From:Louri Caldwell

I agree.  Having a higher certification shouldn't mean higher pay unless the 
duties are different between the two classifications.  The HTL should be 
paid higher if the responsibilities of the position warrant it.

I have a lab aide here that has a BS degree - not certified - and I pay her 
as I do all the other lab aides.  Her responsibilities are the same.  It 
seems the same should apply to techs as well.

Just my thoughts.

Louri Caldwell, BS, HTL (ASCP)

>From: "Morken, Tim" 
>CC: 'Histonet' 
>Subject: RE: HT/HTL
>Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 07:56:27 -0400
>To me just getting a higher certification is not grounds for higher pay. 
>person would have to take on more responsibility to earn that. If they are
>doing the same work, I suggest that is a waste of the higher-certified
>persons knowledge and skill.
>At the last hospital I worked in we had two grades for techs. We had a
>larger lab with 11 techs, so it was easy to designate different duties. One
>was "bench tech" and that covered all the routine work, including immuno's
>done under supervision. We also had a "Senior Tech" position which covered
>supervising bench techs in a given area. For instance, We had three senior
>techs (four if you count cytology), one over routine cutting, staining and
>special stains, and one over the grossing/frozen section area and one over
>IHC,ISH Kidney and muscle work. Each senior tech was responsible for
>managing the workflow, handling problems, developing technologies, training
>new techs, and covering for abscences if necessary. They had a significant
>pay difference between these two positions. The supervisor was another 
>above the senior tech.
>At a smaller lab I worked at (4 techs and a lab assistant) it was not as
>clear cut as far as supervisory jobs went. But we did have distinctions
>between lower grade and higher grade. The base was lab assistant, who got
>all the grunt work. Then if a person got their HT they were promoted and
>handled routine histology work and didn't have to do the lab assistant type
>work. If a person got their HTL then they were eligible for special 
>in IHC, ISH, and EM. They were also made responsible for some aspect of the
>lab; maybe specials, grossing, IHC etc. We all did the routine work, but
>then had the special responsibility for a given area. That responsiblilty
>included QA/QC, writing procedures, developing new techniques, training
>others, etc. The pay difference was significant between HT and HTL. There
>was no policy that there had to be a certain number of HT's or HTL's; in
>fact the lab director would have been happy as punch to have all HTL's
>working in the lab (besides lab assistants, which we always had). This
>seemed to work well, even in such a small lab. When I left we had three
>HTL's and one HT and the lab ran very smoothly. I will say that the lab
>director (pathologist) was always interested in all kinds of training for
>the people in our lab and would pay out of his own pocket to help people 
>(the hospital would pay nothing!). I realize now that I was in a very
>special situation at that institution.
>Tim Morken
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Soto, Roxanne []
>Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 6:55 PM
>To: Histonet (E-mail)
>Subject: HT/HTL
>Hi everyone,
>Can anyone tell me what you do with job classification between technicians
>and technologists?  Do you have a distinction?  If an HT and an HTL sit 
>side by side and do the same exact work everyday, no more, or no less,
>should there be a distinction between them?  And by distinction, I am job
>code and pay grade.
>Thanks for any input.
>Roxanne Soto HT(ASCP)
>AP Supervisor
>Privileged/Confidential information may be contained in this message.  The
>information contained in this message is intended only for the use of the
>recipient(s) named above and their co-workers who are working on the same
>The recipient of this information is prohibited from disclosing the
>information to any other party unless this disclosure has been authorized 
>If you are not intended recipient of this message or any agent responsible
>for delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby
>notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken in
>reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited.  You 
>immediately destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
>Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to
>Internet E-Mail for messages of this kind.  Opinions, conclusions and other
>information in this message that do not relate to the official business of
>the firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>