| · IPF
· GHP (2)
· BPC
· Medicines use reviews
· Drug classification
· Alternative therapies
· Controlled drugs
· North East London LPC (3)
· The Society
· Pharmacists in the media
Letters to the Editor
|
Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists
Members to vote on union changes
From Mr R. G. Pate, FRPharmS
I was disturbed to read the item “Guild
members to vote on union changes” (PJ, 15 October, p473). As a member I would have hoped
to have had some direct personal communication regarding the changes
proposed. It is difficult to comment on the proposed changes reported
since members need to hear of these from the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists’ council
directly and in some detail before taking a position.
I and many other members were disappointed to see the GHP’s journal,
Healthcare Pharmacy, be summarily closed in the way it was. Although
I have many reservations about the reported agreement reached with Amicus
(which I will reserve until I have read any statement with the ballot),
not to be able to read the “agreement” with Amicus on the
GHP website or any related background issues or discussion does not bode
well for the robustness of any future electronic communication. I sense
this is a continuation of the decline in organisational support from
the parent union that we have seen over the years.
As a former guild council member I know of the challenges that will have
been faced in negotiating with one’s own parent union and the council
has my full sympathy. It therefore hurts me greatly to have to write
to the PJ in response to this GHP report but that appears to be how members
are to be communicated with over this issue.
I do hope the closing date for the ballot will allow adequate time for
GHP group meetings to take place to discuss the proposals made and that
council members will make themselves available at meetings to provide
any background that might be needed as to the rationale of their decision.
It is worth noting that the proposals reported in the PJ make no reference
to what I believe to have been the sentiments of the meeting in Edinburgh
which was for exploring an option other than continuation with Amicus.
Ronald Pate
Kinver,
West Midlands
Think carefully
From Mr R. M. Timson, FRPharmS
The news item — “Guild members to vote on union changes” (PJ,
15 October, p473) — makes depressing reading. With the parent union’s
decision to abolish Healthcare Pharmacy, it would appear that the Guild
of Healthcare Pharmacists’ council has neither the means nor so
far the intention of conveying the results of its deliberations to its
members. There has been a communication blackout since April of this
year. The article in the PJ is the first news members have heard since
the events of the “non-AGM” in Edinburgh, attended by some
who happened to be at the guild’s annual conference.
At that meeting, I asked for confirmation from the guild council that
it would give fair consideration to the option of the guild withdrawing
from Amicus as well as consider Amicus’s proposals for change.
The president confirmed both options would be considered and reported.
In your article there is no mention of this former option, and members
must draw the inference that it has not been considered.
We learn from your report that proposals for change were agreed at a
guild council meeting on 22 September, now four weeks ago. Surely the
membership could have been informed of those decisions and told the timetable
for discussion and ballot well before now?
There are many points of concern in this proposal, which is the most
significant event in the history of the guild since members agreed in
1974 to become part of a trade union — at that time, ASTMS. With
each of the various union mergers since then, the guild has been increasingly
sidelined, and history appears ready to repeat itself. Changes to the
election procedures, to the composition of the council (with no apparent
accommodation of more than one member per “region”) and the
abolition of the AGM are not in the interests of the guild and its members.
The guild’s vice-president advises that the new structures will
enable the guild to continue to provide a good service to its members
and will enhance the way the council works. How many times have many
of us heard that through the various union changes since 1974? The reality
historically is the converse and this proposal does not provide any evidence
of improvement.
I would urge the guild’s council to mail its proposals to all members
as soon as possible to allow guild groups time to discuss the matter.
Council members, both district and national, have a major role in this
massively important decision on the future of the guild, especially in
organising meetings and answering members’ questions. Members deserve
some explanations, and quickly. They should all think carefully before
discarding the guild’s proud history.
Bob Timson
Past president
Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists
| |
TONY WEST, president of the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists, responds:
I
think it is important, in case some GHP members feel they have “missed
out” on a meeting, that the “not-the-AGM” event referred
to in both letters above was actually held in Glasgow as a timetabled
meeting within the first joint UK Clinical Pharmacy Association/GHP
conference.
Both authors refer to the commitment I gave at the meeting in Glasgow
that the GHP council would consider a future for the guild outside
of Amicus. The council did indeed consider such an option as “first
choice” but it was unanimously rejected, as none of us believed
it would be in the interests of members. The primary reason for rejecting
a future outside Amicus at this time is the lack of any evidence of existing
smaller professional staff organisations having influenced past negotiations
for Agenda for Change. As we could see more “industrial” issues
on the immediate horizon, the latest being the potential impact of “Commissioning
a patient-led NHS” on our primary care colleagues working in England,
the decision to stay and negotiate better arrangements with Amicus was
a relatively easy one to make, as we believe this to be in our members’ best
interests.
The way pay and terms and conditions are now negotiated has changed
significantly with the old Whitley Councils, including the Pharmaceutical
Whitley Council,
gone and replaced by entirely new machinery. It is particularly worth
noting that this new machinery also gives us access to the Pay Review
Body. The view the GHP’s council took was that it was better for
us to be within a “big player”, using the relationships we
have built over the last four years, than try this as novices within a “stand
alone” organisation. I say “stand alone” as there
was no indication that any of the other professional groups within Amicus
were considering de-merging.
Within Amicus we have successfully influenced many aspects of Agenda
for Change to take account of the needs of our pharmacist members,
and we
have received substantial support from Amicus officers in getting
our case heard. I remain convinced that this is what our members uniquely
want from us at this time.
Having discounted, for the time being, any thought of a life for the
guild outside Amicus, the next step was to negotiate. Those negotiations
took
us through to the 27 August when we received final clarification and
agreement from Amicus on some outstanding issues.
A draft paper was prepared and this was shared with group secretaries
on 21 September. With some clear messages from the group secretaries
to take on board, we did indeed agree, in a closed session of the
GHP council
held the following day, on the content of a “bundle” to go
to members. The individual elements of that bundle, which was to include
a newsletter to update members on progress with the pay negotiations for
2006–07, had not been written. The content was completed over
the next few weeks and agreed with the GHP council via e-mail. District
members
were alerted to the potential need for local meetings and asked to liaise
with their group secretaries.
While I am more than willing to accept criticism for a lack of communication
with members on this issue since the meeting in Glasgow, I am not
sure whether there was much that could usefully be shared before 27
August.
The full set of papers have been on the GHP website from 1 November
and there will also be a section of the forum dedicated to discussing
the
restructuring proposals.
In relation to other comments made in these letters I am unclear on
the reference to “discarding the guild’s proud history”,
as there is nothing in the Amicus proposals that changes that history.
Likewise one author may consider this to be the most significant event
in the guild’s history since 1974 but I would have to disagree.
The introduction of Agenda for Change, taken together with the disbanding
of Pharmaceutical Whitley deserves that accolade, perhaps the most significant
event in the totality of the guild’s existence?
It will be for GHP members, via the ballot box, to indicate whether
we have got the priorities right for our members. As the vice- president,
Anthony Oxley, rightly indicated in his interview with the PJ,
the negotiated agreement with Amicus does have the potential to be
good for members and
good for the future of the guild. There are still some unresolved
issues, devolution probably being top of the list, which simply means
there is
work to be done. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal