What do you think of employers who do not make good use of their staff & thus by extension drive off good employees & get left with rubbish?

Anonymous
Okay, so I work in pharmacy. I am what's called a technician. In the totem pole of pharmacy there's pharmacists, then technicians, then assistants & lastly clerks. Assistants are the least trained & adept. The role of technician was created to oversee assistants & assist pharmacists/patients better.

Anyway I left a pharmacy recently where the HR (who knows little to nothing about the field) put me as "clerk" because I move around a bit to gain experience/skills. A contract where I could not order, etc. So essentially I as one step below a pharmacist was given the most unimportant hands-tied role in a pharmacy. And I got pissed off very quickly.

Enough that when I left I referred to my position as near pointless. Which to me it was. It was my most useless role in a pharmacy.

But looking back it's like... they've done this for years. The pharmacy in principle should be crawling with patients as it's a specialty but it's fking slower than molasses with barely any businesses. So ultimately they treat good / skilled staff who have sought to gain knowledge poorly and cater to shit staff that haven't moved from probably their first employment (the level of employees at this pharmacy was far below normal) as if knowledgable.
Ignorant & Stupid
Vote A
Inept for the Field - Will Be Out of Business Soon Enough
Vote B
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
GirlGuy
What do you think of employers who do not make good use of their staff & thus by extension drive off good employees & get left with rubbish?
1
0
Add Opinion