Union for pharmacists at Kaiser

[MdBrndPhrmcst]

Hey everyone so today while at work one of the NP's popped into my office and wanted to know what the clinical pharmacists thought about possibly joining the union.

Right now the clinical pharmacists are not in the union and the operations pharmacist (the ones who do the filling and dispensing) are in a union (a seperate one with the clinical assistants and lpns)

what are your thoughts with regards to joining a union? any pro's and cons? the NPs said we would be joining a union with them the PAs and other professionals and that it was a union specifically for "professionals"

pro's:
Job security (right now we are at will employees and can be fired at anytime)
garenteed raises every year
Can not be forced to work more than 40 hours a week without overtime
Can not be transferred to another area or have job description change
Retirement benefits are safer (can't be changed without union approval)

cons:
paying dues
other pharmacists who have been there longer get seniority and "1st choice" with regards to vacation or transfers?
will cause some pharmacists to feel safe at their job and then become complacent and lazy?
the gaurenteed raises are nice.. but everyone makes the same which would eliminate the desire to excel?
Having to go on strike (possibly)

I'm still relatively new in the workforce so I lack long term perspective... what do you guys think about the pharmacists unionizing?

thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Praziquantel86]

Hey everyone so today while at work one of the NP's popped into my office and wanted to know what the clinical pharmacists thought about possibly joining the union.

Right now the clinical pharmacists are not in the union and the operations pharmacist (the ones who do the filling and dispensing) are in a union (a seperate one with the clinical assistants and lpns)

what are your thoughts with regards to joining a union? any pro's and cons? the NPs said we would be joining a union with them the PAs and other professionals and that it was a union specifically for "professionals"

pro's:
Job security (right now we are at will employees and can be fired at anytime)
garenteed raises every year
Can not be forced to work more than 40 hours a week without overtime
Can not be transferred to another area or have job description change
Retirement benefits are safer (can't be changed without union approval)

cons:
paying dues
other pharmacists who have been there longer get seniority and "1st choice" with regards to vacation or transfers?
will cause some pharmacists to feel safe at their job and then become complacent and lazy?
the gaurenteed raises are nice.. but everyone makes the same which would eliminate the desire to excel?
Having to go on strike (possibly)

I'm still relatively new in the workforce so I lack long term perspective... what do you guys think about the pharmacists unionizing?

thanks!

I think your list sums it up nicely. I would absolutely highlight the "lazy and complacent" part on the cons list, although with the operations folks already being unionized, this should be less of a new issue. In speaking with unionized and nonunionized inpatient pharmacists, I find that generally the good ones hate the union and the bad ones love it.

You also have to look into the past history of management/worker issues. Is there a pressing need to unionize (i.e., have you been mistreated in the past or are you being mistreated currently)? Or, is this something that came up simply because the NP mentioned it.

Also think of the long-term ramifications, both with management and your physician colleagues. How will they view the move, and do the benefits outweigh this potential harm? This also goes with your operations pharmacist coworkers - will this create a divide because you folks are in separate unions?

 

[MdBrndPhrmcst]

Is there a pressing need to unionize (i.e., have you been mistreated in the past or are you being mistreated currently)? Or, is this something that came up simply because the NP mentioned it.

There is def no pressing need to unionize atleast for me. I enjoy the job. There are a few things hear and ther I dont agree with or that annoy me but for the most part it's a dan good jobs.

I think the main reasons for starting a union are 1. if you are being misteated or 2. If you want more job security

So in my case its more job security.

As far as how management will view it..they'll be pissed I'm certain. I dont know the details but I think they negotiated the contract with the other union (the one with the dispensing pharmacists) they specifically wrote that the clinical pharmacists who are salaried can not be a part of that union.

I don't know how it would change the physician's view of us.. I dont think it'll be a big deal. The MD respect and appreciate us to an extent but certainly don't consider us one of "them".

Thanks for the input!

 

[owlegrad]

I am not sure that unions guarantee raises every year. They negotiate every year, but they don't always get what they want. Someone with more experience can chime in here, but I don't think it is accurate to say "guaranteed raises" every year.

 

[tablet]

Why would you want to join a union, I'm sure you can count on management to make your decisions for you. Do you think a union pharmacy would be in a constant state of subtracting technician hours? Do you think you would fill 400 rx/day with 1 tech at a union pharmacy.

Will someone share a story about the last time that management implemented something that benefited you or improved your work environment in a meaningful way.

 

[Hpower12]

I am surprised there are not more unions in pharmacy. I saw unfair treatment and an increasingly stressfull work enviornment where management seemed to view pharmacists as the enemy. I am all for a pharmacist union.

 

[Its Z]

I am surprised there are not more unions in pharmacy. I saw unfair treatment and an increasingly stressfull work enviornment where management seemed to view pharmacists as the enemy. I am all for a pharmacist union.

Except once you join a union, you get to deal with 2 managements.. Union and union leaders who's really out for themselves and the the employer who's now more pissed off due to the union.

 

[psychoandy]

the biggest things with unions imo (btw, i have 0 experience outside of observing large academic medical centers with unionized RNs, not pharmacy) is that everything goes by time of service, not merit. all of the "cushy jobs" like infusion center RN or OR RN are taken by the people with seniority, like at least 15 years of service, while all of the crap floor RN jobs are all noobs. apply to pharmacy and you could be stuck doing evenings on a med/surg floor instead of a cushy ICU spot.

regarding your pros...i am not leaving my retirement up to anyone but myself. assuming i live long enough, if i get medicare or a pension, that's cool, but by the way things are going, nothing is "guaranteed" and i am not trusting anyone. so while you might get a cushy union pension/healthcare, think of the costs for the next generation...unless you don't care and just wanna be all "got mines! f y'all!!!"

from the RNs I talk to, minimum of 3-5% raise (i forgot exactly) but it definitely kept up with inflation. and their union dues were less than $1500/year, i'd say it's worth it.

almost everywhere in the country i think people are hired "at will" and can be fired anytime. rarely, however, have I seen people fired without cause. if this is an actual issue, that would be a good reason to unionize. same with enforced OT and job title changes and other shady stuff.

one of the best quotes i heard regarding a unionized hospital (the VA)...the RPh said they can't do Q8 vanco because it's "logistically impossible", which i took as everyone is too damn lazy. and that's just vanco, what about zosyn or unasyn or pcn? not an enviroment i want to work in.

 

[Requiem]

I'm sure Z or other more experience pharmacists who have seen multiple practice sites can give a lot more detail than me.

With that said, I find unions to be largely detrimental. I don't agree with professionals unionizing.

I feel unions are appropriate for segments of the workforce that are subject to abuse, e.g. janitors, housekeeping and other low-credential type positions where fair treatment is key. For professionals like pharmacists and teachers it's a giant CROC. For example, the teachers union in the states formed out of the need for unanimous protest against the abuse of female teachers (e.g. getting paid less). Nowadays, you CANNOT fire a teacher short of molesting a kid, yet as long as they have pulse and breathe they gain tenure in 2 years are are untouchable. Who cares if they teach or not. Watch "Waiting on Superman" for a great documentary on the state of the american educational system.

With regard to pharmacists (and teachers, nurses, etc.) a pharmacist is not equal to another pharmacist is not equal to another pharmacist. What this means is that different people within a profession have different skill sets, abilities, motivations, etc. A young proactive pharmacist actively starting initiatives, staying late, going a step further for patient care, etc., is often worn down by the fact the lazy 10 years senior pharmacist who literally LIVES FOR BREAKS and checks e-mail more than prescriptions makes more money than him/her, solely because he's had a pulse longer.

It's an environment I'm glad I'm leaving to be honest. You'd never think "professionals" would delay patient care or doing work to go "to coffee break", repeatedly, without shame because "if we don't take our breaks we'll lose 'em!". No joke.

I don't respect unions for professionals. They breed laziness, contempt and senses of entitlement for doing nothing other than being in a building longer than the next person. It's the most ridiculous reward system you can imagine. I can work my ass off, or literally do nothing all day, and collect the same pay cheque as a coworker who literally avoids work.

Z, from a managerial viewpoint, may comment that this is also the responsibility of the pharmacy manager and director to step in and ensure people are held accountable, etc., and that's correct. But the reality is that this may not happen.

So, be careful what you're trying to get yourself into.

 

[Its Z]

I'm sure Z or other more experience pharmacists who have seen multiple practice sites can give a lot more detail than me.

With that said, I find unions to be largely detrimental. I don't agree with professionals unionizing.

I feel unions are appropriate for segments of the workforce that are subject to abuse, e.g. janitors, housekeeping and other low-credential type positions where fair treatment is key. For professionals like pharmacists and teachers it's a giant CROC. For example, the teachers union in the states formed out of the need for unanimous protest against the abuse of female teachers (e.g. getting paid less). Nowadays, you CANNOT fire a teacher short of molesting a kid, yet as long as they have pulse and breathe they gain tenure in 2 years are are untouchable. Who cares if they teach or not. Watch "Waiting on Superman" for a great documentary on the state of the american educational system.

With regard to pharmacists (and teachers, nurses, etc.) a pharmacist is not equal to another pharmacist is not equal to another pharmacist. What this means is that different people within a profession have different skill sets, abilities, motivations, etc. A young proactive pharmacist actively starting initiatives, staying late, going a step further for patient care, etc., is often worn down by the fact the lazy 10 years senior pharmacist who literally LIVES FOR BREAKS and checks e-mail more than prescriptions makes more money than him/her, solely because he's had a pulse longer.

It's an environment I'm glad I'm leaving to be honest. You'd never think "professionals" would delay patient care or doing work to go "to coffee break", repeatedly, without shame because "if we don't take our breaks we'll lose 'em!". No joke.

I don't respect unions for professionals. They breed laziness, contempt and senses of entitlement for doing nothing other than being in a building longer than the next person. It's the most ridiculous reward system you can imagine. I can work my ass off, or literally do nothing all day, and collect the same pay cheque as a coworker who literally avoids work.

Z, from a managerial viewpoint, may comment that this is also the responsibility of the pharmacy manager and director to step in and ensure people are held accountable, etc., and that's correct. But the reality is that this may not happen.

So, be careful what you're trying to get yourself into.

This..

 

[MdBrndPhrmcst]

I'm sure Z or other more experience pharmacists who have seen multiple practice sites can give a lot more detail than me.

With that said, I find unions to be largely detrimental. I don't agree with professionals unionizing.

I feel unions are appropriate for segments of the workforce that are subject to abuse, e.g. janitors, housekeeping and other low-credential type positions where fair treatment is key. For professionals like pharmacists and teachers it's a giant CROC. For example, the teachers union in the states formed out of the need for unanimous protest against the abuse of female teachers (e.g. getting paid less). Nowadays, you CANNOT fire a teacher short of molesting a kid, yet as long as they have pulse and breathe they gain tenure in 2 years are are untouchable. Who cares if they teach or not. Watch "Waiting on Superman" for a great documentary on the state of the american educational system.

With regard to pharmacists (and teachers, nurses, etc.) a pharmacist is not equal to another pharmacist is not equal to another pharmacist. What this means is that different people within a profession have different skill sets, abilities, motivations, etc. A young proactive pharmacist actively starting initiatives, staying late, going a step further for patient care, etc., is often worn down by the fact the lazy 10 years senior pharmacist who literally LIVES FOR BREAKS and checks e-mail more than prescriptions makes more money than him/her, solely because he's had a pulse longer.

It's an environment I'm glad I'm leaving to be honest. You'd never think "professionals" would delay patient care or doing work to go "to coffee break", repeatedly, without shame because "if we don't take our breaks we'll lose 'em!". No joke.

I don't respect unions for professionals. They breed laziness, contempt and senses of entitlement for doing nothing other than being in a building longer than the next person. It's the most ridiculous reward system you can imagine. I can work my ass off, or literally do nothing all day, and collect the same pay cheque as a coworker who literally avoids work.

Z, from a managerial viewpoint, may comment that this is also the responsibility of the pharmacy manager and director to step in and ensure people are held accountable, etc., and that's correct. But the reality is that this may not happen.

So, be careful what you're trying to get yourself into.

Great points... I think its just a matter of "security" if things are going good you want to make sure they continue to go good. The NP who origionally brought it up to me used him and his colleauges as an examples. He said they had been working side by side with the physicians for years..and had a great repoire with them..and then all of a sudden out of the blue one month it was decided all the NP were now out of internal medicine. He said that the union NPs were "saved" in that Kaiser had to find a position for them..whereas the non union NP were told to find new jobs. He also said that before he was union he was getting loads and load of worked heaped on him, and more adminstrative responsibilities which he had to work on at home..but was not getting any extra money for it.

The NP said to me "after awhile..you realize..it doesn't matter how loyal you are..how hard you work..how much you've done for the company in the past... if it suits your employer and will save them money..they'll kick you to the curb."

Right now I'm young..energetic and full of ambition..I worry about job security but not as much as if i'm older have and have family to provide for...one thing I have learned in the past few years is you never know what life throws at you and circumstances can change quickly so that im no longer as energetic or ambitious..or able to perform at the level I'm used to...I wonder if that happens I'll wish then I was part of a union..

thanks for the input everyone!