Something rotten

[Fleegle]

Fair play..Works both ways though..I wouldn't be particularly confident if I had to 'bumble my way' through 16 daily TPN bags!

[DavidS]

I eagerly await to see what my annual subscription to the RPSGB brings onto my front door step each week!!!!

The PJ is self-financing. They have announce that all registrants to the GPhC will continue to get the PJ free, weekly.

I suspect that it will include lots of references to PJonline, which will become members only, as well as links to other member services that the RPS will continue with, also that only members will be able to access. Advertorial, I suspect, will become the order of the day. We shall see.

The fact that Bleepholder and others turn to the jobs section first will ensure, however, that all will continue to receive it free.

[El-loco]

Have you got your tin hat ready then El Loco? What exactly do you propose to do?
As much as I was laughing at the article, I was also dismissing it you'll be glad to know. I'm confused however, because in your first post you find the article "insulting", however you subsequently go on to tell us that it was a "reasonable article written by two non-pharmacists". I thought by the general tone of your first comment, that you were generally inviting us all to have a go (how wrong I was).
Also I stand by my assertions about Locum verus employed pay -if you are a male whos's never sick, then sick and maternity pay doesn't even come into the equation. Some locums might not even take the standard 5 weeks holidays that employees get.

Firstly I'm glad to get your attention. But read what I actually wrote above:

Have a look at the editorial of the 15th May edition.

Tell me - do you not find that insulting?

It is the EDITORIAL that is insulting not the article itself (though that is not exactly flattering either and it confuses the symptom - the high percentage of pharmacists who choose to work as locums which it considers a bad thing with the underlying problem - the prevailing conditions in community pharmacy.)

Regarding the relative costs we can argue till the cows come home.

What am I going to do about it? Well firstly I have written to Olivia Timbs questioning her comments. Too late to be in this week's P.J. but they may eventually print my letter. Depending on the response I get from her (if any) I will put the matter of, as Pharmanaut above says:

Doesn't the PJ do an excellent job of ensuring that the last vestiges of morale are truly beaten out of us.

to members of the english national board for their comments.

Oh and I have no doubt that there will be a few letters in the P.J. - even this week - having a go at the article itself.

[culchie82]

You seem to have taken this article rather to heart, El Loco. Although I agree with your sentiments that the large proportion of locums isn't a bad thing for community, I don't really feel the need to scribe letters to the PJ about it, and put it to the "english national board". Besides what to you hope to achieve - a sudden change of heart by the Editor and a written apology to all us locums? It's only her opinion afterall, it's hardly Pharmaceutical dogma. Perhaps, laughing it off would be the best thing you could do.

[DavidS]

Culchie, a modern proverb (attributed to Burke) goes something like:

"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."

We might paraphrase that into

"All it takes for misguided opinions to flourish is for those who know better not bother to set them straight" (I think we need someone to tidy that up a bit)

Remember the RP legislation?

Let's not take chances. We create our own futures.

[culchie82]

Maybe so DavidS, but are you honestly shocked or surprised that this is the opinion of the powers that be? Do you not think they always had a dim view of locums? I don't know, maybe I'm just a wee bit laid back about these sorts of things. I doubt that getting all hot and flustered about it and dawning the warpaint will do much good either though.
Remember there was a big fuss kicked up about the responsible Pharmacist legislation by many Pharmacists, and it's possible day to day ramifications. Did it achieve anything? Not one iota. The measures were still brought in over our heads. The same will follow for remote supervision down the line. We're small fish in a big pond, they can pretty much do or say what they like and you can like it or lump it. Only the naive would think otherwise.
My labours here are done.

[bleepholder]

i think its all being blown out of proportion, and look forward to the letter(s) appearing in the PJ over the coming weeks..be another thing to look out for other than the jobs...so remind me, where abouts are the letters printed..front or middle???

[DavidS]

Maybe so DavidS, but are you honestly shocked or surprised that this is the opinion of the powers that be? Do you not think they always had a dim view of locums?

You are right. But I don't think that there is anything to be lost by people expressing their feelings. That includes you, of course. I don't always agree with you but you are always a worthwhile read, IMO

i think its all being blown out of proportion, and look forward to the letter(s) appearing in the PJ over the coming weeks..be another thing to look out for other than the jobs...so remind me, where abouts are the letters printed..front or middle???

Locums are a pain, from an employers point of view, because their full-time staff see that it is a way of circumventing tiresome paperwork and having choices about workplace and workload.

The letters page is a bit before the jobs. If you can't find it, then follow Gowan's links on this form to pjONLINE.

[El-loco]

Culchie, a modern proverb (attributed to Burke) goes something like:

"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."

We might paraphrase that into

"All it takes for misguided opinions to flourish is for those who know better not bother to set them straight" (I think we need someone to tidy that up a bit)

Remember the RP legislation?

Let's not take chances. We create our own futures.

I could not agree with you more DavidS.

Culchie - I don't take this matter to heart particularly - its just that it nicks the edge of one of my three bêtes noires. The particular one this time is IMAGE. Just you lie down and invite them to trample all over you if you want - I'll pass on that!

[bleepholder]

The letters page is a bit before the jobs. If you can't find it, then follow Gowan's links on this form to pjONLINE.

my sense of sarcasm might have failed to be picked up!!! of course i know where the letters page is!!!