COMPANY PHARMACY

Evening Star, Issue 22145, 27 September 1935, Page 13

COMPANY PHARMACY

MENACE TO H Z. CHEMISTS PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION SOUGHT The introduction "of “ effective legislation to protect retailers from ,the relentless competition of chain stores ” ii Suggested in a petition which Mr J. W./Munro, member for Dunedin North, presented in the House of Representativee on behalf of the Dunedin .Retail Chemists’ Industrial Union of Workers (states a message from Wellington). The petition states that it is reliably reported that Boots, Chemists, Ltd., intend opening retail "stores throughout New Zealand, and suggests: that the introduction of these chain stores would be detrimental to the interests of the people of New Zealand, especially to chemists, their assistants, and to retail traders. FUTURE TRAINING THREATENED. An important aspect of the proposal ‘ to establish these stores was dealt with this morning by a local member of the Pharmacy Board, who, when interviewed, said that the chemist was rather peculiarly situated in that hie carried on. retail trade in connection with his professional calling of pure pharmacy. He might be said to be the only retail trader who, before - carrying on business, must be qualified by examination and enrolled under the Pharmacy Act. “The Pharmacy Board has, for a long time, been very much concerned about the possible future extension of company piiarmacy of any kind,” he stated. “ Under the Pharmacy Act students are apprenticed to a qualified chemist for a period of four years, during which time tuition on the practical side is given. Company pharmacy would tend to lose the personal association between master and apprentice, and give the opportunity, which'has already occurred in New, Zealand, for . companies to use the apprentice as a means to cheap labour. Again, some types of company pharmacy would not be bothered taking apprentices and allowing for their proper training.” LARGE SUM SPENT. The chemists of New Zealand had spent £16,000 in erecting the College of Pharmacy at Wellington for a more intensive training in the scientific side of pharmacy. This amount had been borne entirely by the chemists, without question of subsidy of any kind. A highlyqualified director and staff were engaged, and it was hoped that by this . time chemists would have some further protection for their legitimate calling, and would thus be willing to supplement the costs of apprentices and students compulsorily attending. Should dangers—which the board considers would definitely arise—eventuate through the extension of company pharmacy, it was' questionable whether the chemist could be expected' to bear so much of the cost and trouble in the training of future pharmacists.