The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 267 No 7166 p381-384
22 September 2001

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

  Diet and health
  DTC advertising
  Indemnity insurance
  Pharmacy software
  Locums
  Medicine labels
  Statutory Committee
  The Council

Locums (2 letters)

Stop moaning

From Mr M. Poole, MRPharmS

Ajay Patel (PJ, 25 August, p261) and, it would appear, many others find the rates of pay for locum pharmacists (typically £18+ an hour) to be disgraceful. After all, it is pointed out, Mr Patel often finds himself working under tremendous pressure and providing free advice to customers.

Unaware that this was the preserve of locum pharmacists, I too have frequently found myself advising customers on a variety of ailments and other matters in my role as the pharmacist in charge of a busy dispensary, and all for the princely reward of £14 per hour. I have been labouring under the misconception that this was actually part of my job, and something that was practised by all pharmacists. I now realise that customers should be regarded as a distraction, and any interaction I am forced to have with them should be financially rewarded over and above the salary I am presumably paid just to turn up in order to allow the pharmacy to trade.

I appreciate that locums are often faced with long journeys before they arrive at work, but surely this is a separate issue recompensed by payment for fuel? I therefore do not see why a locum pharmacist should be paid a significantly higher wage than somebody else who is doing the same job (but often with greater overall responsibility for the running of the pharmacy or store) in the same place on a daily basis.

There is of course a solution to the problems faced by Mr Patel and other disgusted locum pharmacists. In the current climate of manpower problems, they should find no shortage of pharmacies willing to take them on as regular store-based pharmacists (although they might well have to accept a lower rate of pay). Hospital pharmacy is another option, but this can involve even more pressure and even lower rates of pay.

Locum pharmacists perform an important role, but I would argue that their contribution to society is no greater than that of any other practising pharmacist. Perhaps they should either stop moaning about their lot, or take a moment to realise that nobody has forced them into their current position, and that if they despise their working conditions that much then they should maybe consider changing their employer.

Marek Poole
Torquay,
Devon

Multiples should be more open

From Mr M. Samson, MRPharmS

I refer to the two letters published recently (PJ, 25 August p261) about locum responsibilities and pay.

In an open and free society, workers and employers negotiate a salary until a compromise is reached. In such times when there is a labour shortage, rates become more competitive; at least, that is the theory.

It is an old trick for a multiple pharmacy employer to tell a locum that everybody else gets far less, and they are doing you a favour by employing you.

I am a retired proprietor pharmacist and I like to work a day or two a week. I realise that many small independent chemists frankly cannot afford £18 an hour for a locum and often go years without a vacation.

On the other hand, why feel sorry for the multiple groups, which buy chains of shops and wholesalers, spending millions, even on abortive bids?

Such companies seem to be able to afford to pay leading politicians six-figure salaries to be chairmen, yet they seem to begrudge paying professional rates to pharmacists.

In a shortage, locum pharmacists ought to make hay. There have been a number of incidents where multinationals have been unable to obtain a locum, let alone a manager, and have closed the shop or dispensary for the day. I believe that if these companies offered a professional fee, then the shortage of pharmacists would prove entirely ephemeral.

If footballers can demand £100,000 a week, pharmacists should demand £30 an hour. Who is more important?

I would suggest the best way to resolve the impasse for the multiples is to try one of three ideas:

1. Offer a competitive salary openly in the PJ to attract a full-time manager or locum. Make an effort; see off your competitors. Failing to advertise is a poor excuse.

2. Those failing to attract a pharmacist could put the business on the market and give a private pharmacist an opportunity to serve the public. Why be a dog in the manger?

3. Surrender the contract, since the public is being ill-served and deserves better.

I trust the health authorities are as impartial with the multiples as they are with the private contractors: fail to keep the contract and you lose it!

Michael Samson
Worthing,
West Sussex

Back to Top

Previous Topic (Pharmacy software)
Next Topic (Medicine labels)
Send your letter to The Editor