Pharmacist Salary Thread

[crazybob]

i can't be a hater if it's my own home state! lol

Then a traitor?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Jabberwocky12]

Texas Home Owner's insurance rate issue was due to mold. As far as weather and natural disaster rates, I think other southern and plains states would rank right up there if not more as you'll see the same weather systems that passed through Texas were fairly mild yet did a lot of damages in other states.

But, TX and FL do not have state income tax.

You may wanted to have said Texas has a high property tax..not so much the property insurance.

The official reason for my company was the weather in the area combined with mold (specific provisions for mold compared to other states.)

while Florida doesn't have income tax, most people prepare for that in their spending whereas the rates for insurance in Fl compared to other states with income tax is still higher. Rates have been increasing by around 10-15% a year for some companies while other companies are thinking about withdrawing.

And I said that some states I wouldn't want to live at for an insurance standpoint. Some states, mainly TX and FL but CA to a certain extent, the rates kinda stink but the underwriting guidelines are pretty crappy. For example, CA rates aren't *super expensive* for some people, but depending on the company within an insurance company (the writing line) if you are late paying your premium by 1 day then the policy is terminated rather than a grace period to pay the premium to be caught up like other states. Florida can be expensive depending on the county you live in but there are a bunch of counties where people cannot get property insurance due to risk, and then due to fraud and weather issues certain lines are no longer written unless you have epic insurance histories and almost no claims. It makes it harder to get insurance of sufficient coverage and reasonable rates compared to other states.

It's a lot about the money but it's not the entire point. Sometimes it's harder to get the coverages you want proportional to the rates you earned in other states and other times the company is trying really hard to just get rid of you because they don't want to insure you but legally they don't have a reason to deny you from the beginning. Allstate, for example, doesn't really want to cover NJ but they were sued by the state and they stayed, but as a result the company specifically designed a convoluted system that only applies to that one state. Tiering, different underwriting guidelines, different reasons to non-renew and terminate policies that don't apply to other states, and etc.

TX isn't as terrible but certain policies have to be re-written when you move rather than just changing the address and sometimes you live in an area where you can no longer hold your policy. This mainly pertains to renters and HO policies but some landlord policies and mobile home policies are subject to this as well.

when people talk to me about TX it isn't as terrible but I can't do a 5-min phone call about changes to their policies like I can in most other states. Obviously insurance companies only want to insure the top 10-15% of the people in terms of risk and insurance history, but they need more than that to keep afloat. So they try to get the rest of the people insured for money but at the same time will try to drop them at the drop of a hat if those people are going to be a problem. I agree with why insurance is necessary but sometimes I dislike the outright morals and ethics for a nationally mandated product that people must purchase from a private, for-profit industry.

NY and NJ are the top 2 places I wouldn't want to live due to insurance law and insurance industries. The other places I can look over it if I have a good enough reason. I'd just get a cheap insurance policy and suspend my car so I can't drive it with minimal coverage if I went to NY for pharmacy school, same with NJ. But that is topic for another discussion

 

[Benelli]

Good luck getting that 4 years from now. not being a downer but a realist. If this is non-retail, unless you have family in the department administration I don't see a job being held for 4 years like that. It's possible they could keep you in mind for if the position opens up again but I don't see them putting you in a position and keeping it empty until you graduate and then take the state law exam for the next state.

Well they won't, but they will probably make a position when I graduate. I do have family in a department administration.

 

[North Side]

This link below seems very up to date. (from the federal gov, they should know income with IRS and taxes) I think it would be better than other sources. I am just a pre pharmacy student but I would think this information is very accurate.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes291051.htm

 

[1ive2die]

This link below seems very up to date. (from the federal gov, they should know income with IRS and taxes) I think it would be better than other sources. I am just a pre pharmacy student but I would think this information is very accurate.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes291051.htm

Don't you know anecdotal stories are always more accurate than government statistics.

 

[xiphoid2010]

I am curious...

To all you seasoned pharmacists and n00bs:

What do you do about negotiating salary? For example, if you had a ton of hospital experience during pharm school or worked with the same company throughout pharmacy school, would you ask for more than their initial offer? I know some places pay you more based on tenure, experience, etc.

I countered, made it clear what's the reason and why it's matters to me. They accepted. The way I figure it. 50% chance they'll accept the counter offer in one form or another, 45% chance "no, this is it", and 5% they'll pull out all together. It was still a real nail biter but no risk, no reward.

I think as long as you make reasonable requests, backed it up with sound explanations, there is minimal risk of losing the offer.

 

[PumpkinSmasher]

I countered, made it clear what's the reason and why it's matters to me. They accepted. The way I figure it. 50% chance they'll accept the counter offer in one form or another, 45% chance "no, this is it", and 5% they'll pull out all together. It was still a real nail biter but no risk, no reward.

I think as long as you make reasonable requests, backed it up with sound explanations, there is minimal risk of losing the offer.

Agreed...no risk, no reward. As a fresh grad, I accepted the wage offered. It was a very fair offer in my opinion, fair market value in the area as far as inpatient.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Agreed...no risk, no reward. As a fresh grad, I accepted the wage offered. It was a very fair offer in my opinion, fair market value in the area as far as inpatient.

Right, I was just about to say something similar: Don't counter for countering sake. That smack of greed. Only counter if you have something specific in mind, and better have sound reasoning to support it.

 

[THE MTL]

Please post here AFTER you take a basic economics class and learn something about the first principle of economics.

You need to learn first principle economics first dude. I didnt mean to be so blunt, but in a saturated market it brings down the available job positions....but not necessarily the salary. Alot of companies have a standardized pay that they are going to give you....I work for Walgreens I know. However, you might not get the raise that you once received before....and when you factor inflation thats the only thing that brings down "the value of your salary". However, like I said before salaries WONT go down physically.

Also, you arent going to go to one of your staff pharmacist and tell them to take a paycut because the market is saturated. Instead you tell the new guy applying that we have no job available.

 

[pharmschooler]

You need to learn first principle economics first dude. I didnt mean to be so blunt, but in a saturated market it brings down the available job positions....but not necessarily the salary. Alot of companies have a standardized pay that they are going to give you....I work for Walgreens I know. However, you might not get the raise that you once received before....and when you factor inflation thats the only thing that brings down "the value of your salary". However, like I said before salaries WONT go down physically.

Also, you arent going to go to one of your staff pharmacist and tell them to take a paycut because the market is saturated. Instead you tell the new guy applying that we have no job available.

If you can explain this with a supply and demand curve, I might believe you.

 

[Zoupa]

You need to learn first principle economics first dude. I didnt mean to be so blunt, but in a saturated market it brings down the available job positions....but not necessarily the salary. Alot of companies have a standardized pay that they are going to give you....I work for Walgreens I know. However, you might not get the raise that you once received before....and when you factor inflation thats the only thing that brings down "the value of your salary". However, like I said before salaries WONT go down physically.

Also, you arent going to go to one of your staff pharmacist and tell them to take a paycut because the market is saturated. Instead you tell the new guy applying that we have no job available.

That's like saying: signing bonuses won't go away. But only certain people will get them. They'll hire on new staff for less than they did before.

 

[owlegrad]

That's like saying: signing bonuses won't go away. But only certain people will get them. They'll hire on new staff for less than they did before.

Pay scales are not easily changed. It's not like it is some kind of auction where the lowest bidder wins. I am not saying that it will never happen, but it will not happen quickly. I doubt that it will happen though. It's not like some DM can say, let's start paying our pharmacist half salary! Pay scales are set at a much higher level.

 

[THE MTL]

The problem is that all us, pharmacy majors only taken basic economics classes that only teach supply and demand curve. However, this is not a "free market" with the price of a pharmacist is dictated by a supply and demand curve. There are many factors like gov standards, company standards, and the pharmacist standards.

I actually said extra stuff like "bonuses" would go away, cause there would be no need to entice ppl to join your company in a saturated market. But they are not going to bring down the actual salary of a pharmacist. That makes no sense.

There is no bidding war between applicants for a salary. Most companies already know what they are going to pay you (its called a pay scale)...thus why pay is usually the last things discussed in the interview/application process.

 

[pezdispenser]

Also, you arent going to go to one of your staff pharmacist and tell them to take a paycut because the market is saturated. Instead you tell the new guy applying that we have no job available.

There is an alternative scenario which is happening at my workplace. The bottom 25% performing staff pharmacists had their hours cut to 30/wk during the summer (off peak season in Florida), though their hourly rate remains the same and they still get benefits. No one has been laid off. No severance packages were given. Turnover is quite high though because that's practically a 25% pay cut. Then, they are still hiring new pharmacists but only at 29 or less hrs/wk with no benefits (and there are plenty of takers due to market saturation).

So from the company's overall point of view they can cut payroll hours and trim expenses (benefits) without cutting the hourly rate or laying people off. But the burden is now shared amongst multiple pharmacists who had their hours cut, quit or don't get benefits.

 

[pharmschooler]

There is an alternative scenario which is happening at my workplace. The bottom 25% performing staff pharmacists had their hours cut to 30/wk during the summer (off peak season in Florida), though their hourly rate remains the same and they still get benefits. No one has been laid off. No severance packages were given. Turnover is quite high though because that's practically a 25% pay cut. Then, they are still hiring new pharmacists but only at 29 or less hrs/wk with no benefits (and there are plenty of takers due to market saturation).

So from the company's overall point of view they can cut payroll hours and trim expenses (benefits) without cutting the hourly rate or laying people off. But the burden is now shared amongst multiple pharmacists who had their hours cut, quit or don't get benefits.

That is exceptionally lame.

 

[xiphoid2010]

That is exceptionally lame.

no, that's business sense. If I was the manager in a saturated job market, I would do the same. Companies's primary responsibility is to the stock holders, not employees.

 

[pharmschooler]

no, that's business sense. If I was the manager in a saturated job market, I would do the same. Companies's primary responsibility is to the stock holders, not employees.

But if you don't treat your workers well, morale drops, which can influence productivity.

 

[crazybob]

But if you don't treat your workers well, morale drops, which can influence productivity.

 

[xiphoid2010]

But if you don't treat your workers well, morale drops, which can influence productivity.

Would their moral be any better at the competitor company who isn't even hiring? Bad moral does affect productivity, just as the desire not to lose your job is a booster to productivity.

Just like supply and demand curve meet at a point, so does salary curve and turn over curve cross. In a bad job market right now, the turn over curve would shift to the left, so a manager who's aiming to maximize cost-benefit should certainly move to decrease pay/benefits in response.

 

[pharmschooler]

Would their moral be any better at the competitor company who isn't even hiring? Bad moral does affect productivity, just as the desire not to lose your job is a booster to productivity.

Just like supply and demand curve meet at a point, so does salary curve and turn over curve cross. In a bad job market right now, the turn over curve would shift to the left, so a manager who's aiming to maximize cost-benefit should certainly move to decrease pay/benefits in response.

I think you emphasize short-term payoff at the expense of long-term payoffs with this managerial style.

Employee turnover is quite costly for a company; training new employees is less desirable than simply making your current employees more productive.

Moreover, though you emphasize the company's obligation to shareholders, most companies that do well in the long term, do so by doing good to all stakeholders. These stakeholders include employees and customers. How many loyal customers want to go to the pharmacy and realize their favorite pharmacist no longer works there because of budget cuts? This is partially a business built on long-term relationships, and managing in this style neglects that. You can't run a business to the ground, but you have to always remember all stakeholders when making managerial decisions.

 

[xiphoid2010]

I think you emphasize short-term payoff at the expense of long-term payoffs with this managerial style.

Employee turnover is quite costly for a company; training new employees is less desirable than simply making your current employees more productive.

Nobody said you are cutting the salary by 50% or let go of the best pharmacists. You make it sound like that's what I'm trying to do.

I wrote in support of the move made by management mentioned by Pezdispenser. That move to cut the hour/cost of low performing pharmacist makes good sense. Turn over of low performing pharmacist is a desirable. Their moral is already low, productivity poor, a kick in the ass is what's they need to begin with. This serves the interest of stock holders and the customers, just not bad employees.

 

[Old]

Nobody said you are cutting the salary by 50% or let go of the best pharmacists. You make it sound like that's what I'm trying to do.

I wrote in support of the move made by management mentioned by Pezdispenser. That move to cut the hour/cost of low performing pharmacist makes good sense. Turn over of low performing pharmacist is a desirable. Their moral is already low, productivity poor, a kick in the ass is what's they need to begin with. This serves the interest of stock holders and the customers, just not bad employees.

Low performing pharmacist- wow. How does one determine that? I know CVS, maybe where you work, follows the jack Welch 30,70,10% rule here at least. Where by they, the DM who has never done a pharmacists job,decide who they like and who they don't. They then instruct the Pharm sup(a puppet here) on who he wants him to fire. Of course this is a drawn out process of writing them up, giving them no raise, cutting their tech hours, writing them up again(stupid stuff like a coffee cup a floater left in the sink from the day before), and basically constant harassment in hopes that they leave. Does it save them money, sure does-the pharms that this is occuring to are ones with many years of service- higher wages due to wage increase every year over the last how many years. More years of vacation due to years of service. Also, more likely to use insurance due to age etc. all about money. all decided by people who are not pharmacists.

Low performing is a very subjective term and rarely, if ever, based on anything more than money.

 

[pharmschooler]

Nobody said you are cutting the salary by 50% or let go of the best pharmacists. You make it sound like that's what I'm trying to do.

I wrote in support of the move made by management mentioned by Pezdispenser. That move to cut the hour/cost of low performing pharmacist makes good sense. Turn over of low performing pharmacist is a desirable. Their moral is already low, productivity poor, a kick in the ass is what's they need to begin with. This serves the interest of stock holders and the customers, just not bad employees.

Perhaps I read pezdispenser's post differently.

Did the poster emphasize that these pharmacists had a significant difference in their performance from the other pharmacists, or only that they were the lowest 25% within the store? I assumed this could still mean they were still performing at an acceptable level, and probably could be coached to perform at an even higher level. My final note...if you hire well to begin with, you don't face the issues of nonperformance that you're suggesting.

 

[pharmschooler]

Low performing pharmacist- wow. How does one determine that? I know CVS, maybe where you work, follows the jack Welch 30,70,10% rule here at least. Where by they, the DM who has never done a pharmacists job,decide who they like and who they don't. They then instruct the Pharm sup(a puppet here) on who he wants him to fire. Of course this is a drawn out process of writing them up, giving them no raise, cutting their tech hours, writing them up again(stupid stuff like a coffee cup a floater left in the sink from the day before), and basically constant harassment in hopes that they leave. Does it save them money, sure does-the pharms that this is occuring to are ones with many years of service- higher wages due to wage increase every year over the last how many years. More years of vacation due to years of service. Also, more likely to use insurance due to age etc. all about money. all decided by people who are not pharmacists.

Low performing is a very subjective term and rarely, if ever, based on anything more than money.

I now know where I won't work. I've always hated Jack Welch for being an egotistical jerk.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Perhaps I read pezdispenser's post differently.

Did the poster emphasize that these pharmacists had a significant difference in their performance from the other pharmacists, or only that they were the lowest 25% within the store? I assumed this could still mean they were still performing at an acceptable level, and probably could be coached to perform at an even higher level. My final note...if you hire well to begin with, you don't face the issues of nonperformance that you're suggesting.

What's acceptable is set by what most people are able to perform, so low performers are not acceptable. Also the hiring person doe not a magic ball. There will always ones who slip through the net, also there are those who are motivated at one point but then become greedy and lazy over time.

Turn over of the low performing person is a good thing. Company needs fresh blood, and it is good to set an example to show that being lazy will not be tolerated. In fact I don't like the way how pharmacist salary is largely flat, there should be a much greater gradient to reward/punish based on performance levels.

 

[owlegrad]

What's acceptable is set by what most people are able to perform, so low performers are not acceptable. Also the hiring person doe not a magic ball. There will always ones who slip through the net, also there are those who are motivated at one point but then become greedy and lazy over time.

Turn over of the low performing person is a good thing. Company needs fresh blood, and it is good to set an example to show that being lazy will not be tolerated. In fact I don't like the way how pharmacist salary is largely flat, there should be a much greater gradient to reward/punish based on performance levels.

Agree in theory, but it is hard to measure performance objectively.

 

[pezdispenser]

There is an alternative scenario which is happening at my workplace. The bottom 25% performing staff pharmacists had their hours cut to 30/wk during the summer (off peak season in Florida), though their hourly rate remains the same and they still get benefits. No one has been laid off. No severance packages were given. Turnover is quite high though because that's practically a 25% pay cut. Then, they are still hiring new pharmacists but only at 29 or less hrs/wk with no benefits (and there are plenty of takers due to market saturation).

So from the company's overall point of view they can cut payroll hours and trim expenses (benefits) without cutting the hourly rate or laying people off. But the burden is now shared amongst multiple pharmacists who had their hours cut, quit or don't get benefits.

I don't really want to debate about whether it's right/wrong, good/bad. Just telling it like it is. I haven't seen any major decrease in hourly rate. Raises for staff and managers should be the same to be fair, so managers probably won't touch this.

You will need to compete to get a job. New grads vs veterans; everyone in a free for all... You may only get part time/no benefits. You will then need to work hard to keep your job. Not just being a good pharmacist but playing the office politics game. If you get on their bad side, I've seen good pharmacists get written up and fired for silly things like cell phone use or poor customer survey scores.