Walmart h20...new grads are screwed

[rxdawg21]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Well it happened a tad earlier then I expected. Walmart is switching to h20 company wide by end of year. Now the salaried options per pay period (2weeks) are 48,56,64,72,80. My district manager literally said we are lucky and grandfathered in to 72 and 80 hour shifts. New grads and future openings in this market will not be above 64 hours, this ensures flexibility and that the market has better coverage. I understand the business side of it. I feel bad for the new pharmacists with 6 figures of debt when there are literally no full time jobs being offered at Walmart I'm sure nationwide in the near future. More companies will start this in full force. Mass underemployment is better then unemployment I guess. You would have to be a fool to do this.

Direct words their needs won't be matched with an 80 hour pharmacist but 2 48 hour pharmacists are going to match her needs a lot better.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

It's past time to start unionizing. But we won't...

 

[Gombrich12]

Prepharm students still think they are going to make $100,000+ to start out. They don't understand that there is no guarantee of 40 hours and some people don't even hit 30 hours. When I came out we could get all the OT we wanted which helped a lot in getting rid of my loans.

 

[Carol is Alpha]

It's past time to start unionizing. But we won't...

Sweetie, unionizing won't solve this. What we are seeing in pharmacy is but a microcosm of a corrupt system of unfettered credit creation that has metastasized across the globe. What the central bank mafia tried to do was pull demand forward, but they actually only created overcapacity everywhere.

This is it. We are done as a civilization perhaps. Kralizec, The Typhoon Struggle, is upon us.

 

[Momus]

0 OT and making guarantee 80k/yr only. It's better for the pharmacists to beg for more shifts and pay 0 OT vs. Having to pay OT for sick calls, vacancies, and vacation. Better to give everyone less hours FOR the company. Control payroll.

 

[Carol is Alpha]

You know what they could do? This could get a lot worse. Why have W2 employees? This could be a way of transitioning to a 1099 work force. More boxes would have to be checked to happen to classify us as contractors, but this could be the future.

I think as a 1099er you have to pay full freight as far as social security tax. Ouch!

 

[MatCauthon]

I'm not sure how much money they would save by doing this. They might save on OT costs, but benefits costs are more expensive when they have more employees. Many employers adamantly do not want employees working less than 40hours because their benefits costs are so high.

 

[awval999]

You know what they could do? This could get a lot worse. Why have W2 employees? This could be a way of transitioning to a 1099 work force. More boxes would have to be checked to happen to classify us as contractors, but this could be the future.

I think as a 1099er you have to pay full freight as far as social security tax. Ouch!

Not legal.

There is an entire IRS chapter in regards to employee vs. private contractor. We're not private contractors.

 

[maria1oh]

Most companies don't care about pharmacist OT. they get paid the same rate as normal or in some markets it might be $3-5 extra per hour. I never heard a district manager flip out about pharmacist working OT. on the other hand they do flip out about techs being paid overtime because it is 1.5× their normal pay.

 

[rxdawg21]

I'm not sure how much money they would save by doing this. They might save on OT costs, but benefits costs are more expensive when they have more employees. Many employers adamantly do not want employees working less than 40hours because their benefits costs are so high.

Walmart wouldn't do this unless it benefitted them let's be clear on that. Secondly the only way this works is with people picking up shifts which is common place. It'll become even more competitive. If things continue down this path I don't want to know what retail will be like in 5 years.

 

[gwarm01]

It's past time to start unionizing. But we won't...

The best paid pharmacists in the country just happen to be a part of a pharmacy union, so I don't understand why people are so opposed to unionizing.

OP says they understand the business reasons for reducing hours. Of course you do! It would make great business sense to pay pharmacists $5/hr with no benefits to churn out scripts too, and believe me when I they would if they could.

We could stand up for ourselves and demand reasonable working conditions, or we can just accept it and watch things continue to deteriorate.

 

[Pharmd = Phake Doctor]

Sweetie, unionizing won't solve this. What we are seeing in pharmacy is but a microcosm of a corrupt system of unfettered credit creation that has metastasized across the globe. What the central bank mafia tried to do was pull demand forward, but they actually only created overcapacity everywhere.

This is it. We are done as a civilization perhaps. Kralizec, The Typhoon Struggle, is upon us.

Never expected a DUNE reference here.

 

[rxdawg21]

The best paid pharmacists in the country just happen to be a part of a pharmacy union, so I don't understand why people are so opposed to unionizing.

OP says they understand the business reasons for reducing hours. Of course you do! It would make great business sense to pay pharmacists $5/hr with no benefits to churn out scripts too, and believe me when I they would if they could.

We could stand up for ourselves and demand reasonable working conditions, or we can just accept it and watch things continue to deteriorate.

I understand the reason behind it, I think it's bull that we as pharmacists take it. Ridiculous how we've accepted progressive decline in workplace and have no one representing us and the pharmacy organizations are off in la la land pushing provider status and residencies like pa and np are going to step aside. Or physicians are going to be okay just diagnosing and expect same pay.

 

[N974]

I

Sweetie, unionizing won't solve this. What we are seeing in pharmacy is but a microcosm of a corrupt system of unfettered credit creation that has metastasized across the globe. What the central bank mafia tried to do was pull demand forward, but they actually only created overcapacity everywhere.

This is it. We are done as a civilization perhaps. Kralizec, The Typhoon Struggle, is upon us.

It absolutely would help solve this. This is EXACTLY what modern day unions do.

The human element of business is the only cost center that can be manipulated on a moments notice at the whim of the company. Leases, utilities, insurance, actual cost of goods, everything has a contract that requires negotiations to alter....everything except labor. A union changes that.

Ironically just the THREAT of a union changes many things for the better, in the companies attempt to prevent a union from being voted in. Even if you don't actually want a union, signing a union drive card to have the opportunity to vote for one reaps huge benefits, without actually having a union.

 

[Carol is Alpha]

I


It absolutely would help solve this. This is EXACTLY what modern day unions do.

The human element of business is the only cost center that can be manipulated on a moments notice at the whim of the company. Leases, utilities, insurance, actual cost of goods, everything has a contract that requires negotiations to alter....everything except labor. A union changes that.

Ironically just the THREAT of a union changes many things for the better, in the companies attempt to prevent a union from being voted in. Even if you don't actually want a union, signing a union drive card to have the opportunity to vote for one reaps huge benefits, without actually having a union.

Babydoll, you miss the real problem. It's oversupply of a commodity which what the pharm school bubble has made us. Unionizing won't magically create demand/jobs. At best it will only build an ark for those who have jobs. There will still be a horde of stranded pharmacists treading water in un-underemployment hell, despairing as the demon sharks of debt and broken self-esteem circle around.

 

[N974]

Babydoll, you miss the real problem. It's oversupply of a commodity which what the pharm school bubble has made us. Unionizing won't magically create demand/jobs. At best it will only build an ark for those who have jobs. There will still be a horde of stranded pharmacists treading water in un-underemployment hell, despairing as the demon sharks of debt and broken self-esteem circle around.

We are talking two different things. I partially agree with your oversupply statement, but that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about Walmart changing the job structure overnight. I stand by my statement that a union would absolutely have prevented that. That's what a union contract is.

As far as the oversupply, a union would help to some degree. Once REAL OT rates were paid (time and 1/2), the barely legal straddling of the hourly/salary line(where they pay hourly, but don't follow the hourly pay laws in many states) is ended, "soft" time eliminated, mandatory breaks, etc. Once all that was eliminated than they would need more pharmacists to cover the existing load.

Before people claim union's would destroy the business, look no further than Cali. Most union type rules are state law (mandatory OT not just after 40 per week, but 8 hours per day, mandatory breaks and real meal breaks), and I see no shortage of Wags or CVS' in Cali.

 

[zelman]

We are talking two different things. I partially agree with your oversupply statement, but that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about Walmart changing the job structure overnight. I stand by my statement that a union would absolutely have prevented that. That's what a union contract is.

As far as the oversupply, a union would help to some degree. Once REAL OT rates were paid (time and 1/2), the barely legal straddling of the hourly/salary line(where they pay hourly, but don't follow the hourly pay laws in many states) is ended, "soft" time eliminated, mandatory breaks, etc. Once all that was eliminated than they would need more pharmacists to cover the existing load.

Before people claim union's would destroy the business, look no further than Cali. Most union type rules are state law (mandatory OT not just after 40 per week, but 8 hours per day, mandatory breaks and real meal breaks), and I see no shortage of Wags or CVS' in Cali.

The difference between union agreements and California state law is that the employers don't have to agree with the law. I think you're right overall, but it's an important distinction to make. No negotiator will get things as good for employees as the government can.

 

[PAtoPharm]

So how does having a pharmacist only work 48 hrs or 64 hrs during a pay period match Walmart's "needs" better than just having a pharmacist work the standard 80 hrs per pay period? Aren't they just going to have to hire additional pharmacists to work the extra 16 hrs per pay period that aren't being worked by a pharmacist who's only getting 64 hrs?

@rxdawg21 , can I ask what state you're in? Wondering if this has made its way to the southeast yet....

 

[awval999]

So how does having a pharmacist only work 48 hrs or 64 hrs during a pay period match Walmart's "needs" better than just having a pharmacist work the standard 80 hrs per pay period? Aren't they just going to have to hire additional pharmacists to work the extra 16 hrs per pay period that aren't being worked by a pharmacist who's only getting 64 hrs?

Yes, I don't understand how this really saves Walmart any money.

They are still paying the same hourly rate to staff the store. In fact they are paying higher benefit costs for more employees.

It makes no sense. And in fact, probably why it's not true.

If they were that worried about paying "pharmacist OT" which we all know is straight time plus like $5 or so, they could just eliminate the "overage" rate and just pay straight time. It makes no sense to have multiple employees sucking up benefits working part-time.

 

[bacillus1]

So how does having a pharmacist only work 48 hrs or 64 hrs during a pay period match Walmart's "needs" better than just having a pharmacist work the standard 80 hrs per pay period? Aren't they just going to have to hire additional pharmacists to work the extra 16 hrs per pay period that aren't being worked by a pharmacist who's only getting 64 hrs?

@rxdawg21 , can I ask what state you're in? Wondering if this has made its way to the southeast yet....

Not having to pay benefits for those people? That may save a lot of money.

 

[PAtoPharm]

Not having to pay benefits for those people? That may save a lot of money.

But aren't they still paying benefits to pharmacists who work 32 hrs/week?

 

[netmag]

That would still leave the 48 & 56 hour (per 2 week) people not having to have benefits. In the OP's example, he noted that they could have 2 48 hour people to cover for one person. If they also didn't have to pay benefits to those people, then that would be a savings overall. So I guess the question is does this mean they would have people that they consider "salaried" that they didn't give benefits to? I thought I had read somewhere that they would still offer benefits to people under this, but not sure.

 

[zelman]

That would still leave the 48 & 56 hour (per 2 week) people not having to have benefits. In the OP's example, he noted that they could have 2 48 hour people to cover for one person. If they also didn't have to pay benefits to those people, then that would be a savings overall. So I guess the question is does this mean they would have people that they consider "salaried" that they didn't give benefits to? I thought I had read somewhere that they would still offer benefits to people under this, but not sure.

All those positions are offered the same benefits. The exception is vacation hours are relative to your base hours.

 

[rxdawg21]

I do not want to give too much away about my situation, but was told we are one of the last waves of people rolling out this new H2O program and I am in Georgia. My DM literally stated that no new grad and most likely no new position will be for more than a 64 hour position (besides PIC).

I think it's saving the company in several ways, right now any hourly associate gets paid drive time to and from stores, this benefits those that pick up shifts 1-2 hours away as they get an additional 2-4 hours per shift.

Also your paid time off benefits will decrease with the decrease in hours, as apparently your PTO accrues based on how much you work. (not familiar with this as this doesn't affect me, but this is what was stated at the meeting).

Several examples have been brought up for busier stores that have unique scheduling needs (say really busy early morning and early evening.) instead of having 2-3 pharmacist each working a 10 hour shift (or 2 10s and an 8), yet not have 3 pharmacist coverage until 11, 12, or 1 oclock. you would have a pharmacist work 8-6, 11-9, 9-1 and 3-7 per say thus affording "better" coverage.

My total understanding was this. Right now our scheduling is based on an average # of hours needed each week, currently this hourly number is skewed toward the high end. In the future (starting October here) our base hours will be skewed to the low end. (so say instead of having 3 full time (80 hour) pharmacists base line you now have 1 80 hour (pic) and 2 64 hours, with a 48-64 hour flexer that covers just a few stores in the district (doesn't float the whole district). This way most the year you will use less hours and when you need it during the year the hope is that other pharmacists will pick up shifts (likelihood is high due to more pharmacists on staff and people want to make money) to fully staff.

The whole selling point to pharmacists was this would allow you to have more flexibility in your home life environment (you are working less hours) and the possibility of getting more hours when the company needs it. They stressed flexibility quite often, along with being enthusiastic about Wal-mart.


Im sure that pharmacists working 48 and 56 hour positions will get limited benefits if any, as to qualify for health insurance you have to work 30 hours or somewhere near there, im sure they aren't going to make an exception.

If any current pharmacist reduces their workload they have to sign a whole new agreement agreeing to the terms and conditions, if you keep your current position you pretty much do nothing. So I'm sure benefits will be affected. They have been working on this for 3 years now, I'm sure this is optimized to benefit the employer.

 

[netmag]

Ok, so that takes the benefits angle out of it. So maybe it's just mainly for the stability of the fixed pay for salaried people.. i.e. just make everybody salaried, but allow some flexibility for people who want less hours.

 

[netmag]

Did you hear about this in a meeting yet or from the DM? I know from someone that works at Walmart that there is supposed to be a standard meeting for Walmart Pharmacists at the end of this month to talk about the latest "operating procedures". I wonder if they'll be talking about these changes there.

I do not want to give too much away about my situation, but was told we are one of the last waves of people rolling out this new H2O program and I am in Georgia. My DM literally stated that no new grad and most likely no new position will be for more than a 64 hour position (besides PIC).

I think it's saving the company in several ways, right now any hourly associate gets paid drive time to and from stores, this benefits those that pick up shifts 1-2 hours away as they get an additional 2-4 hours per shift.

Also your paid time off benefits will decrease with the decrease in hours, as apparently your PTO accrues based on how much you work. (not familiar with this as this doesn't affect me, but this is what was stated at the meeting).
.

 

[Chalupa_Batman86]

Let's get to the bottom line.

NEW GRADS ARE SCREWED.

 

[rxdawg21]

Did you hear about this in a meeting yet or from the DM? I know from someone that works at Walmart that there is supposed to be a standard meeting for Walmart Pharmacists at the end of this month to talk about the latest "operating procedures". I wonder if they'll be talking about these changes there.

Correct this was in a meeting that the Dm led also a mandatory one for my district. Have a week to select the new position you want based on what you were offered (hint they only offered you what you currently have or anything below that (unless pic then mandatory 72 or 80 hours) no one was offered more then what they currently get.

 

[Humble Sloth]

Babydoll, you miss the real problem. It's oversupply of a commodity which what the pharm school bubble has made us. Unionizing won't magically create demand/jobs. At best it will only build an ark for those who have jobs. There will still be a horde of stranded pharmacists treading water in un-underemployment hell, despairing as the demon sharks of debt and broken self-esteem circle around.

NO kinds of magic can change the future of pharmacy. Oversupply + weakened demand = the new pharmacist average salary of ~$55,000 a year working 22 hours a week on average. So after federal taxes pharmacists in 2020 will be making around $38,000 a year. If you were a fool and took out loans for more than 150,000 you will die before you break even. I feel bad for people that went to schools like Duquesne university (60,000*6 = 360,000 + interest = +400,000 in debt) and Saint Joseph in CT (75,000*3 = 225,000 + 50k interest graduating with $275,000). If you go to a three year school that costs more than 50,000 a year including rent and food or a four year that costs more than 35,000 a year with rent and food you are a fool.

 

[rxdawg21]

NO kinds of magic can change the future of pharmacy. Oversupply + weakened demand = the new pharmacist average salary of ~$55,000 a year working 22 hours a week on average. So after federal taxes pharmacists in 2020 will be making around $38,000 a year. If you were a fool and took out loans for more than 150,000 you will die before you break even. I feel bad for people that went to schools like Duquesne university (60,000*6 = 360,000 + interest = +400,000 in debt) and Saint Joseph in CT (75,000*3 = 225,000 + 50k interest graduating with $275,000). If you go to a three year school that costs more than 50,000 a year including rent and food or a four year that costs more than 35,000 a year with rent and food you are a fool.

I have to be even more strict then you, if you accrue >100k to do pharmacy in todays age (new admits) you are a fool. You have to weigh opportunity costs, I realize that maybe the future won't get much worse, but why bet 6 figures of debt and greater then 1k a month in student loan repayments for that possibility. (1k a month on a 6 figure salary is 18k a year pretax)
I will concede a low 6 figure debt level if you have the ability to live at home/dirt cheap like a college student for a few years, most people don't have that ability or will, and quite frankly spending 6+years in pharmacy school plus 4 years after school living like a monk to get out of debt doesn't sound like the best career route.

 

[PAtoPharm]

@rxdawg21 , thanks for providing that info on Project H20. I am located in GA myself and was thinking about applying to work as an intern at Walmart when I start pharmacy school this fall, but now now I'm having second thoughts about working for Walmart.

Did the DM say anything about how they're going to go about determining whose hours are getting cut? (assuming they don't get many pharmacists to volunteer to work fewer hours)

Also, what's with this talk of pharmacists having more flexibility and getting to spend more time at home? If a particular pharmacist who works for Walmart has worked 40 hrs/week for the past 5 years and enjoys working that many hours and making that much money, then how is cutting their hours down to 32 or 24 (or even fewer) going to do them any favors? Isn't 40 hrs/week what they signed up for?

... So what are the pharmacists whose hours get cut expected to do? Is it realistic to have 2 part-time pharmacist jobs with 2 different chains, or do scheduling conflicts make this not really possible?

 

[meister]

Wow.

 

[Judgment Dragon]

I know a person who works at Walmart as a pharmacist. This person is a floater pharmacist who only gets to work 24 hours per week.

 

[PAtoPharm]

I know a person who works at Walmart as a pharmacist. This person is a floater pharmacist who only gets to work 24 hours per week.

Is that their only pharmacist job?

 

[Judgment Dragon]

Is that their only pharmacist job?

Yes. He graduated from pharmacy school (USC) in June 2015.

 

[rxdawg21]

The DM said we were "grandfathered" in and that we wouldn't have our hours cut unless they volunteered for the reduction. Of course who knows what they will do in the future, Georgia is an at will state, meaning they can fire you for any reason (typically they don't due to possibility of lawsuits etc).

The flexibility argument is purely a positive spin to put on the situation, the company isn't going to say that they are screwing over your fellow pharmacists, of course they are going to have a pie in the sky approach. A big wig (the one who did powerpoint presentation (was recorded)) said that a lot of complaints he got was not enough staffing during peak hours and work life balance.

I think what most pharmacists mean by work life balance generally they are talking about not working til 9 o'clock several times a week (wal-mart use to close at 7 just 5 or so years ago), not working long hours on the weekend, not working most holidays, not having the major holidays of xmas and thanksgiving blacked out for time off, etc.

Clearly their spin on it is hey you work less hours you now get more time to be at home and the company benefits, win win for everyone. They literally said now instead of having a higher base number of hours and flexing down (thus causing pay uncertainity as full time hourly people were paid by the hour and not on salary) we are now lowering your base # so its stable and you can flex up (thus increasing your pay). Of course this means that you literally will make less and isn't positive

PAtoPharm you should take a different approach to this information, you should get out of pharmacy before you go into debt and regret it. Clearly the market is changing, only can imagine how bad it'll be in 4 years, especially if economy turns to a recession.

Also keep in mind I am not near Atlanta, I am in a typically hard to staff district.

 

[rxdawg21]

@rxdawg21 ,

... So what are the pharmacists whose hours get cut expected to do? Is it realistic to have 2 part-time pharmacist jobs with 2 different chains, or do scheduling conflicts make this not really possible?

You cannot work for 2 chains, a chain and hospital or independent maybe, 2 chains is a conflict of interest, they will not allow it.

 

[SoylentGreen]

It'll benefit the company because up until now, if you weren't a floater, it was strictly optional to pick up extra shifts at another store. I had DMs calling and begging me to go to some undesirable store on my day off, and we've had days at my 600 script/day store where one pharmacist had to work alone because they couldn't get anybody else. Now they will be able to more easily take care of stuff like that because there will be lots of hungry underemployed pharmacists ready to take it. And if somebody quits or goes on vacation it will be easier to cover that person's shifts, because there is more potential to flex up and fewer hours to cover per person.

Walmart's new PTO program gives us a lot of PTO so this has become more important. A 5 year pharmacist gets something like 6 weeks which is a lot to cover.

As a pharmacy manager I've leaned towards doing something similar with hourly staff (hiring more part timers) because it would tear such a huge hole in your schedule when you lost somebody when everyone was full time. It doesn't save money so much as make it possible to run the business more smoothly.

Giving pharmacy managers better hours than other pharmacists will also help make that **** sandwich look more appetizing.

 

[rxdawg21]

.

Walmart's new PTO program gives us a lot of PTO so this has become more important. A 5 year pharmacist gets something like 6 weeks which is a lot to cover.
.

The new PTO program is crazy, kinda wish I had stayed full time lol. But then the days I do work I wonder how I ever use to put in 40 hours in retail.

 

[Sine Cura]

In my California market (California being the land of hourly pay for pharmacists working in distribution), only staff pharmacists working at bad stores get 76 or 80 "guaranteed" hours per pay period. FT floaters are put at 54 to 64 hours.

In reality all full timers, whose hours vary from 54 to 80, are being scheduled at least 70 hours a pay period because there's always a need to cover PTO or those on leave.

 

[Lnsean]

Well it happened a tad earlier then I expected. Walmart is switching to h20 company wide by end of year. Now the salaried options per pay period (2weeks) are 48,56,64,72,80. My district manager literally said we are lucky and grandfathered in to 72 and 80 hour shifts. New grads and future openings in this market will not be above 64 hours, this ensures flexibility and that the market has better coverage. I understand the business side of it. I feel bad for the new pharmacists with 6 figures of debt when there are literally no full time jobs being offered at Walmart I'm sure nationwide in the near future. More companies will start this in full force. Mass underemployment is better then unemployment I guess. You would have to be a fool to do this.

Direct words their needs won't be matched with an 80 hour pharmacist but 2 48 hour pharmacists are going to match her needs a lot better.

walgreens has been doing something similar with their 32hr/week offers for new hires

 

[Lnsean]

Yes, I don't understand how this really saves Walmart any money.

They are still paying the same hourly rate to staff the store. In fact they are paying higher benefit costs for more employees.

It makes no sense. And in fact, probably why it's not true.

If they were that worried about paying "pharmacist OT" which we all know is straight time plus like $5 or so, they could just eliminate the "overage" rate and just pay straight time. It makes no sense to have multiple employees sucking up benefits working part-time.

You think you can outsmart a bunch of mba's in expensive suits sitting in a room chatting up how to reduce labor costs? walmart's got this figured out. You'll see soon enough. This program is nothing short of how I used to staff my stores when i was PIC. None of my techs got above 32hrs/week...which leaves you with alot of flexibility and bargaining power.

 

[rxdawg21]

walgreens has been doing something similar with their 32hr/week offers for new hires

Yes but once you had a store with Walgreens you were typically full time, CVS, Publix etc all start there floaters out at 30 and 32 hours and this has been common for years. What the big change to me is, this is affecting all future positions at actual stores (not floating) except PIC.


EDIT: Each DM gets to choose what positions they hire in the future, so clearly some 72 and 80 hour positions will still be available.

 

[Lnsean]

Yes but once you had a store with Walgreens you were typically full time, CVS, Publix etc all start there floaters out at 30 and 32 hours and this has been common for years. What the big change to me is, this is affecting all future positions at actual stores (not floating) except PIC.

Ah, i see. Walmart is taking it to the next level. The great saturation is here boys...

 

[farmadiazepine]

I don't understand how Kaiser pharmacists are able to unionize and get paid $70+ an hour, but the entire rest of the country can't do this.

 

[gwarm01]

I don't understand how Kaiser pharmacists are able to unionize and get paid $70+ an hour, but the entire rest of the country can't do this.

Because reasons? Beats me, man. Everytime it's mentioned someone waves it off as if it's just understood that unions are bad. I think people are just brainwashed by the establishment. I'd unionize in a heartbeat.

 

[Lnsean]

Because reasons? Beats me, man. Everytime it's mentioned someone waves it off as if it's just understood that unions are bad. I think people are just brainwashed by the establishment. I'd unionize in a heartbeat.

In a capitalistic society, you need unions to protect workers. corporations are untouchable these days.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

You know...honestly... since we are both pharmacists...and we are nearly out of debt...I wouldn't mind a situation where we can get benefits and both of us get part time hours. Hell, that would be a dream. 24 hours a week each and still 6 figures gross between us. Hmmm...

 

[PikminOC]

Yes, I don't understand how this really saves Walmart any money.

They are still paying the same hourly rate to staff the store. In fact they are paying higher benefit costs for more employees.

It makes no sense. And in fact, probably why it's not true.

If they were that worried about paying "pharmacist OT" which we all know is straight time plus like $5 or so, they could just eliminate the "overage" rate and just pay straight time. It makes no sense to have multiple employees sucking up benefits working part-time.

Is it so Walmart won't have to pay for health insurance?

 

[zelman]

Is it so Walmart won't have to pay for health insurance?

Incorrect. All salaried pharmacists get the same benefits. Even if they are salaried to work 24 hrs/week.