Posted on 11/04/2023 12:58:35 PM PDT by RomanSoldier19
I figured there must be a pharmacists union. That’s a job that in reality could be eliminated. Databases already know more about drug interactions than any pharmacist could possibly commit to memory. And pill dispensing machines are already a thing. I suspect the only reason they still exist is because laws specify that drug stores must have a licensed pharmacist on staff.
“how do you “bank” meds?..”
It depends on the exact meds and your particular situation...but if the meds are “divisible” into smaller doses/portions/pill size (pill cutters are your friend) and you find (by experimentation, one day at a time—nothing crazy) that a smaller dose will still work for you—you are good to go.
When I “confessed” what I had done to my doctor (a year after doing it :-) ) she said “that is fine—the lower dose is working for you and I will keep approving the standard dose so you can ‘bank’”.
Terms of employment
That’s not a contract. And includes the ability to quit. And take time off.
You’re still out in make believe land.
A binding agreement between two parties that’s enforceable by law is in fact a contract; thus, the often reported phrase “contract negotiations” concerning employment compensation and benefits.
My point regarding GAF concerns the pharmacist’s career decisions. The employment agreement, however, is a different matter given the performance expectations of the employed. Opposed to the career path, I’m clearly interested in the topic of pharmacists penalizing the consumers who’ve paid for their scripts months if not years in advance. Nonetheless, I do not care whether the pharmacist works or quits. And upon a strike, the participating pharmacists should be fired.
BTW, I have not condemned a single pharmacist and neither have I stated that any one is a slacker. And no doubt not every pharmacist embraces the strike agenda.
my healht maintance is a good scotch or whiskey
It’s a JOB. People are allowed to leave jobs. Even jobs that include collectively bargained contract structures. Part of that structure is still terms of departure. You can be fired and you can quit. Nothing about a CBA turns people into prisoners.
You are still living in make believe land. An “employment agreement” can still be ended or suspended by either party at will. They aren’t breaking any contract. You are simply confused.
I used to go to CVS and they had multiple pharmacists working. Then they cut the number down to one with a couple of clerks. Then they refused to honor the price of GoodRx or other discounts. Where I go now it’s half the price and there are no lines.
Right to Termination by either party is a given for any employment contract. For you to now express that ‘revelation’ puts you at adds with your earlier arguments that employment contracts do not apply.
You at #79
“They have no contractual obligation.”
And they don’t. And you’re still full of it.
Okay, genius, should they strike what legal mechanism will be sought after to secure their goals?
This is where things get very interesting. Because they aren’t actually in a union. So there won’t actually be any form of CBA. So there won’t be any legal mechanism at all. This whole walk out thing is really the pharmacists saying “this job sucks, fix it, or we’ll take our talents elsewhere”. Because it is a free country, and people can quit.
Agreed, and yes people can quit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.