88 cytology went. Back to the big lab pap mills.

You are the joke who forgot to make me laugh. Trolls are not welcome. Only serious response please.

You are right about one thing, though. Quality is not valued. Unqualified supervisors and managers are lost without their layed off micromanagers. Local labor laws are ignored, while only CLIA rules that benefit the corporation are obeyed and proven solutions recommended by professional organizations are ignored. I could go on...

 

There was never any evidence that 100 slides a day was safe either. They just pulled numbers out of their you know what. Cytology caused CLIA 88 so they had to do something to make the public think it was safe from abusive practices.

 

is this SK? Here we go again, folks: Everyone knows that SK = Jussie Smollett. She could have taught him a few things , b/c It’s still working for her.....