Pay decrease

[Digsbe]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I really like the idea of working 7 on 7 off, I wouldn't mind overnighting either.

What is the stress/workload compared to ON vs during the day in the hospital?

 

[Skrumpy]

The one week they take off is considered 2 weeks, not 1 week since they get paid for 80 hours that week.

True that's how it comes out on paper, however, I was remarking about the actual time spent at work. They also accrue their vacation slower than other FTEs. I'm not sure by how much exactly, but those I've talked to don't really complain about it. Either way I still think it's a good gig. The main downside is that adjusting from days to nights every 7 days does take a toll on your body.

 

[Skrumpy]

I really like the idea of working 7 on 7 off, I wouldn't mind overnighting either.

What is the stress/workload compared to ON vs during the day in the hospital?

I should preface this by saying that I'm speaking as a tech who only occasionally fills in on the ON crew, but from what I've seen/heard the workload doesn't usually transfer from day shifts to ON. At night how busy it is rarely seems to be affected by where our census is at, which on the flip-side is usually a good indicator of how busy it is going to be during the day. It can get pretty busy for the pharmacists when there are a lot of ER patients that lead to admits. They also have to cover codes, so that is something that can crop up unexpectedly. Sometimes the techs are really busy and the pharmacists aren't and vice versa. There are nights that are abysmally slow and the rare few days where you are lucky if you get a break. On those days you just do your best as you have no one to call to help out. Overall, from what I've experienced/inquired about, most ONs aren't usually busy and as you don't have the hustle & bustle of 30 other staffers around you, the phone calls every 5 minutes from nurses/docs, and with only a skeleton crew upstairs it is a much more relaxed environment than our day shifts typically are.

 

[confettiflyer]

Sounds about right for hospital--hospitals have always paid notoriously low compared to retail. Even during the best of times (the shortage of the mid 2000's), hospital pay tended to be about $5.00/hr less than retail.

This is weird for me at least. I wouldn't call $5hr "notoriously" low, and second ever since I started in the pharmacy world (2007) in California, hospital and retail hourly rates have been close to parity.

All my retail friends in the SF bay area have gotten low-60's on the retail side, and the hospitals in my area are all low-60's as well. The ones that pay high-50's have more generous benefit packages (i.e. lower insurance premiums, 4 weeks of paid vacation annually, etc...)

Benefits are the wild card here.

 

[PumpkinSmasher]

Just depends on the area, the academic medical center in my area pays lowers than retail and other hospitals in the area. With my raise this year, I make as much hourly as even of my retail friends except those who work for Kaiser and the benefit package is is no comparison. The retirement, pension, and PTO are far and away better. Regardless, I would not work in retail, even if the pay was 10/hr higher.

 

[confettiflyer]

Just depends on the area, the academic medical center in my area pays lowers than retail and other hospitals in the area. With my raise this year, I make as much hourly as even of my retail friends except those who work for Kaiser and the benefit package is is no comparison. The retirement, pension, and PTO are far and away better. Regardless, I would not work in retail, even if the pay was 10/hr higher.

You said the "P" word...pension, those practically don't exist anymore. The security of life retirement payments is worth the pay decrease.

In the back of my head there's this constant churn of calculation of how much I need to save vs. how long I expect to live. Such is life for the 401k/403b folk.

 

[BidingMyTime]

This is weird for me at least. I wouldn't call $5hr "notoriously" low, and second ever since I started in the pharmacy world (2007) in California, hospital and retail hourly rates have been close to parity.

Well, I did say "notoriously" low in *comparison* to retail pharmacists (the same salary would be notoriously high in comparison to pharmacy techs.) $5.00/hr less equals $10,000/yr less, I guess it would depend on ones lifestyle, but I would consider $10,000 a year less salary quite significant.

 

[confettiflyer]

Well, I did say "notoriously" low in *comparison* to retail pharmacists (the same salary would be notoriously high in comparison to pharmacy techs.) $5.00/hr less equals $10,000/yr less, I guess it would depend on ones lifestyle, but I would consider $10,000 a year less salary quite significant.

Yeah - I can see how $10k would be a big deal for anyone, but I think of the BS that is retail and I consider the $10k hazard pay. Again benefits are the key differentiator, hospitals tend to be more generous.

At least locally (SF Bay Area), the difference has been more like $2-3/hr, I even think Kaiser pays more than traditional retail (don't quote me on that one).

I have friends in managed care making way less than retail/hospital but love the fact they're 9-5 M-F with all major holidays off. Then you'd have people like me that love the 1.5x differential on Christmas day.

 

[PumpkinSmasher]

Well, I did say "notoriously" low in *comparison* to retail pharmacists (the same salary would be notoriously high in comparison to pharmacy techs.) $5.00/hr less equals $10,000/yr less, I guess it would depend on ones lifestyle, but I would consider $10,000 a year less salary quite significant.

If you are the breadwinner for the family, then yes I agree with you. I am not though, so the 10k after being taxed does not seem significant.

Not to be touchy, feely but as long as you can support your family and love what you do then who cares...