Charles Dickens’ novel A Tale of Two Cities begins with the sentence: “It was the best of times; it was the worst of times…” That is one of the most famous opening lines of any novel because it captures a universal truth: every time is like that. Every time is filled with possibilities and reasons for optimism, but also with limitations and causes for concern about the future. That is true of any profession, at any time, too.
Clinical laboratory professionals know this. Nowadays, we hear conflicting things. With an aging population of laboratorians, we hear, there will be more opportunities for young people to enter and grow in the profession. But we also hear that many mature medical laboratory scientists lack the financial security to retire when they might wish to, and that cutbacks and automation are decreasing the number of available jobs. Salaries are going up—except where they aren’t. Clinical laboratory professionals are entering an age of increasing specialization and expertise, we are told, but we also hear that the versatile generalist is more in demand than ever.
Much of what people say, of course, is anecdotal; it is human nature to generalize from what happened to one or two colleagues in one or two institutions, from what is being whispered in the hallways or the break rooms, from subjective comparisons of how things are with how they used to be—or how they are remembered, or misremembered, as having been.
This ongoing discussion is happening, too, against the backdrop of what remains an achingly slow economic recovery, an uncertain regulatory climate, and a range of predictions about the long-term effects of the Affordable Care Act on all parts of the healthcare delivery system, and on research and development that affects the lab environment. It is the best of times, and the worst of times.
If it is successful, a survey like MLO’s Annual Salary Survey, as “a snapshot in time,” lends some coherence to the conversation. We believe our survey shows clear trends and raises good issues. Some of these are referred to in the remarks of MLO contributor Sandra Honigburg, BSMT(ASCP), found in the sidebar. MLO Editorial Advisory Board member Donna Beasley, DLM(ASCP), formerly Specialty VP, McKesson Revenue Management Solutions, also contributed interesting perspectives:
“I am not surprised by the percentages of men as opposed to women, and the salary differences. This has been a challenge for years. The aging of the workforce is confirmed by the survey; the prospects are downright scary. You can’t just replace aging MTs with experienced MLTs; there is still a large basic educational gap. I suggest that labs and hospitals have administrators participate in school career fairs and join advisory boards of colleges. We need more qualified people, but the number of people entering the field needs to increase also. Mentoring where appropriate also helps, as does sponsoring students with the condition that they will work for your lab for a specific term. There is no question that the years to come, regardless of automation and outsourcing, will require more skilled laboratorians. Those who are retiring should consider working on retainer for labs that might need additional, yet non-full time, support and expertise. Their services will come at a premium.”
That’s food for thought—which leads me to a request: Please share your thoughts about the survey with MLO and its readers. What surprised you, and what didn’t? What trends do you see? What are causes for optimism, or for pessimism? What advice do you have for older laboratorians? For younger ones? Also, our survey did not ask what factors are most important in defining job satisfaction—that’s something to add next year. What is most important to you—salary, rewarding work, evidence that your input is valued by supervisors, some other factor? Let your colleagues know how you feel. We’ll publish reader input in print, on our blog, or both.
