If the union can provide for better pay, benefits and humane treatment at a net benefit to the pharmacist after union dues are taken out I'm fine with it. But if it squashes jobs that wouldn't be a good thing. I can see "fine, we'll give you all 3 weeks vaca minimum, allow for you to use the bathroom and eat and won't fire you based on mundane things... but we are going to cut down to 80% of our original staff to make up for it."
The best thing we can do for the profession, in my opinion, is lobby and push for expanded scopes and provider status through insurance plans and state funded insurances. Create a new market and job source for pharmacists that gives the PharmD more value. If there are more clinical options with better/comparable pay to retail I can almost guarantee that retail standards will go up to compensate, that's how the market works. That's also why we've gone from sign on bonuses and rapid salary growth to less jobs and more laid off pharmacists as the economy tanked, schools opened, older pharmacists delayed retirement and pharmacies began getting away with setting lower standards for how they treat employees. If every hospital, clinic and healthcare facility could hire pharmacists that can bill for insurance and make them possibly a net income outside of dispensing you'll see rapid job growth as pharmacists being included in clinics and on healthcare teams almost always results in higher quality of care with less adverse events happening. As of now many clinical pharmacy jobs exist because they recognize pharmacists save them money through less readmissions, better drug therapy for patients and less ADRs.
