Y’know, most of us remember the tale of the Emperor’s New Clothes.It was a story about how not to stand out in a crowd lest you might be found the fool, only to discover that it was the crowd that was fooled.I went to my provincial conference to defend a resolution that asked that community pharmacists be able to take back the power and influence that is their due as professionals.I found out that our association, as currently constituted, cannot act as a union and therefore cannot negotiate collectively for pharmacists.Nor can it take unilateral action concerning working conditions and other quality of professionalism and life issues that community pharmacists are frequently exposed to in the workplace.However, members at the Annual General Meeting discussed my proposal that pharmacists be paid directly for the professional services they perform.I should point out that all pharmacist members are invited to this meeting. This year, as is usual, the bulk of those in attendance were pharmacy owners or pharmacists employed by chains. (In other words, not at all a representative sample of the membership of our association or even of our profession.)It was yet more interesting that in a room of close to 100 people, I could not find a seconder. In fact, an owner offered to second only if he was assured that he could vote against the motion.Alas, a compromise was moved—call it a friendly amendment.It included not asking for a union (because, currently, OPA cannot be one) and maintaining involvement of all pharmacists including owners in the association.What’s more, it further reassured owners that individual pharmacists and their employers would continue to negotiate financial arrangements rather than switching to collective bargaining.I said sure, why not, I am a reasonable guy.And then a parade of owners talked about defending their investment. (But no pharmacists got up to speak about defending their investment in our profession.)They discussed how scary my resolution sounded. (Even though doctors, lawyers, and accountants do this because it allows a separation from a business and a client so that the client’s best interests are protected.)Employers were even uncomfortable with an amendment saying that pharmacists would negotiate financial arrangements individually. (Given that the owners did not like negotiating collectively, nor do they like negotiating individually, methinks their objection is to pharmacists even being able to negotiate.)So, the motion was tabled… Because the owners were going to vote against it.In my opinion, had the room been filled with a representative sample of the membership of the Ontario Pharmacists Association (i.e. staff pharmacists) , the motion would have carried.I suppose I cannot be certain, but I suspect that the few hundred owners do not represent the views on professional autonomy that the thousands of non-owner practising pharmacists in Ontario hold dear.Of course, behind closed doors (and sometimes out in the open, which is why people hear these things) some owners speak amongst themselves of counting on pharmacists never having the gumption to rise up to defend themselves and their profession.So far, they appear to be not wrong.Please tell me they are.Ken Burns is a pharmacist at the Diabetes Care Centre at Sudbury Regional Hospital.
