Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'New body' makes 'deal' with multiples

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

  • 'New body' makes 'deal' with multiples

    I have heard a (very believable) rumour that in order to ensure that the new professional body attracts sufficient members to be viable, a ‘deal’ is being negotiating by Transcom/RPSGB and the large multiples (presumably Boots, Lloyds et al) to secure the membership of all their employee pharmacists. The multiples will pay all employees’ fees for the new body therefore ensuring a membership big enough to make the new body viable. I can only assume that the multiples will expect to have some sort of influence over the new body in exchange for this agreement; why else would they do it? I can understand them paying GPC fees for all pharmacist employees as registration of the GPC will be compulsory for all pharmacists but membership of the new body will be optional.
    Can a new body truly put the interests of the profession of pharmacy and patient care at the forefront if it owes such an obligation to the multiples???

    I think not! – what do others think?

  • #2
    Re: 'New body' makes 'deal' with multiples

    even if that is the case, it would be upto the individual pharmacist if they want to take up membership of the new body, if they feel it is working for the owners of the multiples rather than the pharmacists they can always opt out, and refuse to join even if the membership's free.

    The interesting thing would be to see how the multiples react to their employees if that happens, or whether these pharmacists have the guts to stand up for themselves.
    We are the music makers, We are the dreamers of dreams and God damn we are that good

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 'New body' makes 'deal' with multiples

      Originally posted by Scamp View Post
      I have heard a (very believable) rumour that in order to ensure that the new professional body attracts sufficient members to be viable, a ‘deal’ is being negotiating by Transcom/RPSGB and the large multiples (presumably Boots, Lloyds et al) to secure the membership of all their employee pharmacists.
      There has been some discussion of corporate membership.

      The multiples will pay all employees’ fees for the new body therefore ensuring a membership big enough to make the new body viable. I can only assume that the multiples will expect to have some sort of influence over the new body in exchange for this agreement; why else would they do it?
      Members - whoever pays their membership will still be entitled to vote as individuals. The NPB will however be aware of to whom they owe their continued existence and financial viability.


      Jeff

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 'New body' makes 'deal' with multiples

        Originally posted by SolomonQ View Post
        even if that is the case, it would be upto the individual pharmacist if they want to take up membership of the new body, if they feel it is working for the owners of the multiples rather than the pharmacists they can always opt out, and refuse to join even if the membership's free.
        But it would be FREE - no cash alternative - and it would presumably offer some benefits for individual pharmacists

        Jeff

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 'New body' makes 'deal' with multiples

          it'd probably just end up as some officialised (bastardised) version of the npa. I can see it now - 'NPA and pharmsoc in sudden merger announcement'

          sorry - feeling a little cynical / distrustful of the lambeth lot lately. I tend to get more cynical the closer it gets to paying our ridiculous fees.
          “It's not worth doing something unless you were doing something that someone, somewhere, would much rather you weren't doing.”

          Terry Pratchett

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 'New body' makes 'deal' with multiples

            Originally posted by Sir_Dispensalot View Post
            it'd probably just end up as some officialised (bastardised) version of the npa. I can see it now - 'NPA and pharmsoc in sudden merger announcement'

            sorry - feeling a little cynical / distrustful of the lambeth lot lately. I tend to get more cynical the closer it gets to paying our ridiculous fees.
            The pharmsoc will always in my mind be associated with ruling the rank and file with the iron fist doing little else for the standing of the profession. They have to change this perception in the 'rank and file' start with the younger end of the profession, students and newly qualifieds. Also tell them to take no notice of what the older end think, which includes me, so take no notice of this posting unless you are > 20 years on register.
            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


            • #7
              Re: 'New body' makes 'deal' with multiples

              Originally posted by SolomonQ View Post
              even if that is the case, it would be upto the individual pharmacist if they want to take up membership of the new body, if they feel it is working for the owners of the multiples rather than the pharmacists they can always opt out, and refuse to join even if the membership's free.

              The interesting thing would be to see how the multiples react to their employees if that happens, or whether these pharmacists have the guts to stand up for themselves.

              Guts, standing up for ones self .....sadly IMHO I don't think pharmacists have got it in them ( well perhaps a select few have, but not the majority. Most p'cists don't have a spine so how can they stand up for themselves!
              Kemzo the pharmacist forumly known as kemzero

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 'New body' makes 'deal' with multiples

                My concern is not so much that individual pharmacists will be forced to be members of the new body if they are employed by one of the large multiples (they can always opt out if they really want to) but more along the lines that the new body will have no credibility and won't make decisions that advance patient care or the profession if they could in any way harm the multiples' profit margin

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 'New body' makes 'deal' with multiples

                  Originally posted by kemzero View Post
                  Guts, standing up for ones self .....sadly IMHO I don't think pharmacists have got it in them ( well perhaps a select few have, but not the majority. Most p'cists don't have a spine so how can they stand up for themselves!
                  That might be so, but with this transitional phase in pharmacy and the new changes the profession is going through etc... it gives an excuse for pharmacists to demand more, e.g. before pharmacists knew that although they might be highly qualified they weren't doing a job that matched those qualifications, but now with the new services such as MURs, minor ailments etc... the situation is becoming different.

                  My concern is not so much that individual pharmacists will be forced to be members of the new body if they are employed by one of the large multiples (they can always opt out if they really want to) but more along the lines that the new body will have no credibility and won't make decisions that advance patient care or the profession if they could in any way harm the multiples' profit margin
                  no change there then
                  We are the music makers, We are the dreamers of dreams and God damn we are that good

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 'New body' makes 'deal' with multiples

                    like one or two other comentators i dont trust the lambeth lot to be doing what is in our best interests. think that a lot are probably watching their backs. and another thing which does not get enoug airing---the assets of the rpsg, in theory, belong the the members. will such a large establishment be required by the new body?? what will happen to any money should assets be disposed of--- i personally dont want the government to gain a brass farthing out of this!
                    SMITHY

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 'New body' makes 'deal' with multiples

                      Originally posted by Smithy View Post
                      like one or two other comentators i dont trust the lambeth lot to be doing what is in our best interests. think that a lot are probably watching their backs. and another thing which does not get enoug airing---the assets of the rpsg, in theory, belong the the members. will such a large establishment be required by the new body?? what will happen to any money should assets be disposed of--- i personally dont want the government to gain a brass farthing out of this!
                      Well, they will have one chance to get it right.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: 'New body' makes 'deal' with multiples

                        Originally posted by Smithy View Post
                        like one or two other comentators i dont trust the lambeth lot to be doing what is in our best interests. think that a lot are probably watching their backs. and another thing which does not get enoug airing---the assets of the rpsg, in theory, belong the the members. will such a large establishment be required by the new body?? what will happen to any money should assets be disposed of--- i personally dont want the government to gain a brass farthing out of this!
                        It's quite funny really. If the society folds, the existing members will get a share of he assets, as I see it. So to get that share, you have to remain a member. And if everyone wants to get their share, the society won't fold.

                        Catch 22, anyone?
                        ....just my opinion

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X