RPS tight lipped over membership figures

"Kirit Patel said Day Lewis was meeting with the RPS every quarter to see how it could derive financial benefits as "next year our decision will be solely based on return on our investment and not just political support".

This clearly means that Patel wants influence. This is the reason why pharmacists should NOT join the RPS. A professional body should represent members and not the needs of employers.

Don't join.

My hat off to Kirit Patel for supporting rps in full regardless of motive
After all.... boots did the same last year !!!!!
But revised to 50 % and am convinced next year will be nada ...
Well done Kirit

Put some of Boot's billion pound profit where your mouth is Paul Bennett!!! Support the very people who help you make that profit! Your hard working profession of pharmacists. No more words, action please.

Din:

Kirit is clearly backing the RPS in a substantial way- which is more than be said for many multiples who are providing ZERO contribution towards their pharmacists' fees. On the one hand those multiples who don't contribute are criticised for NOT doing so; on the other hand those multiples that DO pay the fees are also criticised.

For my own part (as an Independent) I can see nothing wrong in Kirit seeking a return on his investment which must run to hundreds of thousands of pounds. Why wouldn't he?

As for your assertion that the the RPS represents the needs of employers not members I challenge you to find one single example of that. As an Independent pharmacy champion and a member of the English Pharmacy Board I can assure you I would not tolerate such a thing.

Finally another challenge: to you and any other colleagues who doubt the RPS. Please attend an EPB meeting as my guest; you will have access to virtually all the papers; you will be able to observe AND TAKE PART IN the meeting and you will be able to see the minutes and actions because we publish them. If you can find a shred of evidence to back your assertions then I will eat my............ BNF??

Regards

Graham Phillips (EPB Member)

Before inception the RPSGB had secret meeting under Chatham House rules, behind the back of its members to determine what multiples would pay and for what benefit. Is that openness. Don't members have a right to know what as being said or promised?

Kirit Patel is honest, he wants a return on investement. He wants control, he wants the RPS to be pro-business and not pro-employee. That is why he pays. I admire the honesty.

However, what Patel should do is say we will pay the fees for RPS and we do not want anything in return. That is true commitment to pharmacy. He does not have that ethos.
The RPS is not a business organisation, but a professional body. It is wrong to buy influence over a professional body.

This is why I urge people NOT to join the RPS. The RPS is not independent if Patel thinks he can but influence and wants a ROI. That is not what a professional body is about.

The RPS supports contract limitation (control of entry). That is pro business and not employee as employees cannot open next to an existing business and compete. They are slaves of employers, working in 3rd world conditions, for 10 hours a day often without a break and even without a stool to sit on.

The RPS does nothing. It does not campaign for payments for additional services to the workers. If it did Kirit would not pay. It does not campaign for free competiion, else Kitit would not pay. It does not support workers rights, and the shops act, else Kirit wouldn't pay. What exactly does it do?

Oh, it enforces another layer of professional rules to control members. It operates 35 hour weeks, subsidised canteens, high salaries and pensions for RPS employees, and guess what - members pay. No employee of the RPS should earn more than 10% of what a locum earns. Why join an organisations where people sit in an ivory tower earning £80K+ a year paid for by its members, when members generally earn half this?

The RPS does not support maximum dispensing volumes per pharamcist, else Kirit would not pay.

Enough to eat your hat?

I do not even know what the English Pharmacy board is, is it another irrelevant organsiation like the RPS is?

The RPS is dead and will not survive, nor does it deserve to.

Din. I have challenged you to find me a SINGLE example of where the RPS has supported the multiples "against" the interests of its members and you have failed to do so.

As for Kirit, he is a past treasurer of the "old" RPSGB - he gave unstintingly of his time and was one of the best treasurers the RPSGB ever had. Yes he wants to see a return - like anyone else - me included. Are we not right to have such expectations or are you suggesting we just hand our money over to the RPS (like we had to do in the bad old days before the split) with no expectations?

You are assuming that the sort of return he is looking for is in some way in conflict with the sort of return I am looking for, or you for that matter should you join. I repeat, the National Boards set the strategy for the RPS, from which derives its business plan. There simply IS no bias towards the multiples.

It would be better for all concerned if you stopped the insults and concentrated upon evidence and facts.

As you state, you don't even know what the English Board is.......maybe you should spend five minutes looking at the RPS website before making assumptions about how it works.

I repeat, you or any other pharmacist - member or not - are welcome to attend a Board meeting and see for yourself what goes on

Regards


Graham

Graham- i dont know who you are but can say one thing i agree with Din whole heartily after witnessing what my pharmacist directors went through after being accused of inappropriate conduct on counselling someone in a consultation roon. RPSGB pulled all the stops out to make him guilty befire being proven innocent. They went as far as getting one of their hound dog inspectors to come out and get me to sign him off ( in front of customers and staff in the pharmacy ) as mentally instable when they were clutchig and straws. The Fitness to Practice Commitee Hearing in their ivory tower in Lambeth ( full of important looking people not doing much ) was a joke where the accused was cleared for the original charge but then the Fitness to Practice Committee went after him on something else- saying his behaviour had been deplorable. He was cleared of this also- but then the Judge made the ruling that pharmacists are not capable of carrying out physical examinations which is currently a big point of debate in the Pharmaceutical Journal- alot of pharmacists and lecturerers are extremely concerned at such a poposterous decision. Any way as for Kirit maybe he should maybe back NPA more if he is looking for a business based solution and dumped membership of the RPSGB hopefully that will help in bring this antiquated and money zapping organisation down

The RPS has no function and should be made instinct....full of Dinosaurs.....who have for too long undermined pharmacists and persecuted pharmacists at any chance....I am sure we have all seen cases in the past when they were the regulator.

Most patients have no idea what pharmacists are capable of and this has to be blamed on the RPS, a body in only a name.

We pharmacists need a new body... one on our side.....its about time we had revolution in the pharmacy profession.

sorry meant Extinct.......

Hi Neeraj.

I'm a lifelong, second-generation community pharmacist. For more info look at our website www.manorpharmacygroup.co.uk.

I'm also one of the elected members of the RPS English Pharmacy Board. But you're criticism is NOT of the RPS! That's the professional body. Its the regulator (The GPhC) with whom you have your issue.

I'm not in a position to comment upon an individual case but if you're argument is that we have had far too much stick (from the old RPSG and far too little carrot then I 100% agree.

Individual pharmacists need their Unions (PDA) to defend them; Contractors likewise need the NPA and PSNC. But EVERY SINGLE pharmacist, from every sector needs the RPS - the professional body - to make us a successful profession. Take a look here at what the RPS is all about:

http://www.rpharms.com/membership/renew.asp?intlink=HP_renew

Regards

Graham

Asif - but we DO have a new body - you are confusing the old RPSGB (and I by-and-large agree with your criticism of it). The new RPS has no regulatory role. Compare the two:

Look here:

http://www.rpharms.com/membership/renew.asp?intlink=HP_renew

And here:

http://pharmacyregulation.org/

Hi Graham. Unfortunately for me the damage has occurred and it is permanent. They were the regulator when my case was dealt with and lets just say the tactics used would make you cringe. The can change their name, logo, but the damage has happened..... rather burn the money than give it to this organization......I don't think I am the only one that feels like this.

Its a shame.....I was so proud to be a member of this once.

I've personally decided not to join the RPS since the changeover. I did not feel that there were enough benefits offered by the RPS, which were not already provided elsewhere. I didn't think much of the RPSGB and have been generally happy with the GPhC as a replacement, from what I have seen and read.

CPD, Networking and career support/pharamacist are covered adequately by my employer, NES and the PDA and would have been the main areas of benefit for me from the RPS for me.

I would have loved to have had a "free trial" of the RPS, but my employer chose not to pay for the fees so I've made up my mind....

for now it's not worth £200/year...

Hi Asif- I feel as strongly as anyone in the profession about the old RPSGB. After all, I was one of four pharmacists including Mark Koziol of PDA that took the old Society to the high court in an attempt to halt its regulatory excess.

But that was the "old" Society and the new RPS is nothing like it. If the RPS has exsisted in its current form then you and may others would not have suffered at its hands. Please think about it. The RPS has moved on - but has the profession noticed??

Regards

Graham

Hi Andrew.

Of course its your choice whether to join or not..... but what would make the difference? What more would the RPS need to do to persuade you to join it? I agree NES is an excellent organisation but I bet NES would see the absolute necessity of having a strong, effective professional body - and that means we all need to join and support it

Regards

Graham

Hi Andrew, I'm running for election to the RPS Scottish Pharmacy Board this year & would be delighted to hear any views you have on what the Society could/should be doing to make membership (more) worthwhile.

I'm a patient-facing community pharmacist & I value NES and other organisations that help me with my day to day work & CPD etc, but I still feel very strongly that RPS has a big role to play in assisting practising pharmacists with their working lives.

I think it is for each pharmacist to decide whether they join or not, I respect that, we all have our choices to make. My aim, if elected, will be to try my very best to ensure the RPS in Scotland does all it can to support community pharmacists in their provision of the new contract services, especially CMS, and other practical measures to assist those working at the coal face. If you'd like a copy of my 'manifesto' please e-mail me at jonathan@rightmedicinepharmacy.com (not sure if I've broken any rules in saying that, if so, sorry ed.!).

This is not the old RPSGB, it's the new RPS and it really is up to those of us who are members to 'chip in' and make it into something that all pharmacists will value & wish to join on a voluntary basis. I think that is all I would ask of any pharmacist exercising their right not to join at this point, give us a chance and re-visit the benefits of joining each year, hopefully at some point in the future you'll feel that being a member is worthwhile.