| · The Guild (2)
· Gender
· Prescriptions
· Medicines use reviews (3)
· Supervision (2)
· Skin cancer
· North East London LPC
· Birdsgrove House
· The Society (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
The Guild
Why the rush?
From Mr R. M. Timson, FRPharmS
Ron Pate’s analysis (PJ, 12 November, p606) of the ballot information
from the council of the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists is spot on, and
is consistent with my
own views (PJ, 5 November, p574).
The receipt of information and ballot papers by members on 4 November — six
weeks after the council approved them — leaves less than three
weeks (before the ballot closing date of 21 November) for GHP groups
to organise local meetings and call upon national and district members
to address the meetings and answer members’ questions. This closing
date is surely far too premature, and the question must arise — why
the rush?
It is clear that the GHP membership is being bounced into a ballot with
no opportunity to influence the debate — a point Bill
Brookes quite
rightly makes in his letter (PJ, 12 November, p606). If members approve
the proposals, they could find themselves without that special synergism
of union membership and a strong professional organisation that has served
members well since 1974. It is the GHP component that has effectively
managed guild business, through an appropriately elected council (although
frequently abysmally administered by the various parent unions). The
council currently comprises the optimum balance of district and national
members — and over the past two decades has considered more than
once, and rejected each time, moving towards a council membership of
only district members. Now, it seems, union pressure is attempting to
force us down that route. Opportunities exist for members to raise matters
of concern at an annual general meeting and, until last year, an annual
group delegates’ meeting. That, too, is being swept away.
Members’ involvement in pure union matters has, over the years,
not been great. The reason most commonly cited was that they felt well-served
by the GHP structure and saw no real need for involvement in more “general” union
matters. It is highly likely therefore, that GHP membership, which has
been steadily increasing, will rapidly decline if the proposals are agreed,
especially as the Agenda for Change (AfC) restructuring moves towards
completion.
Until the arguments are heard as to why the demerger was apparently almost
summarily dismissed by the guild’s council, members should be demanding
that the ballot is premature and invalid. A “no” result must
be achieved to enable the full debate, which this matter deserves.
Finally, the guild president took issue with me in his response to my
previous correspondence, saying he felt that AfC deserved the accolade
of the most significant event in the totality of the guild’s existence.
I beg strongly to disagree, as I believe that history will record that
the AfC for health care pharmacy has been but one more of many pay and
grading restructurings since 1948, each of which has been highly demanding
on the officers who undertook the negotiations on behalf of members.
The dissolution of the majority of the guild’s strength and influence,
for this is surely what the current proposals really mean, despite the
council spin, must rate as a much more serious concern to members.
Bob Timson
Past president, Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists
Alarm bells
From Mr J. A. Gilby, FRPharmS
As a member of the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists, and a former council
member, I have been following the debate on the guild’s future
with great interest. That such distinguished past presidents as Bill
Brookes, Bob Timson and Ron Pate are expressing concern over the proposed
reorganisation must ring alarm bells.
Complaints about communication within the guild are not new, but do appear
to be worsening and the termination of Healthcare Pharmacy (the guild’s
journal) seems to be the final nail. I believe the various parent unions
have only supported the guild under sufferance, being grateful for members’ subscriptions
but never truly wanting an independently minded section such as the GHP.
The number of anecdotes relating to incompetent administrative support
from “head office” are legion and stretch back over the years.
This latest proposal seems to be just another link in the chain of absorbing
the guild into the Amicus framework, with the loss of any remaining independence
which the current council has. This may be the right way forward for
the 21st century, but surely the membership should be allowed to consider
an alternative approach which would avoid the guild becoming just another
cipher within a vast trade union.
John Gilby
Past president, Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal