Where to accept a job? Walgreens? Albertson's? Or IHS?

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

SciPharm

Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
17
Reaction score
2
Hello,

I'm having a really hard time trying to narrow down where to accept a job. Much like other recent grads in the nation, I'm in debt. The job offer from Walgreens is as a pharmacist manager position so I know it'll be a crazy work environment but a manager makes a good load of cash. The job offer from Albertson's is for a staff pharmacist position. And IHS is an entry level pharmacist position. Probably make the least amount of money here but most people I've talked to said they love working as a clinical pharmacist for IHS. Albertson's job offer is in a different state so I'd have to take the law exam in that state after passing the NAPLEX whereas the other 2 jobs are within my respective state so no need for any additional license.

I'm curious what others would choose if in my situation.

Thanks for your responses!

Members don't see this ad.
 
you got a problem lots of new grads want to have lol
whats the pay difference between all 3? cost of living differences? tax burden differences?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
you got a problem lots of new grads want to have lol
whats the pay difference between all 3? cost of living differences? tax burden differences?
Heh very true. I consider myself lucky.

IHS is GS-11 step 1. All of the jobs are out of town so I definitely have to take into consideration moving expenses as well.
Walgreens and Albertson's are in the process of writing up my official offer so I don't know the exact hourly or annual income they're offering as of yet but I've been reading on SDN for an approximation.
IHS is a federal government job so that would be good when it comes to taxes. Whereas the other jobs I'm sure I'd get to 90k - 110k after taxes.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
IHS.

You will regret Walgreens in six months, guaranteed.

Hello,

I'm having a really hard time trying to narrow down where to accept a job. Much like other recent grads in the nation, I'm in debt. The job offer from Walgreens is as a pharmacist manager position so I know it'll be a crazy work environment but a manager makes a good load of cash. The job offer from Albertson's is for a staff pharmacist position. And IHS is an entry level pharmacist position. Probably make the least amount of money here but most people I've talked to said they love working as a clinical pharmacist for IHS. Albertson's job offer is in a different state so I'd have to take the law exam in that state after passing the NAPLEX whereas the other 2 jobs are within my respective state so no need for any additional license.

I'm curious what others would choose if in my situation.

Thanks for your responses!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
Heh very true. I consider myself lucky.

IHS is GS-11 step 1. All of the jobs are out of town so I definitely have to take into consideration moving expenses as well.
Walgreens and Albertson's are in the process of writing up my official offer so I don't know the exact hourly or annual income they're offering as of yet but I've been reading on SDN for an approximation.
IHS is a federal government job so that would be good when it comes to taxes. Whereas the other jobs I'm sure I'd get to 90k - 110k after taxes.


dont over estimate your post tax income, especially when youre single. also you want to contribute to tax advantaged accounts like 401k and ira to max your tax deductions. for me my take home pay after all deductions is about 55% to 60%. I contribute to 401k, IRA, HSA, FSA, and other miscellaneous stuff like malpractice insurance, accidental work insurance, long term disability thru employer, ect.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
dont over estimate your post tax income, especially when youre single. also you want to contribute to tax advantaged accounts like 401k and ira to max your tax deductions. for me my take home pay after all deductions is about 55% to 60%. I contribute to 401k, IRA, HSA, FSA, and other miscellaneous stuff like malpractice insurance, accidental work insurance, long term disability thru employer, ect.

You're right. I'm trying to see the best case scenario in the long term.

With the way retail pharmacies are saturated nowadays, it seems retail is not the way to go even though I'd make more money in it. I don't want it to be the deciding factor in my career. I have to enjoy what I do and I think I'm leaning towards IHS, not to mention the job security with IHS.

Pencilandpen, which job would you choose and why? lol this sound like an interview question
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I am going to save you from heart disease and mental illness. Go with IHS.

I was a PIC in a busy retail pharmacy.. I mean just look at my posting history - I have gone absolutely bat**** crazy..

Hehe jk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
dont over estimate your post tax income, especially when youre single. also you want to contribute to tax advantaged accounts like 401k and ira to max your tax deductions. for me my take home pay after all deductions is about 55% to 60%. I contribute to 401k, IRA, HSA, FSA, and other miscellaneous stuff like malpractice insurance, accidental work insurance, long term disability thru employer, ect.

You're not allowed to have both HSA and FSA. How do you contribute to both?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
IHS hands down
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Thank you everyone for your input! You've just confirmed what I already was leaning towards but now I definitely know which job to choose now.

Anyone here working for IHS right now? I know each IHS is different but what aspect of the job do you enjoy the most and what is your least favorite working at IHS?
 
I am a bit biased, but I would definitely go IHS if it is in a geographic location you're comfortable with. If you have no disqualifying medical conditions, you could convert over to the Commissioned Corps after you get hired on as a civil servant, and that's where you can get even better benefits and tax advantages, as well as unique career progression opportunities. Once you're part of the Commissioned Corps network, it's a lot easier to build connections with federal pharmacists in agencies like FDA, CMS, BOP, ICE, DHA, and several others, and you could take your career in many different directions. Your take home pay may be less than a Walgreens manager (at least as an O-3 with less than two years of service), but you will still make a good living, and you can't beat the benefits, lifestyle, and opportunities with the federal government (and especially the Commissioned Corps, and especially if you put in 20 years and get that sweet retirement benefit).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I'd probably choose IHS. Also, I'd look into the loan repayment program that they offer. I remember reading about this couple years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
I am going to save you from heart disease and mental illness. Go with IHS.

I was a PIC in a busy retail pharmacy.. I mean just look at my posting history - I have gone absolutely bat**** crazy..

Hehe jk

Mind if I ask which retail pharmacy you worked for? I ask because I was at Walmart until just recently and I was part of the unfortunate group that got laid off during the mass layoffs this year. I've worked in retail for as long as I can remember and yes I agree it does take its toll on your mental/heart health but retail is all I've done for the past 10 years and I'm a bit nervous about starting IHS since I've never worked at a hospital/clinic pharmacy (except from APPEs).

JustFillIt, do you work for a hospital pharmacy now? Mind sharing the pros and cons of having the experience of working both retail and hospital pharmacies?

I've had customers throw their Rxs at me and demand getting their prescription ready in 10 mins. Or last year I had a crazy opiate addict who couldn't understand they couldn't get their opiates because it was too early to get so the patient threw a fit and cussed me out and my entire pharmacy staff. It was intense! So yes JustFillIt, I understand the crazy part. lol I might already be there too.
 
IHS.

Retail is garbage. Cut cut cut is all the think about. Retail employers will want you to do more for less every year until you get cut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
[...]I'm a bit nervous about starting IHS since I've never worked at a hospital/clinic pharmacy (except from APPEs).

If this is an outpatient pharmacist position with IHS, it will be pretty similar to retail, just more relaxed and not having to deal with third party payer headaches. If it is an inpatient staff position, there will be a bit more of a learning curve, but as long as you're willing to embrace it and do some homework, it's certainly a doable transition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I am a bit biased, but I would definitely go IHS if it is in a geographic location you're comfortable with. If you have no disqualifying medical conditions, you could convert over to the Commissioned Corps after you get hired on as a civil servant, and that's where you can get even better benefits and tax advantages, as well as unique career progression opportunities. Once you're part of the Commissioned Corps network, it's a lot easier to build connections with federal pharmacists in agencies like FDA, CMS, BOP, ICE, DHA, and several others, and you could take your career in many different directions. Your take home pay may be less than a Walgreens manager (at least as an O-3 with less than two years of service), but you will still make a good living, and you can't beat the benefits, lifestyle, and opportunities with the federal government (and especially the Commissioned Corps, and especially if you put in 20 years and get that sweet retirement benefit).

First, thank you for your response!

Second, I've actually contacted the recruiter at Commissioned Corps and they are not taking in any new pharmacists, nurses, dietitians, environmental health or engineers currently. And they're not quite sure when these positions may open up again. IHS or USPHS is being saturated with pharmacists as well (just like retail) and it seems like it'll be a while until this opportunity opens up again for pharmacists.

Mind if I ask if its easier to convert to Commissioned Corps until after I'm hired on as a civil servant even when there are no job availabilities within the Commissioned Corps (according to their online website and recruiter)? Does the amount of time I've served as a civil servant count for if and when I get hired on as a Commissioned officer? So in other words, would I start off as an O-3 or O-4 and probably start off at step 1, huh? Does the amount of time you've worked at Commissioned Corps also go with you if you transfer to lets say FDA or CMS, etc?

Sorry for all the questions :p
 
I'd probably choose IHS. Also, I'd look into the loan repayment program that they offer. I remember reading about this couple years ago.

Thanks for the input!

Yeah I did look into the loan repayment program. I still have to follow up concerning this matter with my supervisor about it before getting hired on at IHS but as far as I recall during the interview, I was told that there would be a contract I would have to sign for 1 or 2 years of service if I was considering loan repayment program. I hate contracts but we'll see what happens.
 
First, thank you for your response!

Second, I've actually contacted the recruiter at Commissioned Corps and they are not taking in any new pharmacists, nurses, dietitians, environmental health or engineers currently. And they're not quite sure when these positions may open up again. IHS or USPHS is being saturated with pharmacists as well (just like retail) and it seems like it'll be a while until this opportunity opens up again for pharmacists.

Mind if I ask if its easier to convert to Commissioned Corps until after I'm hired on as a civil servant even when there are no job availabilities within the Commissioned Corps (according to their online website and recruiter)? Does the amount of time I've served as a civil servant count for if and when I get hired on as a Commissioned officer? So in other words, would I start off as an O-3 or O-4 and probably start off at step 1, huh? Does the amount of time you've worked at Commissioned Corps also go with you if you transfer to lets say FDA or CMS, etc?

Sorry for all the questions :p

Those are all great questions!

Yes, the Commissioned Corps is currently not taking new applications for pharmacists - this isn't necessarily because there isn't a need for pharmacists or that there are no jobs available, but more because there is a GREATER need for other professions, and the Corps has to prioritize how it utilizes the limited resources it has for processing applications for new accessions.

It will be much easier for you to join the Corps via conversion after you're hired as a civil servant. Mainly because 1) you already have a job lined up, which is one of the things that you're required to do to complete your application for a commission with the Corps and 2) you will have more opportunities to develop relationships with people involved in the process of converting to the Corps.

Up to 5 years of service as a civilian in IHS can be carried over to your career with the Corps. What that means is that when you commission, you'll already have up to 5 years that counts towards your retirement. I am not 100% sure, but I think it also means it will count towards time-in-service when calculating your pay and your eligibility for promotion. You will still start off as an O-3, but you'll be up for promotion to O-4 fairly quickly. There are no "steps" in the military pay scale, just rank and time in service. If you transfer to another agency as a Commissioned Corps officer, you take everything with you (your time in service, annual leave accrued, etc.) - you basically belong to the Commissioned Corps throughout your career, but you can be assigned to different agencies during that career. That's one of the main advantages of being a Corps officer - you can have career "ADHD", move around the country, do all sorts of different assignments, all the while belonging to the same overarching organization and maintaining the same benefits and personnel system throughout your career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If this is an outpatient pharmacist position with IHS, it will be pretty similar to retail, just more relaxed and not having to deal with third party payer headaches. If it is an inpatient staff position, there will be a bit more of a learning curve, but as long as you're willing to embrace it and do some homework, it's certainly a doable transition.

The job entails both in and outpatient. I'm guessing I might be staying in the outpatient more then the in at least initially I think I will.

Most definitely I'm willing to learn and do my homework so yes I hope the transition will be manageable.

Thank you very much for your input today giga! I appreciate your time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Thanks for the input!

Yeah I did look into the loan repayment program. I still have to follow up concerning this matter with my supervisor about it before getting hired on at IHS but as far as I recall during the interview, I was told that there would be a contract I would have to sign for 1 or 2 years of service if I was considering loan repayment program. I hate contracts but we'll see what happens.

Yep. "...in exchange for an initial two-year service commitment to practice in health facilities serving American Indian and Alaska Native communities." That sounds like a good deal to me because it also gives you some kind of security on job
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Heh very true. I consider myself lucky.

IHS is GS-11 step 1. All of the jobs are out of town so I definitely have to take into consideration moving expenses as well.
Walgreens and Albertson's are in the process of writing up my official offer so I don't know the exact hourly or annual income they're offering as of yet but I've been reading on SDN for an approximation.
IHS is a federal government job so that would be good when it comes to taxes. Whereas the other jobs I'm sure I'd get to 90k - 110k after taxes.

I'd go with Albertsons or IHS. It really depends on the camaraderie/work culture of the place as well as what you want to do long term. GS-11 step 1 with IHS doesn't tend to pay well, I'm willing to bet the albertsons/walgreens will pay more. However, IHS may provide relocation assistance. Have you asked that site? As for loan repayment, each IHS site has a "score". Basically, the more remote a site, the higher the score and the higher chance you receive loan repayment. However, two years ago I heard that they are only renewing people currently enrolled in loan repayment and didn't offer any new contracts. Don't quote me on this, though.

Since you mentioned the IHS site has inpatient & outpatient roles, it would make it easier to apply to other hospital sites later down the road. Also, you'd be basically in a "hybrid" position sharing dispensing and clinical duties with the other pharmacists. However, many sites have staffing issues where people leave every 2 years. Other sites, usually the ones in big cities (Phoenix, Albuquerque) are well-staffed but have very few openings.

If the Albertsons pays more and is well-staffed and you get a good vibe with the manager, I don't think it's a bad choice. It ultimately comes down to what is the better fit for you. If you want to PM me the name of the IHS site, I might be able to give you more info.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Hello,

I'm having a really hard time trying to narrow down where to accept a job. Much like other recent grads in the nation, I'm in debt. The job offer from Walgreens is as a pharmacist manager position so I know it'll be a crazy work environment but a manager makes a good load of cash. The job offer from Albertson's is for a staff pharmacist position. And IHS is an entry level pharmacist position. Probably make the least amount of money here but most people I've talked to said they love working as a clinical pharmacist for IHS. Albertson's job offer is in a different state so I'd have to take the law exam in that state after passing the NAPLEX whereas the other 2 jobs are within my respective state so no need for any additional license.

I'm curious what others would choose if in my situation.

Thanks for your responses!
IHS Hands down just to give you a clearer picture, GS-11 is not GS-11 in the normal scale it is a title X scale ranging from $110 K upwards with your GS 0660 position with IHS. GS-11 also means you will most likely be in an outpatient setting since most GS-12 are usually inpatient. However, WAG managers/retail space is very saturated and working for IHS you will qualify for loan forgiveness within the agency as well as the PSLF etc. not with WAG and etc retail whose "****-load" of cash is probably just a couple thousands more but with less tax benefits so at the end of day your IHS position is the best route in this case for the long run. But if you like to gamble for for WAG or albertson in a heart-beat but the IHS will not be waiting for you in 6 months but I guarantee WAG and albertson will wait for you in 6 months to 1 year. In this current job market retail pharmacy is at the bottom of the food chain no lie so why will feed at the bottom?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
IHS and never look back. That will open so many more doors for you down the line, not to mention the government benefits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
IHS.

You will regret Walgreens in six months, guaranteed.
Keep in mind that Walgreens will be in a city where you could meet and associate with the opposite sex. Working at IHS you might think you can travel to the city but that gets old, as does the isolation and lack of companionship in any form.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Do IHS, eat beans and rice, get yoked, and use IHS to pay off your student debt while you stockpile cash.... good plan boyos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
IHS is a federal government job so that would be good when it comes to taxes. Whereas the other jobs I'm sure I'd get to 90k - 110k after taxes.

Maybe if you have 10 kids. You will be in the 24% tax bracket. So maybe 90k if you are making $120,000, don't expect more than that. Plus, you will have to subtract your insurance premiums (health, dental, life, disability, cancer (I'd skip this one), nursing home (I'd skip this one also) , 401-K (put in at least the minimum to get matching). So yeah, expect your take-home pay to be substantially lower than 90k - 110k.

I have no advice to add on which job you should take, other than what you've been given.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You're not allowed to have both HSA and FSA. How do you contribute to both?
idk, I have been contributing to both. I have high deductible health insurance, so for that I have HSA, and I also contribute additional amount to FSA which must be used up by end of every year. I try to calculate the amount I will need for a year and leave all the money in HSA untouched, I actually have most of money in HSA in stocks. HSA money does not expire, my goal is to save up a sizeable chunk in HSA money while I am on the high deductible insurance so in the future I have a chunk of money just dedicated to health care.
just ways to try to minimize taxable income.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I am a bit biased, but I would definitely go IHS if it is in a geographic location you're comfortable with. If you have no disqualifying medical conditions, you could convert over to the Commissioned Corps after you get hired on as a civil servant, and that's where you can get even better benefits and tax advantages, as well as unique career progression opportunities. Once you're part of the Commissioned Corps network, it's a lot easier to build connections with federal pharmacists in agencies like FDA, CMS, BOP, ICE, DHA, and several others, and you could take your career in many different directions. Your take home pay may be less than a Walgreens manager (at least as an O-3 with less than two years of service), but you will still make a good living, and you can't beat the benefits, lifestyle, and opportunities with the federal government (and especially the Commissioned Corps, and especially if you put in 20 years and get that sweet retirement benefit).

Spartan 'if' applies to the Commissioned Corps right now, and @giga understands that too in terms of holding their end of the bargain. I'm also in agreement that usually Civil Service works best for long -term careers, but I'm going to write a couple of devil's advocate thoughts.

It's an impersonal bureaucracy at best, malevolent at worst. Most have been on the receiving end of nonsensical orders from DC. Leadership fluctuates between inspiring, dysfunctional, and Machiavellian with an undertone of incompetence from the 2000 mile pen. There will be days, possibly years that the only motivation is getting to pension as you are stuck with the sunk cost fallacy of giving up much ahead of time. That's government in general.

In specific, the tribes has a bitter relationship between DoI and HHS. This results in a philosophical difference between the HHS attitude of "we clinicians know best" elitism which results in parochial attitudes toward the tribes or DoI BIA "the tribes know best" where tribal leadership does know their community needs and positioning, but are uneducated about hospital administration and have political practices that are ok for the tribe but would be felonious conduct under the Hatch Act if you were to engage in them. This contest results in alternate leadership regimes between HHS and DoI which switch out when the HHS acts too high handedly to their charges, I mean, patients, which result in the population refusing to utilize services which drive up the cost, and DoI which appoints tribal leadership to run the system, which without ever seeming to recruit any tribal member with reasonable business background, much less healthcare management, the facility inevitably hits ruin. Finally, there are cross purposes within both HHS and DoI. HHS needs the IHS because without it, a key pillar of the reason for the CC's existence becomes moot (because part of the reason why CC has that status is to deal with the tribes as internally foreign governments). DoI has less savory reasons, the main one being Black Mesa projects. As long as the tribes live on the land, DoI has massive control over its disposition and zoning. Should enough tribes leave the reservation, most of the land then would fall under either HUD's (for residential planning), Commerce (for economic planning), and especially Department of Energy, because the land that many tribes have are the last key unspoiled domestic water and energy resources. The DoI's Beltway reasons for fiercely keeping the BIA under their authority is that they can use those lands as bargaining tools with the other agencies when it comes to the Budget, and historically, the DoI has absolutely no problem with displacing Native Americans when the money is good enough. This is called the "Black Mesa" problem, and it has a fascinating history on whether the BIA is actually the caretakers of the Native Americans OR their land, because even other elements within DoI have competing interests.

Given all of this, I STILL recommend working for the civil service, but you have to be internally motivated to stay. If you think you don't want to be committed, I actually would say take the money from the chains even though you don't have career security at all. If you do commit, realize that IHS has lifestyle implications as well as professional ones. If you run a half-mile for every stupid or corrupt thing you see, you'll be in great shape for marathon running in three months. Work in DC for IHS, you'll easily be in the ultramarathon class. But without a good internal motivation and the endurance to stay, it becomes very hard. Even the dumb who try ignoring everything eventually get axed before they can cash in, keeping your head down is not always a good strategy (as evidenced by the fact that you can see IHS and other civil service positions all the time). The churn is hard, and the survival requires an ability to see things through in spite of the institution many times. If you have the internal fortitude to endure and think you can go the distance, join the civil service.

And not to give mine or anyone else's statements in confidence away, part of the membership of this forum uses it in a way to talk about some of the particularly stupid, corrupt, and otherwise incomprehensible behavior of this institution of the United States Government. We all have our moments. Up until two weeks ago, I was serving time in a forced sinecure, because I mouthed off about a data issue a year ago that would get the VA's budget screwed over if unaddressed. Now that IG has cleaned house yet again after rediscovering just how in the red we are, they want to reassign me back to a position to fix the messes that others have made (and who are now gone). I actually said to the IG that this sinecure is fine for me and better for my health and marriage, so you can find someone other victim for this as I've 'suffered' enough that I tried to prevent the mess, I'm not going to clean this up. I'm now waiting for the inevitable forced personnel transfer as that excuse will only buy me a month or two of tranquility. But, I also happen to know that the personnel officer who would be able to sign off on that order retires effective September 30th, and the replacement has to face Senate hearings, so I will be off the hook for the rest of this year, and by then, the biennial budget for the Defense and VA will either pass or be in continuance such that when I do come back, it will be with a clean slate and not from the negative red. In any event, I know the organization will eventually get what they want, but the entire point of all of this is to get what they want on my terms and not theirs.

That's the sort of thinking that you start to do when you work here long enough, how do I accomplish the mission knowing how dysfunctional this place is? Clinical or technical work, that's easy. Getting the job done while keeping sane, that's not so easy. Getting other people to do the things that you need done to do your job, well, that's the challenge here in the civil service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
IHS and never look back. That will open so many more doors for you down the line, not to mention the government benefits.
This. For sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
On paper, IHS>Albertsons>Walgreens

I heard there are pharmacists who finished their contracts with IHS and left because the location was just too remote and too far away from family or where they want to live.

I say go for IHS. Worse case scenario, If it doesn't work out, you can leave after your IHS contract ends. Take advantage of the IHS student loan repayment benefit. Above all, the hybrid experience you gain at IHS can help you apply for an inpatient or outpatient hospital pharmacist job. Good Luck!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
idk, I have been contributing to both. I have high deductible health insurance, so for that I have HSA, and I also contribute additional amount to FSA which must be used up by end of every year. I try to calculate the amount I will need for a year and leave all the money in HSA untouched, I actually have most of money in HSA in stocks. HSA money does not expire, my goal is to save up a sizeable chunk in HSA money while I am on the high deductible insurance so in the future I have a chunk of money just dedicated to health care.
just ways to try to minimize taxable income.

FYI the IRS doesn't allow you or your spouse to have a combination of HSA+FSA unless it's a limited purpose FSA or DCFSA. I would read up on it. I had to cancel my wife's FSA when I got my HSA.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
IHS is a great environment for pharmacists in principle, but the actual IHS experience depends 100% on the given location because politics there can be crazy vicious, worse than any retail and on par with some of the worst hospitals, if not worse. So if the location you interviewed at seems like it's a nice place and not one where everyone is backstabbing everyone else, go for it. Otherwise... Walgreens used to have 20% first year turnover rate for a reason, if you haven't worked for them as an intern, you probably will hate it as a pharmacist. Albertson's is also less than great, as any retail. And it always comes down to your DM and your actual store(s) when you work retail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
IHS Hands down just to give you a clearer picture, GS-11 is not GS-11 in the normal scale it is a title X scale ranging from $110 K upwards with your GS 0660 position with IHS. GS-11 also means you will most likely be in an outpatient setting since most GS-12 are usually inpatient. However, WAG managers/retail space is very saturated and working for IHS you will qualify for loan forgiveness within the agency as well as the PSLF etc. not with WAG and etc retail whose "****-load" of cash is probably just a couple thousands more but with less tax benefits so at the end of day your IHS position is the best route in this case for the long run. But if you like to gamble for for WAG or albertson in a heart-beat but the IHS will not be waiting for you in 6 months but I guarantee WAG and albertson will wait for you in 6 months to 1 year. In this current job market retail pharmacy is at the bottom of the food chain no lie so why will feed at the bottom?

Everything you've said is very true. I've been leaning towards IHS anyway so this input from everyone really helped me out.

Let me ask you though, GS-11 pay depends on geographic location, right? As far as I recall, for a pharmacist 0660 position, GS-11 step 1, I'd start off at $86k and work up. I'm not sure where you saw $110k or I'm not looking at the most up to date pharmacist 0660 position GS-11 step 1 pay chart.

But you're right, no need to start off at retail since every year retail job is getting scarier and scarier for the average RPh d/t the fact that any of the retail places can let you go (or fire you for some idiotic reason) in an instant then I'm back to square one. Its less likely at Albertson's but for sure you're more likely to get fired from WAG or CVS or Walmart.

Thanks for your input!
 
Keep in mind that Walgreens will be in a city where you could meet and associate with the opposite sex. Working at IHS you might think you can travel to the city but that gets old, as does the isolation and lack of companionship in any form.

Heh very true. Its about a 30 min drive from IHS work site to nearest town/city. But I'm married and I've got 2 kids so I don't need any more companionship. Its hard enough keeping this companionship going....heh
 
Spartan 'if' applies to the Commissioned Corps right now, and @giga understands that too in terms of holding their end of the bargain. I'm also in agreement that usually Civil Service works best for long -term careers, but I'm going to write a couple of devil's advocate thoughts.

It's an impersonal bureaucracy at best, malevolent at worst. Most have been on the receiving end of nonsensical orders from DC. Leadership fluctuates between inspiring, dysfunctional, and Machiavellian with an undertone of incompetence from the 2000 mile pen. There will be days, possibly years that the only motivation is getting to pension as you are stuck with the sunk cost fallacy of giving up much ahead of time. That's government in general.

In specific, the tribes has a bitter relationship between DoI and HHS. This results in a philosophical difference between the HHS attitude of "we clinicians know best" elitism which results in parochial attitudes toward the tribes or DoI BIA "the tribes know best" where tribal leadership does know their community needs and positioning, but are uneducated about hospital administration and have political practices that are ok for the tribe but would be felonious conduct under the Hatch Act if you were to engage in them. This contest results in alternate leadership regimes between HHS and DoI which switch out when the HHS acts too high handedly to their charges, I mean, patients, which result in the population refusing to utilize services which drive up the cost, and DoI which appoints tribal leadership to run the system, which without ever seeming to recruit any tribal member with reasonable business background, much less healthcare management, the facility inevitably hits ruin. Finally, there are cross purposes within both HHS and DoI. HHS needs the IHS because without it, a key pillar of the reason for the CC's existence becomes moot (because part of the reason why CC has that status is to deal with the tribes as internally foreign governments). DoI has less savory reasons, the main one being Black Mesa projects. As long as the tribes live on the land, DoI has massive control over its disposition and zoning. Should enough tribes leave the reservation, most of the land then would fall under either HUD's (for residential planning), Commerce (for economic planning), and especially Department of Energy, because the land that many tribes have are the last key unspoiled domestic water and energy resources. The DoI's Beltway reasons for fiercely keeping the BIA under their authority is that they can use those lands as bargaining tools with the other agencies when it comes to the Budget, and historically, the DoI has absolutely no problem with displacing Native Americans when the money is good enough. This is called the "Black Mesa" problem, and it has a fascinating history on whether the BIA is actually the caretakers of the Native Americans OR their land, because even other elements within DoI have competing interests.

Given all of this, I STILL recommend working for the civil service, but you have to be internally motivated to stay. If you think you don't want to be committed, I actually would say take the money from the chains even though you don't have career security at all. If you do commit, realize that IHS has lifestyle implications as well as professional ones. If you run a half-mile for every stupid or corrupt thing you see, you'll be in great shape for marathon running in three months. Work in DC for IHS, you'll easily be in the ultramarathon class. But without a good internal motivation and the endurance to stay, it becomes very hard. Even the dumb who try ignoring everything eventually get axed before they can cash in, keeping your head down is not always a good strategy (as evidenced by the fact that you can see IHS and other civil service positions all the time). The churn is hard, and the survival requires an ability to see things through in spite of the institution many times. If you have the internal fortitude to endure and think you can go the distance, join the civil service.

And not to give mine or anyone else's statements in confidence away, part of the membership of this forum uses it in a way to talk about some of the particularly stupid, corrupt, and otherwise incomprehensible behavior of this institution of the United States Government. We all have our moments. Up until two weeks ago, I was serving time in a forced sinecure, because I mouthed off about a data issue a year ago that would get the VA's budget screwed over if unaddressed. Now that IG has cleaned house yet again after rediscovering just how in the red we are, they want to reassign me back to a position to fix the messes that others have made (and who are now gone). I actually said to the IG that this sinecure is fine for me and better for my health and marriage, so you can find someone other victim for this as I've 'suffered' enough that I tried to prevent the mess, I'm not going to clean this up. I'm now waiting for the inevitable forced personnel transfer as that excuse will only buy me a month or two of tranquility. But, I also happen to know that the personnel officer who would be able to sign off on that order retires effective September 30th, and the replacement has to face Senate hearings, so I will be off the hook for the rest of this year, and by then, the biennial budget for the Defense and VA will either pass or be in continuance such that when I do come back, it will be with a clean slate and not from the negative red. In any event, I know the organization will eventually get what they want, but the entire point of all of this is to get what they want on my terms and not theirs.

That's the sort of thinking that you start to do when you work here long enough, how do I accomplish the mission knowing how dysfunctional this place is? Clinical or technical work, that's easy. Getting the job done while keeping sane, that's not so easy. Getting other people to do the things that you need done to do your job, well, that's the challenge here in the civil service.

My interviewer told me of the changes they're wanting to change in the IHS location but is unable to do so due to bureaucracy. For example, the IV room at the IHS location was below standard and definitely not up to par per USP regulations but somehow it still got built that way and now the fight happens to either add to make it right or keep it just the way it is and make do with what you have since the place is tight on budget or whatever the reason is for not being able to fix and bring the room up to code. This was just one of the problems that was brought up during the interview. But I'm fairly thick skinned and I do have the mental attitude that I will commit to this place but time will tell. I've given IHS or PHS a lot of thought and I definitely want to be in it for the long haul. My main long term goal is to become a well rounded pharmacist clinician and from what most people are telling me, why not do that within PHS?

Thanks for your input!
 
Spartan 'if' applies to the Commissioned Corps right now, and @giga understands that too in terms of holding their end of the bargain. I'm also in agreement that usually Civil Service works best for long -term careers, but I'm going to write a couple of devil's advocate thoughts.

It's an impersonal bureaucracy at best, malevolent at worst. Most have been on the receiving end of nonsensical orders from DC. Leadership fluctuates between inspiring, dysfunctional, and Machiavellian with an undertone of incompetence from the 2000 mile pen. There will be days, possibly years that the only motivation is getting to pension as you are stuck with the sunk cost fallacy of giving up much ahead of time. That's government in general.

In specific, the tribes has a bitter relationship between DoI and HHS. This results in a philosophical difference between the HHS attitude of "we clinicians know best" elitism which results in parochial attitudes toward the tribes or DoI BIA "the tribes know best" where tribal leadership does know their community needs and positioning, but are uneducated about hospital administration and have political practices that are ok for the tribe but would be felonious conduct under the Hatch Act if you were to engage in them. This contest results in alternate leadership regimes between HHS and DoI which switch out when the HHS acts too high handedly to their charges, I mean, patients, which result in the population refusing to utilize services which drive up the cost, and DoI which appoints tribal leadership to run the system, which without ever seeming to recruit any tribal member with reasonable business background, much less healthcare management, the facility inevitably hits ruin. Finally, there are cross purposes within both HHS and DoI. HHS needs the IHS because without it, a key pillar of the reason for the CC's existence becomes moot (because part of the reason why CC has that status is to deal with the tribes as internally foreign governments). DoI has less savory reasons, the main one being Black Mesa projects. As long as the tribes live on the land, DoI has massive control over its disposition and zoning. Should enough tribes leave the reservation, most of the land then would fall under either HUD's (for residential planning), Commerce (for economic planning), and especially Department of Energy, because the land that many tribes have are the last key unspoiled domestic water and energy resources. The DoI's Beltway reasons for fiercely keeping the BIA under their authority is that they can use those lands as bargaining tools with the other agencies when it comes to the Budget, and historically, the DoI has absolutely no problem with displacing Native Americans when the money is good enough. This is called the "Black Mesa" problem, and it has a fascinating history on whether the BIA is actually the caretakers of the Native Americans OR their land, because even other elements within DoI have competing interests.

Given all of this, I STILL recommend working for the civil service, but you have to be internally motivated to stay. If you think you don't want to be committed, I actually would say take the money from the chains even though you don't have career security at all. If you do commit, realize that IHS has lifestyle implications as well as professional ones. If you run a half-mile for every stupid or corrupt thing you see, you'll be in great shape for marathon running in three months. Work in DC for IHS, you'll easily be in the ultramarathon class. But without a good internal motivation and the endurance to stay, it becomes very hard. Even the dumb who try ignoring everything eventually get axed before they can cash in, keeping your head down is not always a good strategy (as evidenced by the fact that you can see IHS and other civil service positions all the time). The churn is hard, and the survival requires an ability to see things through in spite of the institution many times. If you have the internal fortitude to endure and think you can go the distance, join the civil service.

And not to give mine or anyone else's statements in confidence away, part of the membership of this forum uses it in a way to talk about some of the particularly stupid, corrupt, and otherwise incomprehensible behavior of this institution of the United States Government. We all have our moments. Up until two weeks ago, I was serving time in a forced sinecure, because I mouthed off about a data issue a year ago that would get the VA's budget screwed over if unaddressed. Now that IG has cleaned house yet again after rediscovering just how in the red we are, they want to reassign me back to a position to fix the messes that others have made (and who are now gone). I actually said to the IG that this sinecure is fine for me and better for my health and marriage, so you can find someone other victim for this as I've 'suffered' enough that I tried to prevent the mess, I'm not going to clean this up. I'm now waiting for the inevitable forced personnel transfer as that excuse will only buy me a month or two of tranquility. But, I also happen to know that the personnel officer who would be able to sign off on that order retires effective September 30th, and the replacement has to face Senate hearings, so I will be off the hook for the rest of this year, and by then, the biennial budget for the Defense and VA will either pass or be in continuance such that when I do come back, it will be with a clean slate and not from the negative red. In any event, I know the organization will eventually get what they want, but the entire point of all of this is to get what they want on my terms and not theirs.

That's the sort of thinking that you start to do when you work here long enough, how do I accomplish the mission knowing how dysfunctional this place is? Clinical or technical work, that's easy. Getting the job done while keeping sane, that's not so easy. Getting other people to do the things that you need done to do your job, well, that's the challenge here in the civil service.
Spartan 'if' applies to the Commissioned Corps right now, and @giga understands that too in terms of holding their end of the bargain. I'm also in agreement that usually Civil Service works best for long -term careers, but I'm going to write a couple of devil's advocate thoughts.

It's an impersonal bureaucracy at best, malevolent at worst. Most have been on the receiving end of nonsensical orders from DC. Leadership fluctuates between inspiring, dysfunctional, and Machiavellian with an undertone of incompetence from the 2000 mile pen. There will be days, possibly years that the only motivation is getting to pension as you are stuck with the sunk cost fallacy of giving up much ahead of time. That's government in general.

In specific, the tribes has a bitter relationship between DoI and HHS. This results in a philosophical difference between the HHS attitude of "we clinicians know best" elitism which results in parochial attitudes toward the tribes or DoI BIA "the tribes know best" where tribal leadership does know their community needs and positioning, but are uneducated about hospital administration and have political practices that are ok for the tribe but would be felonious conduct under the Hatch Act if you were to engage in them. This contest results in alternate leadership regimes between HHS and DoI which switch out when the HHS acts too high handedly to their charges, I mean, patients, which result in the population refusing to utilize services which drive up the cost, and DoI which appoints tribal leadership to run the system, which without ever seeming to recruit any tribal member with reasonable business background, much less healthcare management, the facility inevitably hits ruin. Finally, there are cross purposes within both HHS and DoI. HHS needs the IHS because without it, a key pillar of the reason for the CC's existence becomes moot (because part of the reason why CC has that status is to deal with the tribes as internally foreign governments). DoI has less savory reasons, the main one being Black Mesa projects. As long as the tribes live on the land, DoI has massive control over its disposition and zoning. Should enough tribes leave the reservation, most of the land then would fall under either HUD's (for residential planning), Commerce (for economic planning), and especially Department of Energy, because the land that many tribes have are the last key unspoiled domestic water and energy resources. The DoI's Beltway reasons for fiercely keeping the BIA under their authority is that they can use those lands as bargaining tools with the other agencies when it comes to the Budget, and historically, the DoI has absolutely no problem with displacing Native Americans when the money is good enough. This is called the "Black Mesa" problem, and it has a fascinating history on whether the BIA is actually the caretakers of the Native Americans OR their land, because even other elements within DoI have competing interests.

Given all of this, I STILL recommend working for the civil service, but you have to be internally motivated to stay. If you think you don't want to be committed, I actually would say take the money from the chains even though you don't have career security at all. If you do commit, realize that IHS has lifestyle implications as well as professional ones. If you run a half-mile for every stupid or corrupt thing you see, you'll be in great shape for marathon running in three months. Work in DC for IHS, you'll easily be in the ultramarathon class. But without a good internal motivation and the endurance to stay, it becomes very hard. Even the dumb who try ignoring everything eventually get axed before they can cash in, keeping your head down is not always a good strategy (as evidenced by the fact that you can see IHS and other civil service positions all the time). The churn is hard, and the survival requires an ability to see things through in spite of the institution many times. If you have the internal fortitude to endure and think you can go the distance, join the civil service.

And not to give mine or anyone else's statements in confidence away, part of the membership of this forum uses it in a way to talk about some of the particularly stupid, corrupt, and otherwise incomprehensible behavior of this institution of the United States Government. We all have our moments. Up until two weeks ago, I was serving time in a forced sinecure, because I mouthed off about a data issue a year ago that would get the VA's budget screwed over if unaddressed. Now that IG has cleaned house yet again after rediscovering just how in the red we are, they want to reassign me back to a position to fix the messes that others have made (and who are now gone). I actually said to the IG that this sinecure is fine for me and better for my health and marriage, so you can find someone other victim for this as I've 'suffered' enough that I tried to prevent the mess, I'm not going to clean this up. I'm now waiting for the inevitable forced personnel transfer as that excuse will only buy me a month or two of tranquility. But, I also happen to know that the personnel officer who would be able to sign off on that order retires effective September 30th, and the replacement has to face Senate hearings, so I will be off the hook for the rest of this year, and by then, the biennial budget for the Defense and VA will either pass or be in continuance such that when I do come back, it will be with a clean slate and not from the negative red. In any event, I know the organization will eventually get what they want, but the entire point of all of this is to get what they want on my terms and not theirs.

That's the sort of thinking that you start to do when you work here long enough, how do I accomplish the mission knowing how dysfunctional this place is? Clinical or technical work, that's easy. Getting the job done while keeping sane, that's not so easy. Getting other people to do the things that you need done to do your job, well, that's the challenge here in the civil service.

True. It’s best to make a career in the federal government. Better benefits, job security, holidays, better work/life. If everyone would realized this and worked for the government, a German naturalized citizen once joked to me, that we’d basically have communism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
My interviewer told me of the changes they're wanting to change in the IHS location but is unable to do so due to bureaucracy. For example, the IV room at the IHS location was below standard and definitely not up to par per USP regulations but somehow it still got built that way and now the fight happens to either add to make it right or keep it just the way it is and make do with what you have since the place is tight on budget or whatever the reason is for not being able to fix and bring the room up to code. This was just one of the problems that was brought up during the interview. But I'm fairly thick skinned and I do have the mental attitude that I will commit to this place but time will tell. I've given IHS or PHS a lot of thought and I definitely want to be in it for the long haul. My main long term goal is to become a well rounded pharmacist clinician and from what most people are telling me, why not do that within PHS?

Thanks for your input!

If that interviewer is in your leadership chain, that's a good sign that this person is a reasonably ethical and realistic person, and I would say that working for that person is less likely to end badly. Those are the sort of real day-to-day challenges that happen in the IHS (and elsewhere in the civil service) all the time, and if they were willing to be frank with you (who is not committed at all yet about this), either this person really doesn't care about the politics and/or is a responsible pharmacist in spite of the bureaucracy at times.

On the other hand, if the person on the other hand was this ultrapositive, rah rah, pharmacy fake, that person would use you like many of the narcissists in the business. See that all the time, the beauty of it is that they are the ones who end up the most used.

However, whether you stay civil service or commission, there are pluses and minuses to both if you read the other threads. For my part, I actually don't think the CC is worth all the after hours work as well as the stamp collecting (as well as there is at least one point in your career where you are forced to accept a bad assignment), but some people just love the uniform and the institution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
True. It’s best to make a career in the federal government. Better benefits, job security, holidays, better work/life. If everyone would realized this and worked for the government, a German naturalized citizen once joked to me, that we’d basically have communism.

No, Beamter have a very different working relationship with the German government than the US Civil Service. Most of the C4/W3 professors I know (mostly Heidelberg) wouldn't last six months here, and the sort of work expectations are much less than what the US has of its people (and I think the majority of the US Civil Service are at best mediocre and within distance of being actively harmful to citizens).

And the US used to have these features, but we chose a different path by not having Mittelwerk or a labor movement worth a damn due to Mafia corruption. You work for Wal-Mart, taking the money but nothing else even though there were alternatives. You had and have a choice to change. In Germany, you really don't when you are tracked to grammar or regular school. Socialism constrains choice, but puts a floor underneath many useless people. In the US, we pay welfare for most of those useless people, and I for one am very happy that these people aren't in the workforce. Bringing them in the workforce makes us less productive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
No, Beamter have a very different working relationship with the German government than the US Civil Service. Most of the C4/W3 professors I know (mostly Heidelberg) wouldn't last six months here, and the sort of work expectations are much less than what the US has of its people (and I think the majority of the US Civil Service are at best mediocre and within distance of being actively harmful to citizens).

And the US used to have these features, but we chose a different path by not having Mittelwerk or a labor movement worth a damn due to Mafia corruption. You work for Wal-Mart, taking the money but nothing else even though there were alternatives. You had and have a choice to change. In Germany, you really don't when you are tracked to grammar or regular school. Socialism constrains choice, but puts a floor underneath many useless people. In the US, we pay welfare for most of those useless people, and I for one am very happy that these people aren't in the workforce. Bringing them in the workforce makes us less productive.

Students aren’t tracked today as they once were. How do I know? I grew up there.

And Germany is a capitalistic country.

Capitalism is associated with people and societies having choices and economic freedoms. The United States is not even ranked in the top 10 countries for economic freedom as ranked by the Heritage Foundation. People living in Canada, the UK, Switzerland and Australia have more economic freedom than we do. And, these countries, like Germany, have healthcare for all. In addition, the people don’t have to pay ridiculous drug prices that we do. Why? Because the government has policies (what people here in the US deem as evil, social policies), that prevent corporations from exploiting the little man which in turn gives them more economic freedom.

No one on this forum knows what a Beamter means. Not sure what the fancy terms are intended for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
No, Beamter have a very different working relationship with the German government than the US Civil Service. Most of the C4/W3 professors I know (mostly Heidelberg) wouldn't last six months here, and the sort of work expectations are much less than what the US has of its people (and I think the majority of the US Civil Service are at best mediocre and within distance of being actively harmful to citizens).

And the US used to have these features, but we chose a different path by not having Mittelwerk or a labor movement worth a damn due to Mafia corruption. You work for Wal-Mart, taking the money but nothing else even though there were alternatives. You had and have a choice to change. In Germany, you really don't when you are tracked to grammar or regular school. Socialism constrains choice, but puts a floor underneath many useless people. In the US, we pay welfare for most of those useless people, and I for one am very happy that these people aren't in the workforce. Bringing them in the workforce makes us less productive.

And one last thing. The entire idea of tracking students isn’t such a terrible one. If you prohibit an individual from choosing a certain field, then yes. However, if there was some element of tracking, not tracking itself, but some element of this, which would prevent an excessive amount of applicants into one field, we wouldn’t have what we do today in pharmacy.

We have a ridiculous amount of students running to pharmacy school graduating and then not being productive members of society because they can’t find a job, whereas other fields might have few applicants.

If there was something in place to make students aware of what awaits them should they choose a field, well that would certainty be productive. And if there was some kind of guidance or education for students deciding what field to choose which made them aware of careers that they may never have heard of in which they can also make a decent living, well that would certainly also be productive as well.

This would be an intervention, call it evil socialism if you may, but it would none the less be extremely helpful to the individual and society as a whole.
 
True. It’s best to make a career in the federal government. Better benefits, job security, holidays, better work/life. If everyone would realized this and worked for the government, a German naturalized citizen once joked to me, that we’d basically have communism.
it's hard to get a government job though. i looked at the job openings for VA pharmacist. it's like 10 pages long of requirements, qualifications, expectations, etc. they expect you to send in your school transcripts, your grades, fingerprinting, long ass cover letters, residences, etc, all this stuff right off the bat with your initial application
 
it's hard to get a government job though. i looked at the job openings for VA pharmacist. it's like 10 pages long of requirements, qualifications, expectations, etc. they expect you to send in your school transcripts, your grades, fingerprinting, long ass cover letters, residences, etc, all this stuff right off the bat with your initial application

In what I saw, VA systems are notoriously difficult to get into. They only take the cream of the crop.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Yes, a person might feel stuck in a job, might be overworked, and well, my friend probably if you go for Walgreens or Albertsons both companies provide the same services to some point. If you look at Walgreens or Albertsons the pay at both is very high. If I need to decide from both anyone and if I had worked at Albertsons I would choose them and reason might be many things that could be the same comparing with that Wegmans. Both Wegmans and Albertson employees need to use their own portal such as direct2hr Albertson's login portal for the employee at Albertsons to create a good working atmosphere. If was an ordinary person I might overthink and went into depression.
 
Top