Peggy Wenk wrote:

> Someone sent an email to me in response to my response
> about the ASCP survey. But it was not sent through histonet.
> (I hope they don't mind that I do it this way. I'm still trying to keep it
>confidential as to who you are, and exactly what you said.)

This was an error on my part, and not done intentionally.  This form of
response is fine.  There was nothing in my e-mail to you that I would keep
from the eyes of the Histonet.  In fact, anyone wanting to see my original
e-mail can do so, as I used cut & paste and it is at the bottom of this one.

> By those who have PhD's in statistics and surveys, it has
> been proven that EVERYONE does NOT have to be
> surveyed (in any survey), but rather a random sample
> than ensures good coverage and non-duplication.

My main point to you was that the manner in which this survey was done was
NOT random.  Any way you slice it, sending only to managers is not random.

> Imagine sending the questionnaire to every ASCP
> member - the cost! (paper, stamps, people time)

It could be a few blanks that we fill in annually and send back to the ASCP
when we pay our dues.  That would even eliminate the cost of sending out an
additional 2500 questionnaires!

> - the time needed to read the replies and figure out
> the statistics of the responses

I would think this would cut down on the time it takes now, or at least be a
wash.

> - the larger labs, with more techs, would more
> likely have more than one response, thus skewing
> (weighing) the response to the larger labs, so the
> smaller labs are under-represented.

How do we know this doesn't happen now?  Perhaps more managers of larger
labs have more time to fill out such questionnaires.

>The figures could therefore show the same wage rate four
> times due to four responses from the same lab.

....and???  This wouldn't skew the response.  It would only make it more
thorough.

> - how likely is it that a bench tech in a lab (say
> histology) would know how much MT, MLT,
> CT, HT, HTL, phlebotomists, and supervisors and
> managers in their institution make, each of their
> salary ranges, and exactly how many people each
> of the labs are looking to hire because of shortages?

This knowledge would be unnecessary.  Everyone ASCP registered and currently
paying their dues would have the opportunity to give that information
themselves, knowing that they could benefit from their response in the
future.  If they opt NOT to give this information, then they would only be
hurting their own cause.

> How many surveys would get throw into the trash due
> to the techs knowing they don't know the answers and
> knowing that they don't have a chance of obtaining
> the information, or,  in the opposite direction, how
> many surveys would be returned with the tech's best
> "guess" containing wrong figures?

Again, the above question would not even apply.  All you would be
responsible for would be your OWN information.

> - by sending a survey only to those who are interested
> in filling it out, it creates a bias in the sampling.

How would that be any different than it is now?  By everyone having the
opportunity to respond, a biased response could be better eliminated.  The
way it is now, some Lab Managers take the opportunity to respond; and as you
pointed out, many do not.  I am sure that the same would apply if we
gathered the information the way I am suggesting.  The difference would be
that EACH individual ASCP member would have the OPPORTUNITY to respond, and
by so doing, to be better represented in the final statistics.
I think we might be shocked at the difference in the statistics then!

> I know this does then seem to eliminate:
> - labs where managers are NOT ASCP members
> such as industry;

Not necessarily true.  Many are ASCP and some are also PhD, since that seems
to be so important.

>sometime veterinary (since ASCP's
> emphasis is on human, not animal or industry);
> - labs in general where the administration does not
> require techs to be ASCP registered;

These would obviously not pertain.  Not that they don't matter.  They do!
This is why it is SO IMPORTANT to get registered with the ASCP.... so we can
speak with one voice and make a difference in this sort of thing.

> - small hospitals/labs where there isn't a manager,
> just supervisors and pathologists;
> - large hospitals, where the need for someone with a
> Masters in hospital administration overrides the need
> for a manager with lab skills.

It is a pity that these fall through the cracks now.  They wouldn't have to
if we were surveyed as I have suggested, just as long as the techs are ASCP
registered.

> Obviously, this system doesn't get every type of lab.
 >Or, for that matter, differentiate every type of histotech -
> those who only do H&E vs. those who do IM or
> muscle enzymes; those who gross vs. those who don't;
> those who are doing all tasks vs. those who have lab
> assistants doing the filing and accessioning; those with
> ASCP certification vs. those without; those with degrees vs.
> those with high school diploma vs. those who completed
> a NAACLS-accredited program; etc.

Obviously a survey such as this cannot get this specific, nor does it have
to, given all the 'qualifications' available today through the ASCP.   And
this opens up another topic I don't even want to get started on!

> However, until someone (Histonetters???) can come
> up with a more fair, yet still random, representative sampling
> method that is time and cost efficient, I can't think of anything
> that can be done to make the next lab tech wage and vacancy
> survey  be both totally representative and cost/time efficient.

I am sure that there is someone at ASCP who removes our checks and probably
records via computer any change of personal information that we include.
Couldn't this person take the 4 or 5 seconds it would take to also record
this additional information at that same time?

> Two things we could do for the NEXT survey (summer
> 2002) (which is only 1 year away, after all):
> - URGE all lab managers to look for the survey, fill it
> out, and SEND IT IN! (I'm willing to let Histonetters know
> when they are being sent out, to give us a heads up.)

That would be much appreciated!!

> And, unless something happens in the future that is unforeseen,
> shortages of lab techs is expected to become worse!

You can bet your life on that!!  If the wages don't improve, why would
anyone in their right mind even go into this profession now?  Would you,
given that you could put the same time and money into your education and go
down many different avenues that would prepare you to earn far beyond what
we can potentially make in Histology today?

> Thanks for the questions from the anonymous Histonetter.

You are welcome,  and again, I did not intend for this to be anonymous.  In
fact to my way of thinking, anonynmous questions hardly deserve the time it
takes to answer them.  I signed my name before, just as I sign it now.

Sarah A. Jones, HTL(ASCP)

The original e-mail:
On Wednesday, July 11, 2001 4:49 PM Peggy Wenk writes:

> Second, the surveys were sent randomly to 2500 lab
> managers who were also ASCP members. Of these,
> 594 (24%) were returned. So that means that over
> 1900 were NOT returned!  So the results are from  less than 600 labs.

What a pity!  Exactly who is it that decides whom to survey?  To my way of
thinking, in general, lab managers have more to gain by keeping our wages
down, and therefore would be the least reliable to survey.  It makes them
look better if they can keep wages from going up any more than absolutely
necessary.

>Wouldn't it have been nice if all 2500 labs from across the country had
responded?

Wouldn't it have been nicer if the surveys had been sent out to us all?
IMHO, that would have been a much more fair and accurate method of tracing
wages.  Those of us who were not working at a lab, but working instead in
industry at the time, were not even queried.  Seems quite unfair to all ASCP
registrants in my book.  Those wages need to be factored in as well in order
to give a really true picture.

Can you do anything about this, Peggy?  I know that you are highly thought
of and have a lot o