Thousands of Walgreens pharmacy staff across the country are walking off work this week, alleging that poor working conditions are putting employees and patients at risk.
The walkout could impact hundreds of stores starting Monday and going through Wednesday, an organizer of the effort told The Washington Post on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution from the company. It is unclear whether any pharmacies have stopped operations.
Pharmacists, technicians and support staff claim that increased demands on understaffed teams — such as administering vaccines while battling hundreds of backlogged prescriptions — have become untenable and are impeding their ability to do their jobs responsibly.
“When you’re a pharmacist, a missed letter or a number that’s wrong in a prescription could kill somebody,” the organizer said.
In a statement to The Post, Walgreens spokesman Fraser Engerman said the company recognizes that the last few years have been “unprecedented” and “a very challenging time.”
“We also understand the immense pressures felt across the U.S. in retail pharmacy right now,” Engerman said. “We are engaged and listening to the concerns raised by some of our team members. We are committed to ensuring that our entire pharmacy team has the support and resources necessary to continue to provide the best care to our patients while taking care of their own well-being.”
“We are making significant investments in pharmacist wages and hiring bonuses to attract/retain talent in harder to staff locations,” he added, but did not provide further details. Staffing crunch
Employees are requesting that the company hire more pharmacy staff, establish mandatory training hours, offer transparency in how payroll hours are assigned to stores, and give advance notice when staff will be cut or when a position opens.
The collective actions, first reported by CNN, was inspired by a walkout of pharmacy employees at CVS locations in Kansas City a few weeks ago, the organizer said. Walgreens employees, like CVS, are not unionized, so the efforts came together on a subreddit for pharmacy staff.
Workers at both retailers share similar experiences, said Michael Hogue, chief executive of American Pharmacists Association, a membership organization representing industry professionals: Both are struggling to hire pharmacists and technicians because they don’t want to work in a high-stress environment with little support.
“We have a problem across the entire U.S. with inadequate staffing in community pharmacies,” he said.
Employees who spoke to The Post on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by the company said they are often the only pharmacist on staff for a 12-hour shift.
“There have been days where I worked alone or with [one] technician when there [are] over 300 prescriptions to fill,” an employee said. “That is not humanly possible along with your day-to-day tasks. As a pharmacist, that is verification, patient calls, vaccines, transfers, calling doctors, doing [medication management].”
The added pressure of administering vaccines has made it almost impossible to do their jobs responsibly, the organizer said. In one instance, a regional leader visiting the organizer’s store, as he was juggling thousands of prescription backlogs, told him to stop what he was doing and focus on vaccination appointments because “they give us better gross profit.”
There has also been an uptick in violence from customers frustrated over delays in filling their prescriptions or vaccine shortages, Hogue said.
“We’re having stories of patients coming in and screaming at the pharmacist and pharmacy technicians, violence … death threats,” he said. “It’s been really, really nasty and consumers are not patient.”
The decision to walk off the job is not one that pharmacists take lightly, but for many the action is unavoidable, Hogue said.
In a stressful or unsafe environment, pharmacists are trained to “stop, evaluate the situation, determine the circumstances around them and then take appropriate action to correct those circumstances so that they can proceed in a fully safe environment,” he explained. “So some pharmacies and some locations have determined that they cannot proceed safely without additional staff.”
I mean, 1.5m is a ton of money, but that's not insane to me for a company with over 9,000 stores
She also received $20M in stock, and $4.
5M in cash as a sign on bonus, as well as free use of a private jet and a yearly salary of $1.5M. CEOs deserve competitive compensation, it isn't an easy job, but that's enough to hire 163 pharmacists at an average of 150k/yr.
Yeah, specifying "base salary" seems pretty disingenuous. It's all about the add-ons.
The base salary is generally a small fraction of a large company’s CEO’s earning potential IIRC
Really what we need to be focusing on is the profit of the company. If the CEO makes $1.5M, sure that sucks but redirecting that to all the pharmacy staff (guessing 27K people) would net them only $55/year extra. Instead, what are their profits as that should be better distributed among the employees.
It's insane. CEO doesn't do work to earn 1.5m. They're just 1 person. No one can do ten people's work.
No one should be earning that much money period anyway. It's excess while those below you suffer. I'm sure their board members make a nice sum too that is beyond excess of what anyone needs too. Max wages for the top and living wages for the bottom that make sense shouldn't be that hard. Everyone should make enough to live and punish those at the top for pushing these conditions with skeleton crews.
You're supposed to be looking at the contrast not the number of zeros at the top.
No that's the argument you're attempting to shove into my mouth so that you can laugh when it's falling out and feel like I've agreed with you. But I don't, and I believe your argument is disingenuous for the sake of winning. As such, there's no need to continue it.
What argument are you making then? Be very clear, because a CEO making $1.5m base salary per year seems trivial for a company as large was Walgreens. It's much lower than I would've expected TBH
I had to double check that my boozed up vision didn't loose a couple zeros. Fuck CEOs across the board, hell, "C-suite" in general, but 1.5m is about the lowest I've heard for a CEO.
That said, their decisions are generally the real reason to hate on the Cs. The gap in pay is the hate cherry on top.
Edit: I'm reminded that base salary is a pretty lame comparator after reading another comment. Total compensation package is worth taking about.
Just because it's lower than average doesn't mean it's not still too fucking high, don't pretend you're too thick to get that's the point
That really doesn't seem too high to me, in all honesty. What would you think is a good yearly wage for a Walgreens CEO? According to Walgreens themselves, they employ 225,000 people. Imagine we get rid of the CEO entirely and distribute their pay to all of the workers (communism, yay), each Walgreens workers gets an extra... six bucks... per year. That's not really the issue you make it out to be
No one should ever earn that much and that doesn't include the stocks and everything else. Your arguments are defending the corporate elite. Stop being a bootlicker and believing all the propaganda that they deserve that much in pay.
You're begging the question, why should no one earn that much? The $1.5m is a puny salary for that job position. It's not unheard of for medical workers (as in, the workers themselves, not just executives) to earn more than that. I'm not defending the corporate elite, your brain is rotten from too much time on the internet. I just don't understand where the argument that $1.5m per year is some ungodly salary for the CEO of one of the largest pharmacy chains in the country that employs a nearly a quarter million people.
No one needs that much and that doesn't include other compensation that they get in stocks and such. Someone else said after all.of it thru make 20mill. No one needs more than maybe 600k. Even a ceo. They don't deserve that much. Stop being a corporate bootlicker, again bc that's all you're doing and it's gross.
Actually it's not. Bc thats basically what they're asking for, but they need pay raises too. I'm sure thr board members get insane compensation too. You're so close to the point but still missing it acting like that's not that much money to be making. No ceo, board member or anyone else should be making more than 600k a year maybe 750k at the very max. If you can't afford to staff these places better, have living wages but SOMEHOW can pay ceo and board exorbitant wages and raise prices to the point of greedflation, somethings extremely wrong. There's so much wrong with your arguments that stray into defending the rich and how much they get paid and missing the point elsewhere.
If you think the argument "they're paid too much" is rebutted in any way with "durrrrr but that's 6 dollars for everyone" then you aren't ready for these conversations
It's a lot more complex than spreading their yearly salary to their workers, and anyone with any grasp of how companies, the rich, and corporate structure bullshit would know that. People with simplistic grasps (or ulterior motives to spread misinformation) of the world boil it down to "spread the wealth equally" because it's a fucking stupid idea and easy to attack
I'm tired of you argumentative little cucks telling me when to "be clear", and to what extent they would like clarity.. I'll be as obfuscated as I like thanks, as is my purview. I owe you precisely nothing lmao 👍
If you can't tell what argument I'm making then why are you so keen on arguing against it? Oh that's right because you're a dopamine addicted fuck who needs to win at (anything).
Cope, seethe, and die late lmao that's the kind of angry hands response I expected
It's low to you because we've normalized these exorbitant base salaries and insane options ($20M or whatever). It wasn't always like this.
So again... the contrast comes to light. Very succinctly stated.
How is it not insane? It's not like they're personally overseeing all those stores. And it sounds like they're running the company into the ground. I'd take that job for a lot less money and probably be better at it.
How much would we pay the CEO for half that many stores but run properly instead of bare bones?
I will do it for half of that. And given that CEO actions and corporation performance shows evidence of being independent of each other I will do as well as he does. You can use half of my salary to pay for more pharmacists.