Has your role changed and its scope increased enough to justify an increase in the award wage?
Last week, the AJP reported on the Pharmacy Guild’s submission to the Fair Work Commission, in which it rejected the union’s case that there had been a “significant net addition” in workload, enough to justify its work value claim.
“The Guild strongly supports the vital role of community pharmacists and acknowledges in its submission to the FWC that there have been evolutionary changes to their work over the relevant period (since 1998),” president George Tambassis wrote to members.
“However, in the Guild’s view, the evidence presented by APESMA does not demonstrate the ‘significant net addition’ required in a work value proceedings nor has APESMA made the case for the inclusion of a new Accredited Pharmacist award classification.”
The story sparked a response among readers, particularly a strongly-upvoted discussion of the issue by reader FakeMoralOutrage.
“I read the above article around 8am local time and will be going to work feeling even more devalued than when our magnanimous benefactors threw the entire profession under the bus last year when by opposing penalty rates,” this reader wrote.
“It is now 2018 and many pharmacists are still working for the same hourly rate as they did in 2007. Pharmacist pay has not even kept up with CPI, let alone any additional workload increases that the Guild has chosen to ignore.”
Jarrod McMaugh wrote that “I think it’s also important to keep in mind that many Guild members are not happy with this response. I am one of them.
“I want to say that I am bitterly disappointed that the Guild isn’t taking this opportunity to bring wages up to parity based on the value of the work we all do, and the cost of business— at the moment, the low award is just handing advantage to those businesses who only pay award.”
We’d like to know what you think. Has there been a “significant net addition” to your work as a pharmacist… and does it justify the union’s claim?