Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Grandparent Clause! Dodgy as hell?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Grandparent Clause! Dodgy as hell?

    Hi according to the PDA 73% of registered technicians are from the old grandparent clause brigade making them in essence alot less qualified academically than the NVQ3 techs.

    just for you new to this term, the grandparent clause allowed companies and managers to declare a pharmacy dispenser fit to be on the technicians register simply by signing a form and faxing it. Some display illiterate demeanour and is unfair on their colleagues who have to do a lot of work to register.

    This raises concerns for me as some work in all branches of pharmacy and are paid more than the real nvq3 staff.

    the sign off was based on the managers opinion and what little unofficial training they gave them. They never had to do essays or sit exams this in my opinion is concerning.

    The grandparent clause registered technicians should be required to sit a basic knowledge test to measure their knowledge in numeracy, literacy and pharmacological scenarios.

    Fair is fair.

    Do real qualified technicians know that some of their colleagues on the register are not as thoroughly trained as them?
    Last edited by Primrose; 22nd, September 2018, 09:36 AM.

  • #2
    This also applied to "pharmacists" in the very early days before registration introduced. There should be a declining number of these people as time goes by.
    johnep

    Comment


    • #3
      Surely not all of the grandparent clausers?


      47 BC : Julius Cesar : Veni Vidi Vici : I came, I saw I conquered.
      2018 AD : Modern Man : I shopped, I clicked, I collected.
      How times change.

      If you find you have read something that has upset or offended you an anyway please unread it at once.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Primrose View Post
        Hi according to the PDA 73% of registered technicians are from the old grandparent clause brigade making them in essence a lot less qualified academically than the NVQ3 techs.

        just for you new to this term, the grandparent clause allowed companies and managers to declare a pharmacy dispenser fit to be on the technicians register simply by signing a form and faxing it. Some display illiterate demeanour and is unfair on their colleagues who have to do a lot of work to register.

        This raises concerns for me as some work in all branches of pharmacy and are paid more than the real nvq3 staff.

        the sign off was based on the managers opinion and what little unofficial training they gave them. They never had to do essays or sit exams this in my opinion is concerning.

        The grandparent clause registered technicians should be required to sit a basic knowledge test to measure their knowledge in numeracy, literacy and pharmacological scenarios.

        Fair is fair.

        Do real qualified technicians know that some of their colleagues on the register are not as thoroughly trained as them?
        This doesn't surprise me because I was aware that the register conditions started in 2011, but that the term technician existed long before that. I'm surprised it is as high as 73%, was expecting less than 50%. Grandfather clause is a term used in the US, there isn't really one used here, but this happens in all walks of life here, but has been very common to do with vocational and lab work. There are some very silly examples to do with vehicles for example the UK used to have a crazy one to do with driving buses that thankfully got revoked, the drivers act 1996 still allows anyone who passed their test before that to be allowed to drive something up to 7.5 tonnes.

        Here's the counter argument.

        Pharmacists are 100% responsible not only for all their staff's training, but retraining if not up to the job (see regulations). If they are not then two things need to happen - one change the regulations, or take action against individual pharmacists and the companies. Hahahaha.

        Pharmacy is a vocational job. These people on the job should have the experience equivalent to the NVQ3. NVQ3 isn't very high level qualification as many pharmacy support staff have A-levels or degrees these days.

        There are far more extreme examples in other sectors where casual school leavers now share the same posts as graduates. It's the modern world.

        It isn't a big issue because technicians are so lowly paid.

        Exams? I've never heard of a technician doing an exam. Test yes, lots of booklets.

        The NVQ3 raises the bar slowly and protects patients. Hahaha.
        ----------------

        I expect there are a lot of technicians that don't know about the people who don't have the NVQ level 3.

        Glad you're sticking up for the NVQ3 Primrose, don't see that one a lot.

        My own view is that a regulatory framework needs to come after the employers as training in pharmacy of pharmacy support staff is in a lot of cases shameful for what are legal requirements.

        Unfortunately the UK has become very credentialised. There are examples of in the trades where the reverse has happened and training has been shortened substantially.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by johnep View Post
          This also applied to "pharmacists" in the very early days before registration introduced. There should be a declining number of these people as time goes by.
          johnep
          Blimey Johnep, that was a long time ago. It was in the 19th Century! Pharmacists have had to sit some sort an exam at least since the 1868 Act.

          Comment


          • #6
            My father never had to take a driving test. He drove before test regulations.
            johnep

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by johnep View Post
              My father never had to take a driving test. He drove before test regulations.
              johnep
              One of the people I went to school's with grandfather never had a driving test, but despite starting after 1935 he was bunged a driving licence in 1944 on the back of the good old boys network and war needs.

              Comment


              • #8
                Quite probably. I remember before the war, he took me to Croydon airport where I saw the Old Heracles four engine air liners. They were large biplanes..

                https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rc...37721274007433

                johnep

                Comment


                • #9
                  My mother never took a driving test, although she drove in the 20’s. Didn’t drive for thirty or so years, then when she got her own car she wasn’t too keen on driving any more. My sister and I used it! Don’t know when my father started to drive; suspect it was v. early 30’s. He had a lorry licence, which he got after driving up and down a short road outside the barracks when he was in the RAF. Apparently there was a squad of about 20 men, they all took turns and all got their licences!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I wanted to hire a car on my honeymoon some 15 months in the future. So had driving lessons and passed first time. We went on honeymoon on the IOW. I had not been inside a car since I took the test. So, the requirement to have had a licence for a year simply meant that I had no experience at all of normal driving. Our first journey was towards Ventnor. A very narrow road with rough stonework walls. I could not turn round at that time so carried on. Then a bus came. I was terrified of being hit or scraping the car on the wall. As he edged by, the step into the cab just clipped my wing. As the car was prewar, I just had the ding painted black by a garage for 7/6d. The gear kept jumping out as we went up hills and my new wife had to hold the stick firmly to hold it in. I later became a rep in order to get a car.
                    johnep

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I agree that an NVQ3 is considered a low level qualification, however this does not mean we should give this title to someone who is unable to perform basic maths and write a decen essay!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        What about all the people working with three year degrees who never took the pre-reg exam!
                        47 BC : Julius Cesar : Veni Vidi Vici : I came, I saw I conquered.
                        2018 AD : Modern Man : I shopped, I clicked, I collected.
                        How times change.

                        If you find you have read something that has upset or offended you an anyway please unread it at once.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Pharmanaut View Post
                          What about all the people working with three year degrees who never took the pre-reg exam!
                          They are working but not as registered Pharmacists. If you mean the ones qualified in the 40s they are dead now. And their role was not clinical in nature like ours. We are doing other people's work like vaccines instead of nurses and minor ailments instead of GPs etc.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I don't know when apprenticeships stopped. I did two years (year one at £2/week and year two at £5/week). I never had to take any preg exam. It gave me a good grounding for uni.
                            johnep

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Primrose View Post
                              I agree that an NVQ3 is considered a low level qualification, however this does not mean we should give this title to someone who is unable to perform basic maths and write a decen essay!
                              Interesting you said title, as I was talking about the qualification and whether someone should paid/be allowed to do the job.

                              I do not think that (community) technician should be a protected title actually, it should be a reserved activity instead with far more regulation than it currently gets. If I did think it should be a protected title it would be more of an open and shut case on the matter. I think one of the issues with pharmacy is that we feel ourselves aligned to a lot of other workers that come under HCPC and that regulatory body is really big on protected titles although interestingly they don't do post noms which is a real distraction in some other professions.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X