Poll: has there been a ‘significant net addition’ to your role?


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?

Previous Shortages protocol mooted
Next Chemist had ‘pharmacy in his car’

NOTICE: It can sometimes take awhile for comment submissions to go through, please be patient.

4 Comments

  1. Tony Soffer
    01/05/2018

    If we want to continue to guide the profession down the path where we are dispensing General Prescriptions for only $5.40, then lets continue to pay employee pharmacists peanuts. The short term benefits that employers are getting from money for Medschecks and Clinical Interventions will eventually be eroded as the discounters control the market with cheap prescriptions subsidised by cheap wages. The Guild is killing its own members livelihood and playing into the hands of specific discounters by ignoring the valuable contribution that employee pharmacists make to the community at the same time as pocketing the money for all the 6CPA Services.

    • Bryan Soh
      01/05/2018

      Sad thing is i dont think the current guild members and leaders give a crap. I think all they want is to squeeze as much money as possible to fund their retirement, the future of the profession and its long suffering employees be damned. The choice of words in the submission has made the guild’s intetntions clear as day. An utter farce

  2. Christopher Wood
    02/05/2018

    not much noise about this from pharmacy owners out there? so why would the guild not continue on the path it is pursuing?

Leave a reply