From:"Monson, Frederick C."

Are we to believe that you folks run a business by a work-based set of
rules?  Those by whom you were educated must have NOT been members of the
NEA.  Perhaps you give raises for non-relevant training, such as courses in
anthropology or history?   You realize, of course, that this employment
philosophy is merely conservatism in its worst economic guise!

Absolutely amazed!

Fred Monson

Frederick C. Monson, PhD  		 
Center for Advanced Scientific Imaging
Schmucker II Science Center
West Chester University
South Church Street and Rosedale
West Chester, Pennsylvania, USA, 19383
Phone:  610-738-0437
FAX:  610-738-0437
Visitors URL:

> ----------
> From: 	Louri Caldwell
> Sent: 	Thursday, June 6, 2002 11:16 AM
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: 	RE: HT/HTL
> 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. 
> >The
> >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 
> >level
> >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 
> >training
> >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 
> >out
> >(the hospital would pay nothing!). I realize now that I was in a very
> >special situation at that institution.
> >
> >Tim Morken
> >Atlanta
> >
> >-----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 
> >down
> >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
> >414-447-2272
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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
> >matter.
> >
> >The recipient of this information is prohibited from disclosing the
> >information to any other party unless this disclosure has been authorized
> >in
> >advance.
> >
> >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 
> >should
> >immediately destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
> >E-Mail.
> >
> >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 >>