New Professional leadership/representative body

[TigerSwift]

I would like the new professional body to be the iron fist of pharmacy. By this, i want it to fight for the opininions and views of its members - not just the views of council. I don't want the new body to lightly step around subjects and debate, but grasp them with both hands and make sure the voice of the profession is heard, the new body must not be afraid to make its opinions heard. We only need to look at the BMA to see how well they do things, but they are a trade union which i don't think the new pharmacy body will become - i therefore beleive we have the PDA to rely on for such things as 'industrial action.'

As a current student i would want the new body to accept the views of students, much like it does currently. I would also like the new professional body to offer newly qualified parmacists something that they will benefit from. Maybe support methods to help them through the first few weeks after their preregistration year.

I do not think a rebranded RPSGB is something that the profession needs, and the TransCom needs to be very careful in what it decides to do. Unfortunately i do not hold great faith in the TransCom as it is full of old council members. It was mentioned that students would have a seat on the TransCom, but this did not happen. I hope that the new body does not become one of empty promises.

[DavidS]

I want it to fight for the opininions and views of its members - not just the views of council.

Tigerswift, its worse than that!

Didi you read the article by Graham Phillips in Independent Pharmacist magazine? In it he said that during his (recent four year) time as a member of the council, it was impossible to affect the agenda of the meetings, even those meetings of which he was chairman!!! So to expect the RPSGB to reflect the views of the wider membership seems a trifle optimistic.

Then, we have the interview with Jeremy Holmes, the chief executive of the RPSGB, in the Chemist and Druggist, 16th August (2008!) and I quote:
C+D: Surely the disastrous impact of category M is something the professional body or RPSGB could provide leadership on?
JH:"Category M is not something we should be devoting our activities to. We would flag it up to government if we thought it was affecting pharmacy services."

Unbelievable, but sadly it appears to be true. I've given up.

[DavidS]

Yeah.....right.


And the interests of Hospital pharmacists would be catered for by the PDA how.........?

perhaps by the Hospital Pharmacists joining up. There ARE common issues, namely the DOH!

[Tony Schofield]

Don't they already have their Guild ?

[Tony Schofield]

Then, we have the interview with Jeremy Holmes, the chief executive of the RPSGB, in the Chemist and Druggist, 16th August (2008!) and I quote:
C+D: Surely the disastrous impact of category M is something the professional body or RPSGB could provide leadership on?
JH:"Category M is not something we should be devoting our activities to. We would flag it up to government if we thought it was affecting pharmacy services."

Unbelievable, but sadly it appears to be true. I've given up.

But when we have the PSNC negotiating on behalf of contractors why should we expect the RPSGB to get involved in remuneration issues? Their remit is not and never will be remuneration.

[Fleegle]

Exactly..that is why I resigned the rpsgb..they are no help, and frankly, NO USE.They tried to threaten me..(again) this time regarding overseas membership, so I don't pay them any more..I gladly spend the cash I save each year on my own quality of life.

[Tony Schofield]

If you don't work in the UK how would RPSGB involvement in remuneration issues for UK contractors help you? It would absolutely never occur to me to want to join the Irish professional body but I wouldn't portray resignation from it (had I joined in th first place) as a big issue as I don't work in Ireland.

I don't understand the point you are making.

Also it would not be a sensible use of the professional body to have it involved in remuneration issues as it represents all pharmacists. I actually have little time for Jeremy Holmes but can't fault his logic in saying that the only time a professional body would comment on remuneration is if it impacted on service delivery and was beginning to tarnish the image of pharmacy.

I hope people aren't thinking of joining the new body thinking it will be setting locum rates etc..........!! Because it won't and if it idoes I won't join it!

[Fleegle]

It would help me if I chose to return to practice in the UK..at least I have the choice.

[DavidS]

I actually have little time for Jeremy Holmes but can't fault his logic in saying that the only time a professional body would comment on remuneration is if it impacted on service delivery and was beginning to tarnish the image of pharmacy.

I hope people aren't thinking of joining the new body thinking it will be setting locum rates etc..........!! Because it won't and if it idoes I won't join it!

Removing the amount of money that has been widely quoted cannot but affect service delivery. I'm astonished that JH doesn't seem to be aware of that (nearly as astonished as I am that you aren't aware of that), and suggest he has a quiet word with Mr Gush, who so eloquently told us how the RPSGB subs had to increase or the RBSGB wouldn't be able to comply with its own service delivery requirements.

I don't want the RPSGB to set locum wages: they are paid - as we are - in the marketplace by negotiation. But to say that extracting x billion pounds from the balance sheet won't have a noticeable effect on service delivery, well, again, I give up.

[Tony Schofield]

Removing the amount of money that has been widely quoted cannot but affect service delivery. I'm astonished that JH doesn't seem to be aware of that (nearly as astonished as I am that you aren't aware of that), and suggest he has a quiet word with Mr Gush, who so eloquently told us how the RPSGB subs had to increase or the RBSGB wouldn't be able to comply with its own service delivery requirements.

I don't want the RPSGB to set locum wages: they are paid - as we are - in the marketplace by negotiation. But to say that extracting x billion pounds from the balance sheet won't have a noticeable effect on service delivery, well, again, I give up.

What billions have been taken from what balance sheet?

Category M cuts do not amount to billions (if that is what you are referring to). PCTs are commissioning services which puts money back in with more to follow from the White paper. There is also a strong case for a new cost enquiry as the last one was flawed. Whilst there is a certain amount of pain as we repay an overpayment, x billions have not been removed from the balance sheet. The problems will come soon with the slow down in the economy at large generating lower tax revenues from which to service current and future developments.

For the record I have continued to increase recruitment and investment in staff and staff training even since the Cat M cuts. Gross profits, even post October '07 are significantly higher than they were 10 years ago. I am not alone and there is NO CASE for the RPSGB taking a stand on remuneration.