Is it true that many pharmacists work 14 hours standing at one spot with no breaks or time for lunch, bathroom, etc ..? I mean, even an assembler has 15mins break 30 mins lunch and stuff. I have been reading posts from the pharmacy forum and was led to believe in this. I am volunteering in a retail pharmacy, and the pharmacist/owner here seems to have the time to sit down, go to the bathroom and occasionally chat with the techs. Is what I am seeing the minority or the majority of pharmacy? 😕
Pharmacist working 14 hours with no breaks?
- Thread starter CareDD
- Start date
Ive been in a pharmacy (retail) for 3.5 years, and that is not the case. Things get crazy and we can have "rushes" of people, but all that does is potentially postpone a break. Our Pharmacists work four 8-10 hour days a week, with 30 minutes of paid lunch i believe, and then rotate weekends.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2011
- Messages
- 416
- Reaction score
- 87
To the best of my knowledge...
In most states, pharmacists are considered "exempt" employees such that the federal and state labor laws stating an employee is required to receive a break of ___ duration for every X hours worked no longer apply. The essence of the idea was originally to permit pharmacists to have greater control in management and the labor law doesn't really apply to management. But because state and federal laws also state that the pharmacist in charge (as differentiated from the pharmacy manager) is still responsible for the conduct of the technicians and staff, it became very easy to turn all pharmacists into 'management'. As a result, pharmacists are no longer governed by labor law in that regard.
Furthermore, because most state laws state that in order for the pharmacy to have any non-pharmacist personnel or non-personnel present, the pharmacist must be on duty. Therefore, in order for the pharmacist to have a break, the pharmacy must physically close and remove all technicians and staff from the pharmacy - unless there is a covering pharmacist. It would be very easy for a pharmacy to claim that there is undue difficulty in finding a pharmacist to be willing to work 'lunch hour' only to provide coverage, and that a requirement to have two pharmacists on staff at all times to comply with labor laws would cause most pharmacies to close for financial reasons, thus removing a critical element of public healthcare from the marketplace and worsening problems in underserved areas.
So yes, its common to have pharmacists work 12-14 hours without breaks. Some companies comply with labor laws which apply to non-exempt employees. Others don't. Costco physically closes their pharmacy at lunchtime if there is only one pharmacist on staff - good! Some retail chains are notorious for requiring the pharmacist to be present in the pharmacy for 12-14 continuous hours - not so good!
In most states, pharmacists are considered "exempt" employees such that the federal and state labor laws stating an employee is required to receive a break of ___ duration for every X hours worked no longer apply. The essence of the idea was originally to permit pharmacists to have greater control in management and the labor law doesn't really apply to management. But because state and federal laws also state that the pharmacist in charge (as differentiated from the pharmacy manager) is still responsible for the conduct of the technicians and staff, it became very easy to turn all pharmacists into 'management'. As a result, pharmacists are no longer governed by labor law in that regard.
Furthermore, because most state laws state that in order for the pharmacy to have any non-pharmacist personnel or non-personnel present, the pharmacist must be on duty. Therefore, in order for the pharmacist to have a break, the pharmacy must physically close and remove all technicians and staff from the pharmacy - unless there is a covering pharmacist. It would be very easy for a pharmacy to claim that there is undue difficulty in finding a pharmacist to be willing to work 'lunch hour' only to provide coverage, and that a requirement to have two pharmacists on staff at all times to comply with labor laws would cause most pharmacies to close for financial reasons, thus removing a critical element of public healthcare from the marketplace and worsening problems in underserved areas.
So yes, its common to have pharmacists work 12-14 hours without breaks. Some companies comply with labor laws which apply to non-exempt employees. Others don't. Costco physically closes their pharmacy at lunchtime if there is only one pharmacist on staff - good! Some retail chains are notorious for requiring the pharmacist to be present in the pharmacy for 12-14 continuous hours - not so good!
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 2,919
- Reaction score
- 548
This is true. In fact, I had to sign a paper that stated that there is to be only 1 stool in a pharmacy, no techs/interns are permitted to use it, and the pharmacist can only use it every once in a while to "rest their legs during a 12-14 hour shift", meaning that sitting down is not expected unless the pharmacist is dying of exhaustion. The pharmacists where I work typically have no time for a lunch break, and typically just eat while working.
- Joined
- May 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,275
- Reaction score
- 9
I'm not being an jerk when I ask this....
How in the hell do people work as pharm techs or pharmacists when they are straight up obese. I just don't see how these huge people can stand for that long. (I went to a pharmacy the other day and saw a person who looked like he was at least 350. Not muscle either)
How in the hell do people work as pharm techs or pharmacists when they are straight up obese. I just don't see how these huge people can stand for that long. (I went to a pharmacy the other day and saw a person who looked like he was at least 350. Not muscle either)
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2011
- Messages
- 416
- Reaction score
- 87
So I found a website which clears things up a little bit.
Www.employmentlawhandbook.com/wagehour/mealsandbreaks.html
So its a state by state thing and you can scroll to the bottom of the page and find what is applicable in your state. A friendly reminder, state law trumps federal law in this case
Www.employmentlawhandbook.com/wagehour/mealsandbreaks.html
So its a state by state thing and you can scroll to the bottom of the page and find what is applicable in your state. A friendly reminder, state law trumps federal law in this case
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2011
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- 4
Regardless of what laws may say, I have seen this happen. I worked at a very busy CVS where the pharmacists regularly worked 8AM to 10PM, with only a few minutes to eat a sandwich, and even then, they didn't actually leave the pharmacy. Even as a technician, I would work for 8 to 10 hours per day, with no breaks (the technicians also ate "on the fly", sometimes while counting pills or entering prescriptions--it was just far too busy to stop for any length of time.) Bathroom breaks were quick and only taken whenever you could slip away for a moment, which was rarely. On my first day I asked for a 10-minute break, and was told that I "didn't know how things were done here". So in the year and a half I worked as a technician for CVS, I never ONCE took a true, leave-the-pharmacy break, paid or unpaid. Illegal? Yes. But that's unfortunately the state of things, and it doesn't seem likely to change. Inadequate staffing leads to all sorts of corner-cutting and lots of worn-down-to-the-bone employees. I'm just glad I jumped ship and went to hospital pharmacy--it's much more humane.
- Joined
- May 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,275
- Reaction score
- 9
Dead link
- Joined
- May 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,275
- Reaction score
- 9
I have been working for a chain for 3 years, and it is true that pharmacists routinely work 14 hour days with just a few minutes to eat or take a break. The most I have ever seen them work is a 16 hour day with just one 15 minute food break. I did ask the pharmacists how they felt about this and one even told me he likes having 16 hour days because he only has to go to work 2 days one week and 3 days the next, alternating weeks. It is all personal preference. I have not seen anyone forced to work over 8 hours if they do not want to, but most like not having to work 5 days a week.
I like this schedule
- Joined
- May 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,275
- Reaction score
- 9
I could see the appeal of this.
Take care of work 2-3 days and run errands the other 2-3. Depends on the person of course.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2006
- Messages
- 7,863
- Reaction score
- 7
I have never seen this in CA. I've worked for Walgreens, CVS, independent, and rotated at Sav-on and Target. Granted that's mainly because of CA labor laws.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
- Messages
- 30
- Reaction score
- 0
In the pharmacy I work in there are only 2 pharmacists. Each works 6 days one week and 1 day the next. Monday through Friday they work 13 hours and its reduced to 8 on Saturday and Sunday. One pharmacist stays in the pharmacy but takes 30 minutes at 2 every day that he uses to eat lunch and does not do any pharmacy work but the other just eats when he can.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2011
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 0
I think it depends on the pharmacy chain, I know walmart the pharmacy closes for lunch. However at Osco which is where I work, the pharmacists barely get time to sit or eat. If its slow they will sit and eat, but if its busy then its just not possible for them to because either someone will call wanting to talk to them or someone will need to be counseled or ask for the pharmacist. It really sucks and I feel so bad for them at times. At another pharmacy that I help out at, they have 2 stools and the tech sometimes uses one and the pharmacist uses one when they are tired. So it depends.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2012
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
This generally is observed in retail. Want to avoid this? Dont get into retail. Or get a job at a slower pharmacy. The pharmacists i work with give eachother breaks. I guess it also depends on who you work with.
Like doctor's offices, the pharmacies should close an hour each day for lunch. The general public will get used to it.
There is also no real reason the techs cannot take in scripts if the pharmacy stays open. They can then tell people the script won't be filled until after the pharmcist returns from lunch. If the techs cannot be trusted if the pharmacist is not there, perhaps there needs to be a better system for hiring and training techs. This thread makes a pharmacist sound like a glorified babysitter and slave.
There is also no real reason the techs cannot take in scripts if the pharmacy stays open. They can then tell people the script won't be filled until after the pharmcist returns from lunch. If the techs cannot be trusted if the pharmacist is not there, perhaps there needs to be a better system for hiring and training techs. This thread makes a pharmacist sound like a glorified babysitter and slave.
- Joined
- May 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,275
- Reaction score
- 9
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
