After reading Bush's new policy on overtime pay, I can't help but wonder "How come my work means less compared to lower-income workers??" According to the new policy, some professions (such as pharmacy) are NOT guarantee over-time pay for hours greater than 40 hrs/week. The policy only applies to lower-income workers.
Yes... The guarantee of OT pay for blue-collars workers is a great thing... but ... what about the rest of us?? No matter what your salary may be .... Hours put in at work are hours put in at work. Period. Salary should not be a basis of whether OT shall or shall not be paid.
Like the rest of America, white-collars and professionals are people who are trying to buy cars, put their children in college, pay their medical bills or pay the mortgage by working long hours too. So why aren't we guarantee the same labor rights? I think I moan and groan like everyone else when the alarm goes off and had drag myself off to work.
Winston Churchill once told his kids, "Do what you like, but like what you do."
This sucks! I thought we were going to be protected according to the latest union newsletter. Man, I'm so anti-Bush >:-
"Like the rest of America, white-collars and professionals are people who are trying to buy cars, put their children in college, pay their medical bills or pay the mortgage by working long hours too"
Unlike the rest of America, blue-collar workers are not people who are trying to buy BMW's, put their children in Harvard, pay their medical bills or pay the mortgage on a $700,000 house by working long hours.
Why don't you buy a Kia, send your kids to community college and buy $250,000 house. Then you should have plenty of money left over and wouldn't need to work OT anyway.
Think about what you do and how much you get paid for doing it. You work in a nice air-conditioned environment. Your health and safety are not at stake. The work you do has not been shown to shorten your lifespan. Perhaps you should mention that pharmacists get paid >$80,000 per year on average in the Chicago area. I don't think you should be complaining about a few extra dollars in overtime. If you aren't guaranteed overtime pay, don't do overtime.
Btw, your use of the word salary is incorrect. Salary is used to refer to people that receive a set payment independent of the amount of work performed. It has always been the custom that salaried workers don't get overtime. Traditionally, wage earners (those paid on an hourly basis) are the ones who get overtime.
It's not proven that our work shortens our lifespan, but nevertheless, our work is very stressful and we are liable for every script dispensed. One simple mistake can translate into a costly lawsuit.
In terms of overtime pay, I hope you know there's actually a lot more than a few extra dollars at stake.
Believe it or not, retail pharmacists actually get paid by the hour, just like a regular McD's employee, so why should we be denied overtime pay if we work overtime? If a McD's employee can qualify for overtime, why can't we since we must start our shifts on time, take our breaks at certain times, and be readily available at all times to service the public, just like a McD's employee? Bush's idiotic excuse to use our "salaried professional status" to deny us of our overtime pay is as lame as it gets.
To "greedy": The extra dollars amount is the not the argument here -- it is the idea of treating of all working American equally. OT should should be paid to all professions no matter what dollars amount we make.
"Think about what you do and how much you get paid for doing it."
Pharmacist do drug utilization review for each prescription dispensed at the pharmacy. I am sure you do not want to go to a pharmacy where you either get 1. the wrong medication 2. have a drug interaction 3. incorrect dosing, and etc.We are YOUR final checkpoint before any adverse drug reaction occurs.
"You work in a nice air-conditioned environment. Your health and safety are not at stake. The work you do has not been shown to shorten your lifespan"
You are may be right on the fact that our own safety are may not be at stake -- but standing +8hrs/day, not getting a full meal time break, or even not being able to go to the bathroom when one wanted to are not exactly healthy practices either. Muscle cramps, stomach ulcers, and bladder infection are a just a few health conditions a pharmacist may have in the long run. In addition, pharmacists deal on a daily basis the stress of having OTHERS health and safety at stake. A wrong dose or wrong medication could be a fatal to any patient.
For for the BMWs, house, and Ivy League schools... why not? If I can afford a BMW, a mansion, and send my kids to Harvard, I do so by working hard and EARNING it ... like rest of America.
Last but not least... DON'T HATE! =P
ditto =)
"Unlike the rest of America, blue-collar workers are not people who are trying to buy BMW's, put their children in Harvard, pay their medical bills or pay the mortgage on a $700,000 house by working long hours."
I don't know about points 1 and 4, but I just wanted to point out that there are plenty of students from different financial backgrounds at Harvard. I am also pretty sure blue-collar workers and their family members get sick occasionally and have medical bills to pay.
wow..
this topic is really getting hot.
Im thinking about reposting this.
when michelle put this out, i thought it was a just
"that sucks" story.
Because by using this new overtime law, the nation is trying to
balance the wages that people can earn.
But dont u think by this balance we are also limited what we could all become?
Another thing, i would appreciate names to comments.
this goes to "greedy" and "dontbeapu**y"
just leave names would be cool.
AND NO MORE FOUL LANGUAGE.
As for job selection as a pharmacist. There was a posting and a survey that had pharmacist as #1 on the top 10 stressful jobs.
As i remember reading it, that profession was #1 for a while only to be recently been beat by nursing.
I will post this later when i find the link.
Other than that, every profession seems easy compared to one who doesnt know what they actually do. Just a though to Greedy. Of course i am defending my profession because I, of all people, like my job.
If you would have asked me when i was in school or right after i graduated.
I HATED PHARMACY
The bitchy customers, the long hours, no breaks or lunches, achy legs, bitch doctors, nurses. Everyone. it was just stress that i didnt need.
Therefore, RXSUCKS.. (haha to those who know me)
But i find a new LOVE for this profession. And I dont mind working hard and long at my job because i find it satisfying.
Right now my company (OSCO) doesnt provide me with 1.5 time pay for OT. I find that unfair for those who work at other pharmacy's such as walgreens. I absolutely think that my work should be rewarded the same pay as those in the other company. I do the same job, if not better than some rphs !! :)
I find this as the same case in this comparision. it is just NOT FAIR.
And with the shortage of rph's out there, if you remove 1.5 pay, i guarentee that many will not work OT. More shortages and less pharmacists will lead to chaos in the pharmacy world. HAHA maybe our wage may increase due to this increased shortage. that would be funny.
another thing, if i do want to save money for my child to go to hardvard or any school that requires alot of money. God forbid i cannot make their lives easier by adding to their funds when tuition time comes. That would be a shame.
ALSO, my salary is hour based. SO, according to greedy definition, we should get OT pay.
but than again. greedy was uninformed... so we cant put that much against him.
Other than that. As i quoted from Alberto.
If i decide i want to buy a bmw, or big ass house.
IT IS BECAUSE I CAN.
haha
white-collars or blue-collars, we all want the same thing: drive a nice car,live in a big and beautiful house,and of course want the best for our children. we just earn them in different ways. Regardless, what you do for living, all professions are entitle to get OT pay.
"greedy", whoever you are, pharmacists are not salaried workers, so according to your definition,pharmacists should get OT pay. also, you need to do a little research on what pharamcists do,it seems like you don't know what you are talking about and clueless about the pharmacy profession. Pharmacy is one of the most stressful occupations,one mistake can lead to lawsuit or death.
"Regardless, what you do for living, all professions are entitle to get OT pay."
I assume you mean non-salaried positions. I'm not sure how cool clients would be if a law firm charged 1.5x for attorneys working over 40 hours/week, for example.
How would you guys feel if pharmacists became salaried?
Actually, salaried positions can be entitled to get OT pay. You ask how can that be? Well, let me explain. I haven't been completely honest with you all the whole time, but my fellow coworkers and I are really considered "salaried" employees by our employer. We are salaried for 40 hours and then after that we can get OT pay (well, maybe not anymore thanks to Bush).
Hmmm.... that seems to defy the very meaning of salary as stated by "greedy." Thanks to our union, our employer must consider our positions to be "salaried" since that term normally refers to the pay structures of professionals/white-collars and guess what, pharmacists are professionals! Confusing, huh? And to answer your question Ken, I don't mind being salaried as long as I can get OT pay :-)
i went to an pharmacy meeting today. And 1 big topic was quality assurance in medication errors. They threw out a fancy statistic which i was quite surprised.
98,000 deaths last year from medication errors.
This includes in hospital , retail , nuclear, etc.
They said the statisic was compared to other reasons of death in america and it was higher than the deaths due to accidents and cancer. Scary stuff.
There goes to the importance of our job. And i dont know what if it lowers our lifespan, but to err is human. And when we do, it could be life and death. And just this thought scares me.
Given that you are salaried professionals, I'm not sure how the pharmacy profession feels it is entitled to overtime pay, when other salaried professional occupations are not.
Overtime is intended to protect those who make less than a certain amount per week, those who make an hourly wage (non-salaried), and those who perform duties that are not primarily "administrative," "professional," or "executive" in nature (see Fair Labor Standards Act).
It seems to me that given your high salaries, high levels of education, and the nature of your work, most pharmacists should not qualify for this protection.
I'm just trying to understand why pharmacists deserve special protection that other white-collar professions do not get. Isn't eliminating OT pay for your salaried position merely making the term "salary" more consistent with its definition ("fixed compensation")? And if this job is so stressful, why would you want to work unrequired OT anyway?
[By the way, I don't want to be misinterpreted. I'm not saying pharmacists aren't important and that your work isn't important.
Nevertheless, surgeons, for example, do important lifesaving work, as well, ("one mistake can lead to lawsuit or death") and I don't believe that they receive overtime pay.]
FLSA
if anyone wants to read
In the end, "salary" is just a word and it should not be taken so literally that it is the sole defining factor in who can or cannot get overtime pay. This is an everchanging world and we must adapt to the conditions present or else, I hate to say, we won't survive.
There are actually a few excellent reasons that separate us from other professions which justify us to the entitlement of OT pay. As mentioned previously, one reason is the nature of our work which is now so retail-oriented that it mirrors that of fast food peons.
Another reason is the shortage of pharmacists in pharmacies in which OT pay is needed to attract pharmacists to work extra hours. Patients would not be happy if they cannot receive their medications since the law prohibits the dispensing of medications when a pharmacist is not present on duty (that includes when we go use the washroom, no meds can leave the pharmacy).
Lastly, pharmacists are not compensenated for their professional services. That is, patients can come to us and seek medical advice and recommendations for free. Can you think of any other professions where professionals do not charge for their services? I can't.
"Isn't eliminating OT pay for your salaried position merely making the term "salary" more consistent with its definition"
This is Bush's idiotic excuse to use our "salaried professional status" to deny us of our overtime pay. OT pay has been something we've always been getting, so why try to fix something that's not broken? Forgive he who does not know what he has done. Amen.
Ditto! =) I totally forgot about our professional consultation!! I think we are the only prfoession in which a client can come up to counter 24/7 and get free professional medical advice.
"Can you think of any other professions where professionals do not charge for their services?"
School teachers. ER surgeons.
"This is Bush's idiotic excuse to use our "salaried professional status" to deny us of our overtime pay. OT pay has been something we've always been getting, so why try to fix something that's not broken?"
It's popular to rag on the president's intelligence, but let's be objective and refrain from ad hominem attacks. It's "not broken" from your point of view because you're reaping the benefits. But qualification for OT pay is not determined by bathroom breaks or importance of your job or retail environment or whether or not there is a labor shortage in your particular field.
Overall, the changes to the labor law are not "idiotic," but in fact are pretty good. More low-wage employees are being protected. Many white-collar workers can earn more than before and still be protected. Many workers can still make up to $100,000 and earn OT.
Yet the new changes are still consistent with the ideal of the FLSA, which was intended to protect low-income, non-professional workers from working over 40 hours a week. You are considered a "learned professional." You have advanced knowledge in a field of science or learning, just like lawyers, medical doctors, theologians, accountants, actuaries, engineers, architects, teachers, and other scientists—all of whom do not qualify for overtime pay:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairpay/fs17d_professional.htm
Again, I ask, how—given the framework and the spirit of the FLSA—do you see yourselves as qualifying for protected overtime pay? (and as I understand it, pharmacists aren't even guaranteed OT pay under current law, as Patrick doesn't get it.)
I have no problems at all with the changes to the labor law that would protect OT pay for low-wage employees or whoever else. I think that's a good thing. The issue at hand is that Bush is removing OT pay from employees who have been entitled to it. Bush's framework doesn't take into account the importance of OT pay for us "learned professionals" and that's what I mean by "idiotic." He can simply add a clause that any employees who have been entitled to receive OT pay by union contract or whatever agreement shall remain eligible for OT pay, regardless of their salaried status.
As of now, there is a petition fighting for OT pay at http://www.saveovertimepay.org/
"ER surgeons"
Hmmm... maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you saying that they don't charge if they operated on me in an emergency? (Hook me up when I get old)
"School teachers"
If you can find me a school teacher who I can just walk up to at any time of the day and who can teach me Chinese a few minutes a day for free, then you have made your point :-)
Why is the average JOE so intimidated to use his name???
-----------------------------------------------
Dear readers,
At first i was moderating this entry because i thought "greedy's" opinion was within reason and that it was something i wanted further discussed.
OT pay and the pharmacy
This is my opinion.
Pharmacy has always been a profession that has not been understood well. As a student i realized that pharamcist has always been trying to prove themselves. In school they pump into our minds that we as pharmacist can do so much more. Disease state management, prescribing, immunizations, and many other things we can do in some sates. What they didn't teach us is the negative images that many people see us. As Sienfield put it--- "overgloried stockboys."
Michelle and others bring up a good point, we should be paid for what we do. If we go over the 40 hrs we should be paid OT just like everyone else. Whether we are considered salary or non salary i cannot define. I know that most pharamcist paychecks do say 40 hrs. And if i go under 40 hours i get paid less and yes Ken i dont get paid 1.5x pay.
But Ken brings up a good point. If a line HAS to be drawn between who can or cannot get overtime. Personally, I do not think it should be on pharmacy. I think we might be taking away more than just OT pay from them. It will be as if we are taking away a RIGHT that they have from a profession that struggles so hard to identify themselves to society that sees them as "pill stockboys."
However after "Yuppie's" 2nd entry it is apparent that this is more than a opinion in support of Bush's labor dispute and more of a personal vendetta toward the editors. I have deleted it as i have to the previous one that i find the language insuitable for our website.
This entry is offically closed. We'd like to thank everyone for their interest and input to this blog entry. We appriciate it and I would like to extend a hand out and say if you want to further discuss this please email each other. The emails should be left under then entries. (thats WHY we leave names and emails a concept greedy cannot understand).
Or AIM me at rxsucks
Sincerly,
Patrick
Dear readers,
I know i just closed the comments but after some thought i decided that this should be an open forum for discussion, especially about pharmacy (hence the name of this BLOG). So without further adieu, the comments are open again. Please keep your comments civil however. This is your last warning.
Patrick
well, now that the comments are open again, i guess i'll share my views that i sent out via email just now:
Bush is not removing OT pay from you. All that is changing is that it is clarified which professions are protected and which are not. But if Patrick doesn't get 1.5x for OT currently, that suggests to me there currently is no government protected OT pay for pharmacists, anyway. If your contract says that you receive OT pay, the change in law will not ban your employee from continuing to pay you 1.5x.
I'm not looking at it from the patient's side. Otherwise, are you saying that a customers don't pay for drugs in your store?
My point was that you claimed that pharmacists were the only professionals who were not compensated for their services. You are compensated for your time there--just like ER doctors and school teachers, who are not paid per patient or per student, respectively.
You're not on the clock 24-7. You're paid for your work, during whatever hours are scheduled for you. Just like a teacher is paid for her work, during whatever hours are scheduled for her. At the same time, a teacher often works many more hours past her scheduled school hours, grading papers, coming up with lesson plans, and as far as I know, no teacher is paid for overtime.
As an exception to overtime pay has ALWAYS been made for executive, administrative, and professional occupations, I don't see where pharmacists are eligible for protection.
For "antiyuppie":
Your opinions are welcome on our BLOG -- but disrespecting other people profession are not.
"Otherwise, are you saying that a customers don't pay for drugs in your store?"
When patients pay for their drugs, they're paying for goods, not services.
"If your contract says that you receive OT pay, the change in law will not ban your employee from continuing to pay you 1.5x."
That's great to hear, though I still don't find that entirely satisfying considering our contract expires in the near future.
OT pay is an important issue in pharmacy, especially in the community sector, and it's too bad that idiotic Bush doesn't see it the way that the majority of us does. I have never been more annoyed by a president's policies than Bush's (OT pay, Iraq invasion, Medicare RX coverage, abortion rights). Just curious, what's your take on Bush's policy regarding abortion rights?
LOL, check out this site: http://flash.bushrecall.org/
"When patients pay for their drugs, they're paying for goods, not services."
Your salary doesn't come out of thin air. If no goods were sold, your services would no longer be needed.
"I still don't find that entirely satisfying considering our contract expires in the near future.
"OT pay is an important issue in pharmacy, especially in the community sector, and it's too bad that idiotic Bush doesn't see it the way that the majority of us does."
It seems to me you're letting your views on Bush and some uncertainty about your upcoming contract expiration color your views of this legislation, which doesn't change pharmacists right to OT anyway.
Once again, regardless of the change, your OT pay was never mandated by the federal government in the first place. Bush didn't sit down at his desk one day and say, "Gosh, them pharmacists sure do make too much. Let's see what we can do about that..." Listing pharmacists as one of many "learned professions" was merely confirming the current interpretation of the law, since you weren't protected by the FLSA even before these proposed changes.
Given that, it's quite irrelevant what I think about Bush's stance on Iraq, Medicare, or abortion rights.
"Your salary doesn't come out of thin air. If no goods were sold, your services would no longer be needed."
The point here is that people do not have to pay when they come to us for medical advice or recommendations.
The OT pay argument is getting tedious, guys just let it go. we got your points=)P
Haha.. I am with you on that, Sherry! =)
yes dear :-*
barf.
I hope everyone is registered to vote.
Maybe we pharmacists are not buying fancy cars and houses, maybe we're
struggling financially, a point that nobody has considered thus far. The cost
of a graduate school for a pharmacist means he/she may be forgoing luxuries for
years. We definitely deserve overtime pay.
maybe i should have pursued that ph.d. in history after all. then i could get lots and lots of OT because i sacrificed all those prime years of my life to do historical research.