Pharmacy Officer

[ballz]

ballz:

Tell me where students are getting into pharmacy school with one year of university ALL THE TIME? Certainly not in Ontario. Are you aware that pharmacy will soon become a professional doctorate degree program and already is in Quebec? You seem to have an attitude towards pharmacy for some reason....I have no idea why that is. Log Os do not require a CA designation to be employed as a Log O. Pharmacists are required to have a pharmacy degree and pass licensing requirements to be employed as pharmacy officer. Big difference. Also, I'd like to see the Chartered Accountant that would work for 70k a year. Sorry, but your argument is flawed.

And I don't know if you've been paying attention to what's been said, but I haven't made any sort of 100k a year argument. My argument is simply occupations that require highly skilled individuals who command high salaries need to be compensated in a manner that reflects that in the CF...or you will have recruitment problems. No 100k threshold or any other number is the test. If you are wondering why I kept mentioning 100k, it is because that is what a new pharmacy grad can expect to earn, more or less... significantly more than an OC or young Capt.

Again, you seem to be labouring under the assumption that pharmacy grads compete with art history majors for jobs. They do not. What I have told you is indeed the real world.

And laugh or cry, it makes no difference to me. Although do you know, strictly speaking, you can be a lawyer in less time than it takes to be a pharmacist? Have you looked at what the average salary of lawyers in Canada is? I'm just curious why you seem to put law on pedestal and attempt to discredit pharmacy...

First off I have no issues with pharmacy. It is one of the few legit programs that university's offer that can guarantee a job right off the bat and a good salary. I have issues with people that think "x" or "y" degree equals 100k a year when it simply does not. I have issues with people that think their piece of paper means they are entitled to have companies come running to them just because the university told them they would and they were stupid enough to buy it.

I have no idea why that is. Log Os do not require a CA designation to be employed as a Log O. Pharmacists are required to have a pharmacy degree and pass licensing requirements to be employed as pharmacy officer. Big difference. Also, I'd like to see the Chartered Accountant that would work for 70k a year. Sorry, but your argument is flawed.

No, they do not require a CA to become a Log O. They will often (maybe always) require some sort of designation or MBA at the rank of Major and certainly above. The CF pays for that, just like they will pay for a Pharmacist Officer under ROTP to get their pharmacy degree. So at the end of the day you have a CA and a Pharmacist working for the CF, because that's what the CF requires, and they are both working and being paid as GSO. So where's the "big difference" you were telling me about?

Again, the world that the education systems have been marketing to you is getting in your way of reality. Accounting is my field, and I know lots of CAs, CMAs, I know lots of junior accountants, and I know a heck of a lot more about it than you do. I know lots of them that were also under the impression that the secret of life was to get "CA" at the end of their name. They are working for less than 100k. Some ARE working for 70k.

But guess what? They did a 5 year degree program, and a 2-3 year program to get that designation, plus various levels of required work experience as a junior accountant. How does that equate to a 5 year Pharmacy degree?

If you are wondering why I kept mentioning 100k, it is because that is what a new pharmacy grad can expect to earn, more or less... significantly more than an OC or young Capt.

You are legit just right the frig outta er. The link has already been posted on the wages, and they are realistic. The lows aren't even close to 100k a year working 40 hrs a week. Not saying you can't work OT as a Pharmacist, but then you've gotta compare that to deployments and allowances as a Pharmacist Officer.

In fact working 40 hrs/week by those numbers, you basically get the same as a Captain's salary... geez, go figure.

And laugh or cry, it makes no difference to me. Although do you know, strictly speaking, you can be a lawyer in less time than it takes to be a pharmacist? Have you looked at what the average salary of lawyers in Canada is? I'm just curious why you seem to put law on pedestal and attempt to discredit pharmacy...

Maybe on paper you can, since most law schools will accept applications with only 1 year of university. Good luck with that in the real world though, you know, that one that the rest of us have to live in...

Strictly speaking, after having spoken with you I'm going to need to see a pharmacist...

EDIT for obvious reasons to anybody that saw what I removed.

 

[Rocknroll]

Sorry, maybe you don't understand the internet or this forum. If you ask a question here, even if it's directed at someone in particular, that does not preclude someone else from answering and giving their opinion.

You may not like it, but that's really too bad. It's just something you'll have to learn to live with.

Kinda like the parameters of a specific job for a specific employer. Don't like it? Move on and see if you can find someone else that will hire you and fit your demands.

Contrary to what most of the current generation feel and believe, it's still a buyer's market out there. It's the prospective employer that holds the cards and decides what they want in a new hire, not the job candidate that thinks that employers are beholden to employ them on what they want to give.

Uhh...right. Anyway, the problem wasn't that he replied. It was that he took it upon himself to edit out part of my question that was directed to someone else and made a false assumption in the process. Can he answer it anyway? Sure...but he missed the entire point of what I was saying...to someone else. I guess those who don't like that I responded will have to learn to live with it...

 

[aesop081]

Uhh...right. Anyway, the problem wasn't that he replied. It was that he took it upon himself to edit out part of my question that was directed to someone else and made a false assumption in the process. Can he answer it anyway? Sure...but he missed the entire point of what I was saying...to someone else. I guess those who don't like that I responded will have to learn to live with it...

If you don't like the way the forum works, go somewhere else.

If you don't like what the CF pays pharmacists, go get a job somewhere else. The pay is what it is, take it or leave it.

 

[Rocknroll]

dapaterson:

1) Good point. Shortages are relative. I have no idea how many current positions need to be filled.

2) Also a decent point, but pharmacist salaries don't really increase drastically with experience. So saying 105k with lots of experience probably doesn't bump you up that much from a recent grad. Grads tend to start around 95k or thereabout...at least among those I've talked to. Question though....how many pharmacists make major? How realistic of a goal is that?

3) I don't really buy the 25 an hour number. Pharmacy techs make more than that in many places. I'd say the high end of the range is more accurate. I haven't heard of any grad taking less than 40 an hour.

I'd think they need to rethink pay if they are needing to hire pharmacists and can't attract enough in the numbers they need.

 

[Rocknroll]

ballz:

You know lots of CAs that work for less than 100k? Sure you do. Anyone can claim anything on the internet. Perhaps accounting grads working towards their CA will make less than that....but I have my doubts lots of CAs are working for less than 70k. In any event, I don't care what you think about pharmacy salaries. Try looking at ads for pharmacists....the ones that list salary....and see how many of them make 20 bucks an hour or whatever you think is common. It doesn't really matter. You think pharmacy salaries in the CF are fine. Maybe even overpaid, apparently. I don't. The CF can decide what it wants to do based on the info that they have.

And geez... if you get this worked up over an internet forum, perhaps you do need to see a pharmacist.

 

[aesop081]

The CF can decide what it wants to do based on the info that they have.

Obviously, the CF has already done so.

 

[Rocknroll]

If you don't like the way the forum works, go somewhere else.

If you don't like what the CF pays pharmacists, go get a job somewhere else. The pay is what it is, take it or leave it.

I didn't make a big issue of it, actually. I just commented that the question wasn't directed to him. It's you and others who seem to have an issue that I dared to mention it in my reply. Don't like it? <shrugs>

Right, cause we certainly can't have any discussion or debate on an online forum.  :

 

[Rocknroll]

Obviously, the CF has already done so.

Change happens all the time...depends on the current situation.

 

[aesop081]

Change happens all the time...depends on the current situation.

Thank you Captain obvious.

 

[Rocknroll]

Thank you Captain obvious.

Was it obvious? From your previous post it didn't seem to be...

 

[Strike]

Uhh...right. Anyway, the problem wasn't that he replied. It was that he took it upon himself to edit out part of my question that was directed to someone else and made a false assumption in the process. Can he answer it anyway? Sure...but he missed the entire point of what I was saying...to someone else. I guess those who don't like that I responded will have to learn to live with it...

Rocknroll, I did not take your question out of context.  The previous info was repetitive/similar to the last part that I quoted.  Perhaps I should have included a '...' or something.

Take a breath.

Oh, and before the more seasoned members of the board jump on you, be careful about referring to people as a certain sex.  ;D  The only reason I don't have it in my profile is To provide myself with a certain level of anonymity.

One of the reasons I would see for the shortage of pharmacists in the CF, based on medicineman's explanation, is because the work these officers are expected to do is beyond what someone in civvie world can expect to do as a pharmacist.  It can be intimidating.

 

[mariomike]

(2) For comparability, look at the public service pharmacist pay scales at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/coll_agre/sh/sh07-eng.asp#toc235259037 ; a senior pharmacist (classified as PH3) would earn a maximum of $105K.  Note that at that classification they are senior pharmacists with years of experience, not new graduates. A mililtary pharmacist as a GSO would earn more than that as a senior major.

(3) One can also look at salary surveys.  In 2007 (last numbers I could find) pharmacist pay ranged from $25-$55 per hour, or $49K-107K (based on a 37.5 hour work week).  Military pay is definitely competitive there. (http://www.livingin-canada.com/salaries-for-pharmacists.html)

I have no dog in this fight.
But, a quick search found a pharmacist making $176,100.64 ( and taxable benefits of $319.20 ) in 2010 at Grand River Hospital, Ontario:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/92538/post-1060007.html#msg1060007

There may be others listed who made more.
Like I said, "It only shows those who made the Sunshine List. Your results may vary."

 

[Rocknroll]

Rocknroll, I did not take your question out of context.  The previous info was repetitive/similar to the last part that I quoted.  Perhaps I should have included a '...' or something.

Take a breath.

Oh, and before the more seasoned members of the board jump on you, be careful about referring to people as a certain sex.  ;D  The only reason I don't have it in my profile is To provide myself with a certain level of anonymity.

One of the reasons I would see for the shortage of pharmacists in the CF, based on medicineman's explanation, is because the work these officers are expected to do is beyond what someone in civvie world can expect to do as a pharmacist.  It can be intimidating.

Take a breath? Haha, good advice. I apologize if I spoke out of turn. I have limited knowledge of the working of the CF and realize others know a good deal more...I was replying to both parts of what I thought medicineman was saying, but after Michael clarified I realized there was more to it than I had thought. And perhaps I am replying in a, uhh...hurried fashion to so many posts. If I misread and for my gender assumption, again...my apologies.

Interesting that the workload and responsibility might be a turn off. I would think the expanded scope and responsibility would be an attractive feature in some ways, but maybe that's just me.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

ballz:

You know lots of CAs that work for less than 100k? Sure you do. Anyone can claim anything on the internet. Perhaps accounting grads working towards their CA will make less than that....but I have my doubts lots of CAs are working for less than 70k. In any event, I don't care what you think about pharmacy salaries. Try looking at ads for pharmacists....the ones that list salary....and see how many of them make 20 bucks an hour or whatever you think is common. It doesn't really matter. You think pharmacy salaries in the CF are fine. Maybe even overpaid, apparently. I don't. The CF can decide what it wants to do based on the info that they have.

And geez... if you get this worked up over an internet forum, perhaps you do need to see a pharmacist.

Then quit whining. Obviously the CF isn't for you. Go get one of those higher paying civie jobs and leave us alone.

The Pharmacists that work for us seem happy.

We're under no obligation to hire you.

We like people that are dedicated to the job and to the people they work with. Your concern seems to be your salary, not what you can do for your fellow soldier.

If you don't like the terms of employment go find a job somewhere else. We don't need you. We will find a suitable candidate. We don't want for long when it comes to filling ANY position in the CF.

My only hope for this whole fiasco, is that if you do find yourself doing an induction interview, you fail. We don't need people that see the CF as a cash cow and a cheap, easy solution to a career.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . . . . . I have limited knowledge of the working of the CF and realize others know a good deal more.... . . . . . .

After following this thread and reading your previous posts I find this comment to be probably the most useful thing you've stated.  Since many (of the usual suspects) who post on this means have some sense of the background (professional, educational, military/civilian, etc) of the other usual suspects, the response that you received is common when someone shows up and makes (in my not unhumble opinion) poorly developed arguments about a subject they know little about.

Though you haven't stated what your professional background is, it is probably being assumed (by the usual suspects) that you are likely either a pharmacist or a pharmacy student or wishing to enter that field.  My guess is student looking at the next few years of mounting debt and weighing your options as to the means to fund that enterprise.  Well, you've already been informed about ROTP and its financial benefits and the obligation (with the attending pay) that such will incur.

Can a pharmacist make much more money in the private sector? Of course he can, but you could say the same about many profession occupations in the CF.  If that is your sole criteria for selecting a career path, go join the other 80% who are in retail, you may easily find a job that suits you.

As for the poorly thought out and presented suggestion that there should be a separate pay table for military pharmacists, it's not the first time I've heard that.  The issue of pay for pharmacists as a recruitment/retention tool was central to the change in policy (late 1980s/early 90s?) that saw pharmacists receive immediate promotion to Captain following completion of education and licensing - prior to that change they started out as Lieutenants.  At that time it was determined that attempting to get TB approval for a separate pay scale would not be successful, either within the department or at TB.  There were a lot of factors that led to that conclusion, but, in the end the decision reached was based primarily on the fact that it was not necessary - the existing GSO pay table adequately provided the compensation package.


http://www.workingincanada.gc.ca/report-eng.do?area=9193&lang=en&noc=3131&province=35&keyword=pharmacist&action=final&display=wage

At the national level, how much do people earn in this occupation?

According to the Labour Force Survey (2009), the median hourly wage for Pharmacists was $44.00. That is to say that half of all workers in this occupation earned less than this amount and half earned more. The median hourly wage for all occupations was $21.00.

According to the same survey, the average wage for Pharmacists was $41.20.

Someone else can do the math to see if CF pay rates (outside of other benefits, education subsidiztion and working conditions) are comparable.

 

[Rocknroll]

Then quit whining. Obviously the CF isn't for you. Go get one of those higher paying civie jobs and leave us alone.

The Pharmacists that work for us seem happy.

We're under no obligation to hire you.

We like people that are dedicated to the job and to the people they work with. Your concern seems to be your salary, not what you can do for your fellow soldier.

If you don't like the terms of employment go find a job somewhere else. We don't need you. We will find a suitable candidate. We don't want for long when it comes to filling ANY position in the CF.

My only hope for this whole fiasco, is that if you do find yourself doing an induction interview, you fail. We don't need people that see the CF as a cash cow and a cheap, easy solution to a career.

This type of attitude is what I find annoying. Dare to engage in some exchange of ideas and have a discussion about something and automatically "the CF isn't for you." Who said anything about an obligation to hire me or anyone else? That isn't what this was about. And if people shouldn't be concerned about salary, why do doctors, dentists and lawyers get paid more? Shouldn't they being doing it simply to help their fellow soldier too? Maybe they should just get rations and a bunk...after all, the CF shouldn't be a cash cow or a cheap and easy career, right?

I realize I may be antagonizing a few posters on here now, which regrettably was not my intent, but since when can we not have a difference of opinion or say that something should be changed without all sorts of personal attacks, hopes that people fail, etc.? I mean really, what is your deal, recceguy?

Challenging current CF policy seems to be taken as a personal affront to some of you. I don't know if this sort of close mindedness is common, but what if instead of discussing whether or not pharmacists salaries should be raised, I argued for them to be lowered? What if we discussed medical officers instead of pharmacists? Would it be different then?

 

[aesop081]

Challenging current CF policy seems to be taken as a personal affront to some of you.

It's not what you are saying, rather it is how you say it. The CF pays pharmacists X. I get paid Y. I can make more money doing what i do on civvy street too. I have options and so do you.

 

[Rocknroll]

After following this thread and reading your previous posts I find this comment to be probably the most useful thing you've stated.  Since many (of the usual suspects) who post on this means have some sense of the background (professional, educational, military/civilian, etc) of the other usual suspects, the response that you received is common when someone shows up and makes (in my not unhumble opinion) poorly developed arguments about a subject they know little about.

Though you haven't stated what your professional background is, it is probably being assumed (by the usual suspects) that you are likely either a pharmacist or a pharmacy student or wishing to enter that field.  My guess is student looking at the next few years of mounting debt and weighing your options as to the means to fund that enterprise.  Well, you've already been informed about ROTP and its financial benefits and the obligation (with the attending pay) that such will incur.

Can a pharmacist make much more money in the private sector? Of course he can, but you could say the same about many profession occupations in the CF.  If that is your sole criteria for selecting a career path, go join the other 80% who are in retail, you may easily find a job that suits you.

As for the poorly thought out and presented suggestion that there should be a separate pay table for military pharmacists, it's not the first time I've heard that.  The issue of pay for pharmacists as a recruitment/retention tool was central to the change in policy (late 1980s/early 90s?) that saw pharmacists receive immediate promotion to Captain following completion of education and licensing - prior to that change they started out as Lieutenants.  At that time it was determined that attempting to get TB approval for a separate pay scale would not be successful, either within the department or at TB.  There were a lot of factors that led to that conclusion, but, in the end the decision reached was based primarily on the fact was it was not necessary - the existing GSO pay table adequately provided the compensation package.

LOL. Poorly thought out and presented? You guys are starting to crack me up. I'd think you were trolling if I didn't know better. This isn't a formal presentation. I have an opinion, so do you. I don't find your little "presentation" particularly compelling either, for what it's worth. I guess we both go unsatisfied. We are simply discussing ideas, after all. The level of personal attacks on here is mind boggling....in an amusing sort of way. I can just picture some of you...angrily pounding your keyboards in reply to my "cheeky" questioning of CF convention...

Again, I don't know why you are so threatened by someone coming on here and simply asking...what about this? If there is a good reason to keep it as is, so be it. If not, fix it. If you look back in this thread, I have acknowledged good points by dapeterson, Michael O'Leary, and others. I am open minded and quite civil to anyone who wishes to have a discussion. Why is it so difficult for some of you to do the same?

I do find it interesting that a proposal for a pharmacist payscale was brought forward in the past, however snarky the rest of your message was. The fact that the CF found the issue had enough merit to warrant discussion...even if they ultimately rejected it...should serve as a lesson to several posters in this forum.

 

[Rocknroll]

It's not what you are saying, rather it is how you say it. The CF pays pharmacists X. I get paid Y. I can make more money doing what i do on civvy street too. I have options and so do you.

That was not my intent. I get paid nothing as it happens, as I am not a pharmacist. The only reason I brought up how much pharmacists can make on civvy street was not to knock the CF, just to show there might be some merit to a pharmacist payscale. I apologize if the tone came across poorly or if it seemed like it was ONLY about money.

 

[Journeyman]

It's you and others who seem to have an issue.....

Yep, my boy's the only one in step 

I apologize if the tone came across poorly or if it seemed like it was ONLY about money.

Seriously? Have you mentioned anything other than money regarding the poor, downtrodden and oppressed CF pharmacists? :rofl: