Part-time Pharmacists are Ruining the Profession

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
PharmDstudent

PharmDstudent

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
4,342
Reaction score
73
I heard this recently.

Any thoughts? Do you agree or disagree with this? Why?
Members don't see this ad.
 
Hm. Why do you think that is? Lack of benefits/increasing the shortage by increasing emergency wages and lack of stability?
 
That high part time percentage is what is probably going to save us from a pharmacist surplus. Average number of FTEs for all pharmacists is .92.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
PharmDstudent said:
I heard this recently.

Any thoughts? Do you agree or disagree with this? Why?
Click to expand...

??????????????????????????????????????????????????
And the data for this is ????

??????????????????????????????????????????????????​
 
Old Timer said:
??????????????????????????????????????????????????
And the data for this is ????

??????????????????????????????????????????????????​
Click to expand...
It was an opinion of a pharmacist, hence "I heard this recently".
 
So one pharmacist made this remark? And?
 
If I were still single, I would LOVE to be a part time pharmacist.
 
It's a waste-of-a-thread question.
 
You asked for opinions...;)

Don't get bent out of shape because you don't like the OPINION you "trolled" for...
 
loo said:
You asked for opinions...;)
Click to expand...
:laugh:

I see both sides of the statement, that's why I'm curious. It seems like no one wants "to go there" though. Maybe WVU will post later.

loo said:
Don't get bent out of shape because you don't like the OPINION you "trolled" for...
Click to expand...
I never do. It takes a lot for me to get bent out of shape, but once I do, you'll see PharmDstudent flip or withdraw (which ever is more appropriate).
 
PharmDstudent said:
:laugh:

I see both sides of the statement, that's why I'm curious. It seems like no one wants "to go there" though. Maybe WVU will post later.
Click to expand...

Why DO YOU ask the question?

Surely, you have an opinion on the subject, since you asked on this forum?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
This is a waste-of-a thread question because there is no correlation between part-time RPh's and "ruining the profession".

Clarification for those of us scratching our heads, please.
 
loo said:
Why DO YOU ask the question?

Surely, you have an opinion on the subject, since you asked on this forum?
Click to expand...
The pharmacist that said that comment has a lot of experience with retail pharmacy and its management. If I do management, I might be in his/her shoes one day (although I'd prefer hospital pharmacy management). Why would someone with that experience say that?
 
loo said:
This is a waste-of-a thread question because there is no correlation between part-time RPh's and "ruining the profession".

Clarification for those of us scratching our heads, please.
Click to expand...
It's not meant to be a scientific thread.

If I had to guess, it's probably more difficult to manage more pharmacists with compromised schedules.
 
PharmDstudent said:
The pharmacist that said that comment has a lot of experience with retail pharmacy and its management. If I do management, I might be in his/her shoes one day (although I'd prefer hospital pharmacy management). Why would someone with that experience say that?
Click to expand...

Well, in pharmacy management, working schedules are often the supervising pharmacist's responsibility and part-timers can sometimes be unavailable when you need them the most. This translates to headaches and other administrative crap you'd rather not deal with.

Thank you for being more specific; now I know where you're coming from.
 
I wasn't being snarky, you know what I think of you. I just wanted to know if there was more to it. Since there isn't here is my 2 cents:

I don't see how that is a problem unless there is a glut of pharmacists and there are so many they are willing to work part time without benefits and it reduces the number of full time positions available.
 
loo said:
Well, in pharmacy management, working schedules are often the supervising pharmacist's responsibility and part-timers can sometimes be unavailable when you need them the most. This translates to headaches and other administrative crap you'd rather not deal with.

Thank you for being more specific; now I know where you're coming from.
Click to expand...
So in an ideal world, you would have a plethora of pharmacists who could work 24/7/365. In a not-so-ideal world, you have pharmacists who don't want to work weekends, nights, holidays, etc. It must be pretty difficult to fill vacancies for the least desirable shifts especially when part-time pharmacists have no obligation to work every day.

Old Timer said:
I wasn't being snarky, you know what I think of you. I just wanted to know if there was more to it. Since there isn't here is my 2 cents:

I don't see how that is a problem unless there is a glut of pharmacists and there are so many they are willing to work part time without benefits and it reduces the number of full time positions available.
Click to expand...
You crave data. I know how you pharmacists are :p.

Well... what if this leads to a lack of full-time interest? I've see pharmacy managers come and go quite a bit.
 
well, i'll take the bait and bite.

i certainly don't have any DATA....but feel that part-timers also have part-time interest in their job. they aren't really fully emotionally invested in the process...they may just be there to fill a few dull days while being semi-retired, or to make some extra bucks while being full time elsewhere, or are too busy playing mom or dad to work full time....

i know that i may be making an unpopular statement, but feel that these individuals who aren't really "fully" into their jobs ARE ruining the profession as they don't have a real interest in making a full time committment. in my experience, both in hospital and retail, the part-timers are there to get the $$ and get out!
 
Was the pharmacist who made this comment an older person who disapproves of people not working 50-60 hours a week, instead preferring to have the more modern work-life balance younger generations have pioneered?

When I'm retired, I'm sure I'll be sitting there thinking, gee, I wish I worked more when my kids were little :rolleyes:
 
Pharmavixen said:
Was the pharmacist who made this comment an older person who disapproves of people not working 50-60 hours a week, instead preferring to have the more modern work-life balance younger generations have pioneered?
Click to expand...
No. H/She has young children.

Pharmavixen said:
When I'm retired, I'm sure I'll be sitting there thinking, gee, I wish I worked more when my kids were little :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If you're retired, why would you be working in a pharmacy?

Like Tussionex said, it's all about the money sometimes. I knew a pharmacist who had three jobs, because he really wanted to pay off his debt. The downside was that he always had to be updated when a new procedure had been implemented, because he only worked a couple of days a month. Someone would have to waste 30 mins every time he came in to update him.
 
That may be true, but what about other HCPs who work part-time or few days a week (MD, Dentists etc.) Some family physicians often work in walk-in clinics with no real client base. Some of them don't even take full medical history or inquire about allergies (speaking from personal experience). Are they also not fully investing in their profession? Probably.
 
A pharmacist once told me you should not recommend benadryl for sleep because there's no FDA indication for sleep.

I know everyone thinks pharmacists are like gods but there are a few of us who are not too bright.
 
Caverject said:
this thread should be re-named to "Women Pharmacists are Ruining the Profession"
Click to expand...

or perhaps, "Men Who Don't Share Responsibility in Child-Rearing, and/or Devalue Reproductive Work, are Ruining the Profession, and Society as a Whole."
 
OhFear said:
or perhaps, "Men Who Don't Share Responsibility in Child-Rearing, and/or Devalue Reproductive Work, are Ruining the Profession, and Society as a Whole."
Click to expand...

Ok Nancy Pelosi.

Anyway...I don't think part-timers would ruin the profession, so long as those 20 hours per week average are consistent, meaning that said pharmacist won't run off to europe for 4 months at a time with 14 days notice. So long as both parties communicate (supervisor and pharmacist), things should be fine.
 
Caverject said:
this thread should be re-named to "Women Pharmacists are Ruining the Profession"
Click to expand...

how about "women pharmacists who just wanna make a lot of money and then waste their education b/c they'd rather stay home, change diapers and watch oprah."
 
tussionex said:
how about "women pharmacists who just wanna make a lot of money and then waste their education b/c they'd rather stay home, change diapers and watch oprah."
Click to expand...

or how about "Pharmacists who made a conscious choice to go into a profession where they could attain some balance between their home life and their professional life"??? I can only assume from the above quote that you have never personally had to stay home with an infant for months on end - it's a lot more work than you would think. The whole issue of being able to have some of both parenting and work is, in my opinion, something that does bring a lot of women to the profession. I expect that there are many women who (if they had a choice) would actually prefer to work (although I can tell you, as a mother you aren't supposed to admit that you don't find child-rearing 24/7 to be fullfilling). But, we live in a country that does not have a lot of support for parents, and in most cases I'm sure that the family either 1) requires the husband's full-time salary or 2) the husband isn't exactly volunteering to stay home with the kids.

However, I can say that my observation in retail is that there certainly are some part-time pharmacists who seem to expect that everybody else will cater to their preferred hours. So, I guess I'm saying that I can see both sides of the argument, but ruining the profession seems a bit strong to me.
 
No one forces people to have children, just like no one forces people to go to work. They are personal choices. It's also a personal choice to do both.

With that said, when a person's job becomes second place to something else, that person needs to reprioritize. Perhaps they should be compromising with their work place so that both groups are satisfied. Regardless of employee personal circumstances, the employer needs the pharmacy to be appropriately staffed for optimal functioning.

I would get pretty irritated if a part-time employee would start missing work a lot and could get away with it, because she was a SAHM. I don't enjoy doing double work when an employee has commitment issues. It's one thing to be sick, and it's another thing to miss work for a soccer game.
 
tussionex said:
how about "women pharmacists who just wanna make a lot of money and then waste their education b/c they'd rather stay home, change diapers and watch oprah."
Click to expand...

I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't have any children.
 
confettiflyer said:
Ok Nancy Pelosi.
Click to expand...


What exactly are you trying to say? How does the speaker of the house of representatives have anything to do with Caverject's sexist comment or my response to it?

And as to not overly hijack this thread - I think it can definitely be frustrating to work with someone who doesn't have the same priorities as I do regarding the job. It can bring down the morale at work in general, so that part of it has the potential of being damaging to the profession. Though I don't think part time worker necessarily has to = slacker that doesn't care about pharmacy and just wants $$. Most importantly though, as long as we have leaders in the profession who are dedicated full-time to the progress of pharmacy, and to advocating for the rights of pharmacists and expanding the authority that pharmacists have, it will balance out some of the inconveniences that go along with part-time workers (that are quite needed to help with the shortage of pharmacists out there right now, I'd rather have part-time help than no help at all). I think it's more important to focus on the type of leadership going on in the profession rather than complaining about how a surplus of part-time workers will cause a lose in full-time benefits, or something. As well as I don't think it's really the part-time workers fault that they have the opportunity to work part-time and then dedicate more time that other matters of importance to them.
 
OhFear said:
or perhaps, "Men Who Don't Share Responsibility in Child-Rearing, and/or Devalue Reproductive Work, are Ruining the Profession, and Society as a Whole."
Click to expand...
women belong in the kitchen at home taking care of children and making their husband's sandwiches...its really sad pharmacy is becoming women dominated like it has
 
PharmDstudent said:
With that said, when a person's job becomes second place to something else, that person needs to reprioritize. .
Click to expand...

Mm....100% disagree with you here. Work will never be my 1st priority, ever. There are at least a half a dozen other things in my life that take higher priority (off the top of my head: family, my health, personal fortunes, etc...).

That's not to say I will treat my future workplace like shiet and be a bad employee, I think these are two different things.
 
confettiflyer said:
Mm....100% disagree with you here. Work will never be my 1st priority, ever. There are at least a half a dozen other things in my life that take higher priority (off the top of my head: family, my health, personal fortunes, etc...).

That's not to say I will treat my future workplace like shiet and be a bad employee, I think these are two different things.
Click to expand...
totally agree with you...

I work to live...not live to work. When I am at work, i will always give it 100% but when im out of work, I can careless cause it's my personal time.
 
OhFear said:
or perhaps, "Men Who Don't Share Responsibility in Child-Rearing, and/or Devalue Reproductive Work, are Ruining the Profession, and Society as a Whole."
Click to expand...

...thank g-d I turned out to be gay :hungover:
 
genesis09 said:
That high part time percentage is what is probably going to save us from a pharmacist surplus. Average number of FTEs for all pharmacists is .92.
Click to expand...

Actually, a portion of the part time force is keeping the shortage problem at bay; namely the older generation that would have already retired but are sticking around the profession longer than anticipated on a part time basis.

As for the literature on this Old Timer, check out what Katherine Knapp has written on the subject.

As for the younger portion of the part timers (women who balance career and kids, people who just don't want to work all that much, etc)...who knows.
 
confettiflyer said:
Mm....100% disagree with you here. Work will never be my 1st priority, ever. There are at least a half a dozen other things in my life that take higher priority (off the top of my head: family, my health, personal fortunes, etc...).

That's not to say I will treat my future workplace like shiet and be a bad employee, I think these are two different things.
Click to expand...

Caverject said:
totally agree with you...

I work to live...not live to work. When I am at work, i will always give it 100% but when im out of work, I can careless cause it's my personal time.
Click to expand...


:thumbup:
 
i wonder if there is any correlation between people tho think that part time pharmacists are ruining the profession and those who want to get rid of the penny and go with the nickel (...because it's ruining the economy? - srsly WTH :laugh: ).

Part time workers are beneficial because they can be flexible. There is something nice about not having to add people to staff in increments of 40h if you don't need it. Anyone who gets a bonus based on performance ought to be able to see that.
 
confettiflyer said:
Mm....100% disagree with you here. Work will never be my 1st priority, ever. There are at least a half a dozen other things in my life that take higher priority (off the top of my head: family, my health, personal fortunes, etc...).

That's not to say I will treat my future workplace like shiet and be a bad employee, I think these are two different things.
Click to expand...
My point was not to say that work should be the only first priority (I had a huge test today. My brain was overloaded to say the least.). I should have said that everything has a level of priority and depending on the level that work is placed at, an employee may have to reprioritize, i.e. quit, relocate, change schedules, etc.

Case in point:
Susan works three shifts per week every week. Susan's mother catches pneumonia and is hospitalized. Susan still works while her mother is hospitalized. After her mother is D/Ced from the hospital, Susan has to take care of her mother on the weekends when her home-health nurse is unavailable until further notice. Therefore, Susan can no longer work weekends, so her employer can no longer schedule her on weekends.

Now, Mary has to work Susan's weekends on top of the weekends that she is normally scheduled, because her DOP is desperate. Mary gets overtime pay for working extra, however she cannot fulfill her every-other-weekend visitation schedule with her daughter (who is cared for by her ex-husband). Therefore, Mary has to sacrifice time with her daughter, because someone has to fulfill Susan's weekends, and Mary is the only person willing to do so.

People can volunteer to pick up shifts, but if no one wants to work undesirable shifts, who will work in the pharmacy?
One possible solution: The DOP institutes a mandatory overtime rotation, which sucks for everyone!
 
Case in Point II:
I have to work a weeknight next week that I don't normally work (I have class for 5 and half hours straight that day), because everyone and their momma is going to a concert that night. The only two people that can work that night are having to work and this includes me! Thankfully, I've known about it for a few weeks now, so it isn't really a big deal anymore.

*I have to be flexible and committed for my employer even though I work part-time, because the show (the pharmacy) must go on.
 
I heard that y2k was going to kill us all
I heard that the end of the world is in the year 2012

ok, ok, I'll play nice.

I think that there is a disruption in hours and steady work force but pharmacy has adapted to it by having floats and temp agencies. If anything, it hurts the bottom line for the man, and who cares about the man anyway? I think it's all the better for us since we are allowed flexibility in our scheduling.
 
bananaface said:
Part time workers are beneficial because they can be flexible. There is something nice about not having to add people to staff in increments of 40h if you don't need it. Anyone who gets a bonus based on performance ought to be able to see that.
Click to expand...

++ This. Yes you need that solid core of 40h/week employees, but that doesn't always cut it. Its much better to have a few dedicated part time employees that can grab extra hours when needed than to rely on contract/temp agencies.

PharmDStudent: Your little case studies are nothing new. Is this your first job or something? This isn't unique to pharmacy. This happens with any type of work place. **** happens. People will cover those shifts or you bring in outside help or you turn off the neon OPEN sign. Things have a way of working themselves out.

Maybe your old timer pharmacist who ranted about this doesn't like part-time pharmacists because he doesn't see them as being loyal to the company. Guess what? Company loyalty got tossed out the window long ago. Companies have proved time and again that profits mean infinitely more than employees. You want to be the good little employee who never calls in sick and always covers other peoples shifts, go right ahead, I'm sure your boss will love you. Corporate on the other hand will still treat you as just another resource. Sad, but true.
 
azPharmD2B said:
...
Click to expand...

One of the most important differences between other companies and a pharmacy is that patients have to get their meds. You're doing patients a disservice and perhaps harm if you can't keep your pharmacy open (think about nitroglycerin subling, Epipens, or Glucagon injections).
azPharmD2B said:
You want to be the good little employee who never calls in sick and always covers other peoples shifts, go right ahead, I'm sure your boss will love you.
Click to expand...
He already does.
FYI: He's not the one who made the comment about part-time pharmacists. I don't work with that person.

I'm very fortunate to be able to work as much as I do, considering that there's a pharmacy school so close by, so I try to repay the favor whenever possible by being flexible and committed.

I think a lot of pharmacists are very fortunate, because they can work part-time for a good chunk of money. The rest of America has to work full-time to make $50,000/year.
azPharmD2B said:
Is this your first job or something?
Click to expand...
No. I've been doing the pharmacy gig for 3.5 years now.
 
PharmDstudent said:
One of the most important differences between other companies and a pharmacy is that patients have to get their meds. You're doing patients a disservice and perhaps harm if you can't keep your pharmacy open (think about nitroglycerin subling, Epipens, or Glucagon injections).
Click to expand...

Because if the CVS on this street corner is closed a patient cant go to the Walgreens across the street or the CVS a couple miles away? Sorry, but every pharmacy doesn't have to be open 24/7.

Epipens? NTG? lf someone doesn't have one and they need one, I would hope they are being driven to a hospital for immediate care. Those aren't the kind of thing people suddenly run out of and go rushing to the pharmacy for when its urgent. If its not urgent then driving a few more miles isn't a big deal.
 
azPharmD2B said:
Because if the CVS on this street corner is closed a patient cant go to the Walgreens across the street or the CVS a couple miles away? Sorry, but every pharmacy doesn't have to be open 24/7.

Epipens? NTG? lf someone doesn't have one and they need one, I would hope they are being driven to a hospital for immediate care. Those aren't the kind of thing people suddenly run out of and go rushing to the pharmacy for when its urgent. If its not urgent then driving a few more miles isn't a big deal.
Click to expand...
Where do you work again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

P
3 things future pharmacists should know about the profession Three Walgreens pharmacists share stories
Replies
7
Views
1K
Dred Pirate
Dred Pirate
M
Part-time, remote pharmacist side hustles...
Replies
15
Views
2K
projektreverb
P
P
Walgreens seeks provider status for pharmacists: CEO
Replies
3
Views
526
projektreverb
P
sunnyandseventytwo
Favorite songs about pharmacists
Replies
14
Views
1K
Xenophylia
Xenophylia
G
Costco part time
Replies
5
Views
1K
rxkrafted
R
Top