Comments on: Novartis Should Pay Overtime To Sales Reps: Judge

By: Dan Abshear

Dan Abshear — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:06:47 +0000

This ruling is ridiculous. I specifically use to work for Novartis as a rep- and I maybe ‘worked’ 20 hours a week.

By: Codes R not us.

Codes R not us. — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:39:57 +0000

The pharma reps used to be true sales reps.That was during the classic days of ethical pharmaceuticals business when reps were called “detailers”.Those who sold for Sandoz or CibaGeigy in the seventies, eighies and maybe in nineties know what it was about. Once the mergermania hit this biz the pharma sales rep was turned into “scientist” from an artis in selling. You see selling is an art not a science but the big pharma did not believe in that.They figured that reps can be trained to the last detail of sales story so once they are in front of doctor they can deliver like robots. And the doc will buy it.At the same time they have invented and generated so much of “other” work for reps (computer work, study,planning, group meetings etc etc)that they had to put in 12-15 hours per day to keep up. The company, now Novartis never ever said that this extra work must be done after the work in territory calling on docs.The only thing reps were told they had to spend 8 hours calling on docs.All other work including, dinner meetings, weekend work etc. was expected from reps without any compensation.This is where the overtime comes from and what makes this job so time consuming nowdays.And this is why the reps were successful in winning this lawsuit.Now the smart reps still don’t have to do such hours if they work smart but is getting harder. Personally I worked strictly “smart”.If I had a night work I did not work during the day or just half a day, for instance. All told I spent just about 30 years with this Co and gave them about 12-15 years of work volume according to them. Which is just about right.

By: pharmavet

pharmavet — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 01:06:39 +0000

Tom, you are correct. This is a classic example of win the battle and lose the war. It will only accelerate the body count. Believe me, no one is falling on their swords for these guys. It’s pretty much everyone for themselves these days in the rep world.

By: Realist

Realist — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:13:07 +0000

We sell, we don’t sell. Company’s fault, govt’s fault. Blah, blah, blah. What possible difference does it make now?

Look, it was a good gig for several years and now it is over. The market changed. It happens, deal with it.

The drug rep position was, at one time, a very good way to move product. Things change. Promotional tools, (which is all that we really are) become obsolete and need to be retired at some point in any industry. That is all there is to all this back and forth mumbo jumbo.

The only reason that reps are still around is that if an organization comes to terms with reality and axes reps; they are defacto saying that every successive layer of sales management is not needed. Pretty soon, you end up with some guy at the Vp level that is pulling down 400K a year that has his job threatened by reality; so of course he/she is going to say that we need to “maintain our sales forces.”

It is all just a joke and anyone that works in this industry knows it. Hope no one put all their eggs in this basket. If so,……….ouch.

By: doc

doc — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:48:45 +0000

Mktr,
My goodness, I guess 35 years in big pharma, sales, training, marketing and medical has taught me nothing.

You could not be more incorrect.

What justifies any pharma company paying physicians kickbacks to use their product?

What justifies any pharma company promoting their drug for off-label use, which they have chosen not to do safety and efficacy studies on?

MDs may Rx for off-label, that is their professional opinion, based on individual patient factors.

Your type of thinking is what has infected the industry.

I would hope that one day when you or a family member need to see a doctor, the treatment choice is based on what is best for the patient, not kickbacks and off-label info.

By: Mkter

Mkter — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:06:43 +0000

doc - If you want to get into the blame game, it’s the reps’ fault for not knowing what they were getting in to. Sales reps jobs in pharma are pretty prestigious positions for fresh undergraduates - thousands upon thousands apply for these jobs and candidates are screened extremely carefully.

Your ignorance is shown when you say “pharma coompanies’ greed”. I want to see you run a business where you spoend 7-10 years and $1.4 billion for a 1% chance that a drug will pass FDA approval, then ship these drugs off for 5 cents on the dollar so the public is happy. I want to see what you tell your employees when they go home after they’ve been laid off because you didn’t capitalize on the economic rent available on your drug.

By: doc

doc — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 01:58:56 +0000

JC,
Any hyper-regulation by the govt, was brought on pharma co’s due to their own greed. Off-label promotion and kickbacks were the doing of the industry, they have no one to blame but themselves.

By: JC

JC — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 20:06:36 +0000

True pharma companies drive sales (just like every company that wants to exist into the future). However, the robotic nature of the sales reps is less due to the drive for sales and more a result of the hyper regulation by the goverment entities and the excessive scutiny on the industry.

Not a real sales job…you obviously do not know the industry well and therefore haven’t got a clue (probably never sold a thing in your life). These people are highly trained, knowledgeable, professional, and work extremely hard.

There are always examples of slackers but all in all these people are hard working professionals.

By: Tobias

Tobias — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:13:27 +0000

Reps should be more angry about the 72% number than overtime pay. Reps rankings and promotions are based on how they rank. I would bet that 72% number is closer to 40%. Everyone in this industry knows these numbers aren’t accurate. Why not the uproar over this? Oh yeah, it’s not a real sales job.

By: Tom McCollum

Tom McCollum — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:53:02 +0000

I can’t believe that reps really want to “win” this fight. By making the company liable to pay overtime, then the rep just continues to make the arguement for Reductions in Force. With the ongoing downsizing of sales forces, this “victory” just creates more fodder for the finacial suite.