Lloydspharmacy, Asda and Sainsbury's will not reimburse employees for 2011 RPS membership

Several pharmacy groups have decided not to reimburse employees for their Royal Pharmaceutical Society membership fees in 2011, C+D has learned.


Lloydspharmacy, Sainsbury's and Asda all said they would not pay the fee for their pharmacists, and the Co-operative Pharmacy has decided to reimburse pharmacists half of the cost of the fees.


Boots said it would support its pharmacists to be RPS members, and was "discussing the mechanics of payment" currently with the Society.


Pharmacists must renew their membership with the RPS by March 2011. The fee for pharmacist members is £192, reduced to £182 if payments are made by direct debit.


Lloydspharmacy said it had reviewed its position in light of the current challenging economic conditions and tariff reductions.


"We naturally encourage our people to join the Society, but feel this decision is best made on an individual basis," a spokesperson said. The multiple said it remained committed to supporting the RPS and would continue to work with it.


Asda superintendent John Evans said he would be joining the RPS personally, but an internal employee survey had suggested Asda pharmacists did not value joining the Society. Pharmacists said they would join if their employer had paid the fees, but most would not if they had to cover the costs personally.


"The Co-operative Pharmacy has always supported the formation of the RPS and we encourage all pharmacists to join. To support employee pharmacists becoming members from March 1, we have agreed to pay half the direct debit membership fee of £182," Janice Perkins, superintendent pharmacist at The Co-operative Pharmacy, said.

Comment on this article
You are not currently logged in. Login or register
Your Comments
Dorothy Drury, Locum pharmacist
Posted on 20 January 2011.
I notice that Boots is "directly" discussing the mechanism of payment with the society and I wonder what involvement will be given to the individual potential members on the joining of the society.
Top
Mayur Shah, Locum pharmacist
Posted on 21 January 2011.
This shows us how committed these companies are to pharmacy... how much they value the pharmacist apart from an unnecessary tool required by law to run a pharmacy, without pharmacists support RPS will be decay into oblivion...and as previously expected if the companies do not assist their emloyee pharmacists to join then ...we have a society without any teeth...compare that to the medical profession where they have always supported BMA and made it a voice to be heard ...so much so that they will be running the NHS and reaping rich rewards at the expense of the rest of the health care fraternity...
Top
Allan Wilson, PCT pharmacist
Posted on 21 January 2011.
this decision could be the nail in the coffin for the RPS
employee pharmacists will regard the PDA as being better value for money,with more clout to defend and protect individual pharmacists and with a vision for the future of pharmacy
Top
Umesh Dholakia, Superintendent
Posted on 21 January 2011.
It is ironic that Ms Perkins picture is used in the RPS advertising telling pharmacist's to join however the company she is the superintendent of will not pay the membership of the employee's she is in charge.I am sure she will be joining personally but it would be better that they not use her picture since i feel it is double standards!
Top
Gary Paragpuri, Editor, C+D
Posted on 22 January 2011.
Mayur, you make a very interesting point, but I'd like to challenge the notion that it's up to companies to pay their employees' subs to the RPS.

As a profession, let's be clear about what we need and why. An independent Royal College that develops elitism and innovation should be the ultimate target.

Such an organisation would benefit individual pharmacists, employers, and the public. And if such an entity existed, individual members would be queuing up join.

And if individuals pay - rather than their employers - it creates a much stronger organisation. And only then will it have the same status as the medical colleges.

But that's not what is being served up - or at least it doesn't appear to be to me. So it's understandable that individuals and employers are weighing up whether they should pay to join.

Also, we should not underestimate the difficulties posed by the current economic market and the category M mechanism.

Trading is not easy at the moment and all companies, from the smallest independents to the largest global multinationals are facing huge challenges. I'm not defending the decisions that companies make, but I do think we need to bear the economic situation in mind.

Gary Paragpuri
Editor, C+D
And MRPharmS (for now at least)
Top
Frost, Superintendent
Posted on 22 January 2011.
As one of the many potential members of the New Royal Pharmaceutical Society without a chance of my employer paying for me to sign up, I'm glad at this news. Our new society should have to attract it's members by being useful to it's members, rather than being quietly confident that there will be enough people joining by default.

We don't want the new RPS to be overweighted with members from one part of one sector who get their fees as a free perk. Membership should encompass proprietors, locums and non-community pharmacists equally.
Top
Mahmood Poonja, Pharmacist
Posted on 23 January 2011.
I work for a Multiple and have always been reimbursed for my fees as part of the package. This year they have paid for the GPhC fees of £262 but are pulling out of the RPS fees. This may appear to be a half way house, however, my personal opinion is that for these multiples, this is one way to show the commitment to Pharmacists and appreciate the professionalism that they bring to the Store so that they are not looked upon purely as retailers and provide a face of ethic that often gets forgotten.
I say wake up to all the Multiples and go forward to acknowledge your Pharmacists. £182 in the big picture is not worth withdrawing payment. The package will no doubt look better!!
Top
Dorothy Drury, Locum pharmacist
Posted on 23 January 2011.
The non-pharmacist fee has been set the same as the pharmacist fee, so will some Pharmacuetical firms be paying the fees of their non-pharmacist scientists?
I agree a professional fee should be an individual fee.
Top

Please note You must be a registered user of Chemist+Druggist and logged in to add comments. Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of Chemist+Druggist. Comments are considered in the public domain and may be used in future Chemist+Druggist coverage. We accept no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for the accuracy or the content of member comments.



 

Job of the week

Pharmacist & Technicians

Various locations

£45k + performance bonus

Follow C+D Jobs on