The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7199 p717-719
25 May 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 65K

  Dispensing
  Checking technicians
  Childhood vaccination
  NHS Direct
  Concordance
  Herbal remedies
  Disease mongering
  Honorary auditors
  Modernisation
  The Society

Letters to the Editor

Modernisation

Employee pharmacists union was unsuccessful

From Mr R. Gartside, FRPharmS

It is interesting that the concern over the future of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has rekindled interest in an organisation to look after the interests of employee community pharmacists. What is disturbing is that employees feel sufficiently threatened by the modernisation process to raise the subject.

I was elected chairman of a steering committee in 1977, set up with the encouragement of a number of members of the Society's Council. Our experiences then may be interesting now.

The first thing the group found was that a self-financing group is practically impossible today. Even a 500 member group is likely to need a budget of over £65,000 a year, so affiliation to an established organisation is essential. Our choice was the Manufacturing Science Finance Union which had already taken the Guild of Hospital Pharmacists under its wing for precisely the same reasons. I cannot see that one could make any other decision today.

The big problem we encountered was that pharmacists tend to view themselves as managers and have a view that managers look after themselves and do not join unions. One can only admire an individual who feels that they can look after themselves when faced with an unrestricted dragon of private enterprise with 1,000 pharmacies. One is also free to admire Don Quixote, although emulating him may not be the wisest course of action.

We successfully placed articles in the press, raised modest funds which allowed us to hire the Societies' hall for an inaugural meeting, but we could not entice a viable number of members.

I think the consequences of our failure are still with us. Employers could not see that a union could lead to a happy and stable workforce. Nor could they see that a union would help to get the Department of Health to see sense on remuneration. Without an effective union, managerial salaries fell away, relatively speaking, and more pharmacists elected for self-employed status as locums. One view is that the present reliance on locums is the result of the profession as a whole declining to accept employed status. There is no shortage of pharmacists. However, there is a severe shortage of pharmacists prepared to work for the money and conditions on offer.

Extended roles are not possible without a stable workforce. A union might have enabled employers to retain their staff with benefits to themselves, the pharmacists and the profession. As it is, we would be unwise to expect anything acceptable from the negotiations on a new contract because we do not have a stable workforce. Truly, looking after the members is looking after the profession.

Whether there is a way forward is less sure. The Jenkin judgement and the Charter appear to preclude the Society acting in full support of its members. The National Pharmaceutical Association and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee are too overtly organisations for employers to have credibility as organisations for employees. Membership of the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists is in theory open to employee community pharmacists but they are likely for some time to be in a minority.

One thing is for sure — stickers of labels on boxes have about as much future as candle makers.

R. Gartside
Caernarfon, Gwynedd

Previous Topic (Honorary auditors)
Next Topic (The Society)
Send your letter to The Editor