The pros and cons of unionizing.
It’s not about the money
Re: “Pharmacists’ futures and the math behind unionization” [Eddie Morales, October 29, drugtopics.com]:
I commend Eddie Morales for all the work he has done on behalf of pharmacists working for the big chain pharmacies. If we can’t get the laws changed to protect pharmacists and subsequently, the general public, unions are the only viable alternative. Working conditions are deplorable, the worst they have been in 20 years, posing an ever-increasing threat to public safety and health.
I really don’t care if someone else gets the same pay increase as I do. I quit caring about the pay increases a long time ago. I just want better, safer working conditions, where I don’t feel as though I am working in a sweat shop, and/or that the stress levels I am routinely subjected to are going to negatively impact my own health.
I just want to know long before the unions make their way to Kentucky. I also want to thank Eddie for taking a stand for all pharmacists that work for our company.
Crash and burn
How well did the unions work out for the auto industry? I can tell you: It bankrupted the industry and moved many of the jobs to other countries. What do unions do? They take your money and put you at risk for losing your job.
The license makes a difference
Auto workers are not folks that went to college for six years or so and had then be licensed. If we were unionized across the country and spoke with one voice, anything could be achieved. These corporations cannot open for business without our license on board.
When a plan comes together ...
Unions are perfect. Management and workers agree every three to four years to work rules, pay, and benefits. What could be better?
All for one and one for all
Our only recourse is to be part of a union and speak with one voice. Parity for our profession across the country needs to happen: same tech ratio, time and a half after 8 hours/40 hours, lunch breaks, new metrics that set a maximum number of scrips per hour/day etc. etc. Managers who are not really managers should be part of the union too; they are just puppets. This is war now.
Don’t be a drag
A union will only cause discord between us and management, and make it nearly impossible to get rid of those who aren’t willing to be team players, do their share of work, and keep up with the changes in pharmacy ... Do I work over my scheduled time to finish up sometimes? Would I love to be able to get a scheduled break so I can at least use the bathroom once during my shift? Yep. But if you can’t handle it, get out - don’t drag the rest of us down via a union.
The biggest issue here is the monopolization of the retail pharmacy. Our legislators sold us out by allowing endless mergers and takeovers. The destruction of small business and loss of market economy is what creates these working conditions.
Unions will give you a lunch break, 40 hours/week, even a larger salary. In return, the megacorporations will give you layoffs. They will push (bribe) legislators to enact all sort of laws, on telepharmacy, robotics, vending machines, technicians, etc. Those who want unions see only short-term solutions; they don’t see that technology is already here to get rid of pharmacists, and they don’t see the deeper problem: eradication of market capitalism and small business.
We’ve been sold out by our schools, societies, and representatives. What we need are laws. Laws against monopolies, PBM abuse, regulatory abuse, etc. Unions will not solve problems; they will only create new ones.