The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7191 p431-434
30 March 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 70K

  The Profession
  Community pharmacy
  FP10 switching
  CPD
  Childhood vaccination
  Homoeopathy
  Drugs of abuse
  The Conference
  The Society
  The Journal

Letters to the Editor

The Society

Should the Society become a trade union?

From Mr S. J. Grabecki, MRPharmS

It has been interesting to read the letters in the PJ over past months: so much dissatisfaction with remuneration, rates of pay, length of working day, level of work, pressure, low morale, poor career opportunities, etc. Where is the unhappy pharmacist to turn? I look at other professions — teachers in London have been striking, for instance — and see them doing something about their justifiable complaints or unacceptable working conditions and yet pharmacists do nothing.

It seems to me that we are a weak and divided profession, so many of us see ourselves as individuals — often in competition with other colleagues. We talk of taking action but each fears the other will renege on any planned action and steal a few prescriptions or take some business from us. Where are our loyalties? If we are increasingly a profession of employed people then surely it should be to ourselves. Unless and until one is happy with one's role then one cannot truly offer a first-class service to the public. No wonder there is so much reluctance to take on new or extended roles. Many pharmacists, encouraged by their employers, misinterpret the word "professional" as always being available to dispense a prescription or make a sale whereas others realise that job satisfaction will only come when they are able properly to practise their unique skills with their clients.

Community pharmacy employers, of course, are in a difficult situation. They are driven by profit and so must exploit the employee to develop their business while trying to extract the best deal from the Government and offering customers whatever goods and services they require. Hospital, academic and industrial pharmacists will have different needs.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society cannot represent all these different groups so how can it proceed? I think that the Society must represent its members — the individual people who went through universities and preregistration training to qualify as pharmaceutical chemists. It is indeed unfortunate that the Society takes retention fees from businesses, because that certainly muddies the waters concerned with "who is the Society responsible for." It is my view that individual pharmacists will only gain the self-satisfaction and respect they are looking for by believing in their cause and doing something about it. Multiples and business owners are big enough to look after themselves. Many are adept at making employee pharmacists accept inadequate terms and conditions because, generally, pharmacists want to do a sterling job against all the odds. If the Society were to become a trade union and actually represent individuals' views then it would be a hugely powerful body; one that would be listened to.

In creating this union there would be pain: a whole structure put in to gather grassroots opinion, a split between employer and employee, any companies' men would need to be removed from the Council, separate policing of standards, etc. Unless this happens though, the employee pharmacist will continue to be dissatisfied, overworked and undervalued. How will all this happen? Maybe a fairy godmother from the TUC will take an interest in employee pharmacists. Or, stranger still, maybe employee pharmacists will take an interest in themselves.

Stan Grabecki
St Albans, Hertfordshire

Previous Topic (The Conference)
Next Topic (The Journal)
Send your letter to The Editor