The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 275 No 7375 p606-607
12 November 2005

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 100K, Acrobat Reader

· Adverse reactions
· Drug interactions (2)
· Packaging
· GHP (2)
· Pricing
· Clinical governance
· The profession
· Pharmacy workforce
· Communication
· Registration

Letters to the Editor

Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists

Concerns about the proposed changes

From Mr W. T. Brookes, FRPharmS

The letters from Ron Pate and Bob Timson and the response from the president of the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists, Tony West (PJ, 5 November, p574), raise a number of issues about the proposed changes in the guild’s structure and functions. The president has been good enough to send honorary members — who cannot vote under Amicus rules — a copy of the changes, asking for comments. I appreciate this and will respond, but the matter requires a wider and more open debate by guild members. As the guild no longer has its own journal, the PJ is the only vehicle for such a debate.

My concerns are as follows:

Consultation and communication At the “not the AGM” meeting in Glasgow we were promised both. For over six months we have had none. The proposals should have had full and open debate. This has not happened. They need clarification and interpretation. These would best have been provided either by a national meeting or a number of regional meetings, where members could have asked questions, sought clarification and considered options. Local group meetings may help but at such short notice one questions their usefulness. To be presented with a “take it or nothing” paper without options is not good enough. Consultation means the active involvement of the membership at all stages with the opportunity to influence the outcome. The council may wish to refer to David Bird’s definition of “consultation” inserted in a Pharmaceutical Whitley Council grading circular at his insistence. Consultation in that sense has not happened and a ballot is no substitute.

The proposals

Council composition Reduced from 22 to 20 so fewer to do more. Twelve will be regional representatives but whom six of the remaining eight will represent is anyone’s guess. No national members will be a big loss.

Election process The regional representatives will at least be elected by members. The method of choosing the remaining eight is bizarre to say the least with six “elected” by the outgoing council and two others by an unknown process. Of course Agenda for Change is important but so is democracy and proper membership representation. And for all council members to retire every two years bodes ill for continuity.

Annual general meeting Not allowed under Amicus rule but general meetings are. There may be a difference but not in my eyes.

“Chair” not “president” Just seems a petty change for no good reason.

The vice-president says the proposals “will enhance the way council works”. I can see no evidence for that, just a further diminution of the guild’s place in the union. We have no consultation, a flawed and confused election process, no real opportunity to debate the proposals and no perceived benefits for guild members. There must be another way.

Bill Brookes
Honorary Vice-President
Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists

In the light of more information

From Mr R. G. Pate, FRPharmS

As stated in my previous correspondence (PJ, 5 November, p574) I have reserved my judgement on the vote on union changes until I received more information regarding the ballot. I now have this information, albeit three weeks after the PJ report and five days after publication on the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists website. Having digested all of this, I must say that the GHP council has done well in its negotiations with Amicus and I wholeheartedly endorse the recommendation for GHP members to register with the website forum and be in receipt of the electronic GHP bulletins.

The question GHP members have to ask themselves is whether the change is acceptable. In summary, do GHP members see the following as an improvement?

· A reduction in numbers of council members (particularly in Scotland)

· Abolition of the guild journal — Healthcare Pharmacy

· The communication route to be via an electronic media only or via Amicus Healthcare World (readers can judge for themselves how much of the content of this has GHP member appeal or value as a recruitment aid compared with Healthcare Pharmacy)

· Coterminosity with regional government offices (long overdue in my view)

· An election process for council membership that is limited to voting in your Amicus region only, ie, for your own regional member and no national (so if a several outstanding candidates exist in a region they will only get onto the GHP council if the regional members deem fit and co-opt vote)

· After 2006 there is to be an election process that is still to be decided (penultimate paragraph on page 2 of the statement with ballot papers)

· Abolition of the GHP annual general meeting

The latter three bullet points do not give the impression of an improvement in democracy. I do not see a website forum as a better arrangement for debate than a public meeting or printed material. I also hope I am correct in thinking that the website will remain under the control of the GHP webmaster and not Amicus since my experience of freedom of speech via Amicus electronic media has not been good.

Every merger the GHP parent union has had has promised increases in resources for members. I have never seen this in the health sector. The above, and other components of the proposed changes, in my view, reflect the continuation of this decline. Amicus is telling the GHP it has to be no different from any other industrial sector of its membership; it is not trying to meet our needs.

I genuinely believe the GHP council has negotiated the best deal it can and that it has looked at “de-merger” as first choice though it is not clear to the depth to which this option has been examined. A “no” vote should not therefore be seen as a “no confidence” issue in guild council but an expression that more consultation with the members is required.

I will register with the GHP website as requested by the GHP council and encourage others to do likewise. I will also limit my future comment to this website.

Ron Pate
Kinver, West Midlands

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Packaging)
Next Topic (Pricing)