So it seems the hopes of a united pharmacy professsion in Ontario that looked so promising during the summer have been dashed. After failing to secure the concessions from the government that the coalition was hoping for, the powers that be have decided that our profession will be best served by reverting to the status quo where we all try to look out for our own best interests, even if it means stomping our colleagues into the ground.
The events within Ontario took a particularly nasty turn over the past week with the public dispute between the Ontario Pharmacists' Association and Shoppers Drug Mart. At issue is the fact that SDM has apparently said that it will no longer pay for OPA memberships for their pharmacists.
The OPA released a document disapproving of the decision, and saying that it had not met the requests SDM had for representation because they had to preserve the integrity of the association. Ken Burns published a blog that was just as negative towards SDM, essentially calling them out for acting like spoiled children who for once did not get their way.
Like most things, us common folk really don't get the whole story, so are left to analyze the situation from the bits of information the various parties choose to share. I can understand the position of both sides, but in the end have to side with SDM on this one.
On the one hand, OPA is right in saying that they represent pharmacists, and not corporations. As a professional advocacy association they should be advocating for the profession and be free to move the pharmacy agenda forward based on what is best for the individual members, not necessarily their employers. While SDM does not currently have any members on the board, they will have ample opportunity to gain representation with the next election. As the largest employer of pharmacists in the province, they should have no problems securing seats on the board.
However, there is nothing wrong with SDM cutting the costs of OPA membership as an employment benefit. SDM does not owe the Ontario Pharmacists' Association anything. The OPA has clearly stated that it does not represent SDM, or any other employer or corporate interest. Suggesting that by not giving them money in the form of payment for pharmacist memberships is failing the profession in some way is ludicrous. To my knowledge, SDM has never said that it does not support OPA, or that it does not approve of pharmacists or associates being members. In the face of drastic revenue cuts, it was probably a prudent move on the part of the company, and one of the easier decisions that will have to be made as the effects of Ontario's drug reform steamroll the pharmacy profession over the next few years.
In the end, the association should be stronger. If it truly represents the profession and the individual pharmacists, they will have no problems keeping up their membership base. Relying on half of their membership dues to be collected from a pharmacy corporation may have made the work of the association a bit too easy. If they have to earn the support of the membership rather than rely on the generosity of their employers, they will truly have a mandate to represent the profession and all pharmacists in Ontario.
Personally, the only benefit I have ever received from OPA membership is competitively-priced home and auto insurance. I have watched as OPA twice dropped the ball on effectively representing pharmacists during government drug-system reform initiatives. Let's not forget the creation of the IPO was essentially the result of a backlash against the anaemic efforts of the OPA during the 2006 drug reform.
Rather than chastising Shoppers Drug Mart, OPA should be examining itself in the mirror. If pharmacists perceive a benefit of having an OPA membership they will purchase one. If OPA can't attract pharmacists to be members unless someone else is footing the bill, maybe it's time to have a different association representing our interests.
