MLT starting salary

I know the average salary for a technician in my area is $38,000. Can anybody tell me what the starting salaries are like for a technician? What is the salary range for a technician?

MLT make 15-19 in texas. MT make 19-23. Its not much of a difference. Its the MLT that are lowering the wages for the MT. If the clinical laboratories made BS MT a requirement they would start alot higher like 25-30. Then people would actually want to stay in the field.

The problem is technicians can't release results because they don't have the license. Laboratories will always need MTs.

In, CA, technicians get paid $12 to $20 per hour depending on experience. MTs get $28 to $48 depending on experience and hospital location in CA.

The difference in salary appears to be more pronounced here than other places. I find it ridiculous that technicians can make almost as much as MTs in some places given that people with just high school diplomas can become technicians with experience, while MTs have to get the BS degree.

This field would pay well if they stop hiring all the under qualified individual. I agree with steph they have to make it manditory in the clinical lab with a BS MT and a certification, either ASCP or NCA. The AMT are for the people that couldnt pass the other two. We need one certification agency only which is good for 50 states. We also have to regulate this field.

USnom BSMT whatever... please dont underestimate AMT certified techs or foreign workers .. they work well as ASCP certified techs do.. some techs take the AMT because they are NOT yet eligible to take the ASCP because of some lack of US experience or they have not graduated from an AMA medical school. Now with the advent of ASCPi, more people can venture into applying for the exam.

Ocean,

I hate to break it to you, i agree with usnom. The AMT might not be of exsistence in the next 3 years. Once the ASCP and NCA merge employers will not look at any other certification. You may ask why? B/C the schools will only recognize the one cred. angency. Now there are three, but once the ascp and nca combine, the amt will not even be recognized by schools or employers. The ASCP has high standards, that is why you need to have a CLS/MT degree in order to take the cert or have years of hospital experience. The AMT is not strict and will make anyone eligle for the certification. Just a word of warning, in the next three years once the ascp and nca merge, you might be out of luck trying to find a job b/c NOONE will recognize the AMT. You realize that pathologist overseas the lab, and the ASCP will have a strong hold on all the labs. Also most of the lab directors have the ASCP or NCA, I have never heard of a lab director that has the AMT. Directors usually hire ppl with their credentials b/c they know who are qualified. If they are despirate they will hire the AMT

I disagree with all of you because it doesnt matter where you get certified. If you dont know what you are doing none of that matters. A MLT can do as much as a MT. MT's act as though they went to school 4 years and all those courses were pertaining to their med tech degree. The first two years are your basic courses that all college students take. The last two years is when you start taking your courses to be a Med Tech. I get very aggrevated to hear what Med Techs say about MLT's and some of them are smarter than the MT's. I am a MT and I believe that MLT's are just as important as MT's. So stop putting MLT's down and understand that no matter what we are all in the lab for the same reason.

Nana it does matter where you get certified. If you are a recent graduate of a MT/CLS program in the United States. The only certification agencies that univeristies and colleges talk about once you graduate are ASCP or NCA. This perpetuates into the clinical setting when finding a job. I have never seen one lab director that has their AMT or other cert. Most if not all have their ASCP or NCA, this is the gold standard. You must be a overseas MT with a AMT degree b/c your telling people the WRONG information and they will not be hirable. If you want to work in the US you need ur ASCP or NCA. I recent email I recieved cements the fact that there will be one SINGLE CERTIFICATION AGENCY and that wll be the only option. There were options before b/c the NCA was equivilent to the ASCP, now they are merging there is no other option. And for MLT, yes they are LOWERING WAGES. For example if hospitals soley hired LPN b/c they do the same work as RN's, why would they hire RN's for a hire wage, except for management. But hospitals thoughy abutafety first and only hire RN's here in PA and LPN are forced to work in nursing homes. Every allied health field is increasing the standards in order to work in the profession. Pharmacy use to be BSpharm now its pharmD, PT is now PTD, why are we moving BACKWARDS allowing MLT's in the clinical lab?

I disagree about MLT's bringing down MT's salaries.

If wages for MT's are lower b/c of MLT's working in the field why does this not affect nursing salaries at all? RN's are NOT required to have a Bachelor's degree- in fact around here the passing rates for the NCLEX are higher for the regional community college graduates with ADN than the 4yr university BSN grads including UT. I think MT's make less than other fields b/c they are away from public's eye- hospitals are going to make cuts where they can beginning with those that deal with patients the least.

I'm not opposed to raising standards for all healthcare professionals and streamlining certification, just saying I don't think it's necessarily the cause for lower wages. Just my $.02

I think he is talking about RN vs LPN. BSRN and RN with a lower education have the same salary. I think the only advantage of BSRN is that they can be management. RN and LPN salaries vary, but if hospitals wanted to be cheap they could hire all LPNs. Hospital pharmacist have NO PATIENT contact either, but they pay well. So its not about patient contact, its about the higher degree. If they make a higher degree mandatory in the clinical lab with cert, employeers would have no option but to hire MT for a higher wage. But since there is a lower wage option of MLT, of course employeers will use that option b/c they want to make the most and pay the least. Read some of the comments from CLS in california, they MLT are not equal with MT, as in they cannot release results or work by themselves and they command a high salary. The rest of the country does not work that way and have MLTs working equally like MTs. SOmething has got to be done otherwise noone will want to get into the profession b/c it pays low. Pharmacy will never have a shortage b/c it pays well, its not any more excited than the lab side, but people stay in the field.

I've been working as a MLT and I am pursuing my MT. I now live in California. Mlt and MT are not equal but but are very important. The main difference is the 4yr degree that the MT gets. Lab training is pretty much the same for both fields. CLS48 does not mention MLT, in California they are just technicians. California is just now letting MLTs work in this state that does allow them to report out results and do alot of the duties that an MT/CLS can perform. There are some duties that a MLT cannot do that a MT can by law. The same with RN/LPN/BSRN. The reason why there is MLT in the field is because as an RN with a two year degree you can make 40+ an hour. Lab is not in the spotlight when it comes to $$$. MLT exist because of the shortage of MTs.

See this is what I mean, instead of paying MTs a higher wage so more students will be atrracted to the field, they would rather hire cheaper labor MLT and have less and less people attracted to the field. There has to be set standards in the clinical lab. They have to make it a entry level BS (MT/CLS) degree. If they would rather have cheaper labor in the field, most students will NOT want to pursue the MT degree b/c a associate level degree can do the same job. Hence more shortages. Employeers have to realize there will not be a shortage if they pay well. If you hire cheaper labor, your only going backwards and there will not be any interest in the field

batttie in Olivehurst, California said: I've been working as a MLT and I am pursuing my MT. I now live in California. Mlt and MT are not equal but but are very important. The main difference is the 4yr degree that the MT gets. Lab training is pretty much the same for both fields. CLS48 does not mention MLT, in California they are just technicians. California is just now letting MLTs work in this state that does allow them to report out results and do alot of the duties that an MT/CLS can perform. There are some duties that a MLT cannot do that a MT can by law. The same with RN/LPN/BSRN. The reason why there is MLT in the field is because as an RN with a two year degree you can make 40+ an hour. Lab is not in the spotlight when it comes to $$$. MLT exist because of the shortage of MTs.

I'm not sure MLTs can report results out. I'd like to see evidence of that. Do you have a link that specifically says this? While they do have licensed MLT, I do not believe they can report results out yet.

They have been talking about shortage in the field since the 1980s. It all depends where you live. Some states have no MLT programs or very limited and like in Michigan and therefore hospitals hire MTs. BS RNs and AS Rns are paid the same because BS RN programs came later and therefore they take the same exam same pay. Lab pay is bad since insurance came up with the idea to pay a certain amount for hospital stay per patient nomatter how much lab work is done and not paying by the test. Because of this a pathologist, he gets a percentage of each lab test saw his wages go down, so know most of the money goes to him.

So what is left over is for the wages of the MTs/MLTs. Here in michigan we do have little job requirements differences between the two, but it depend what hospital you work. My biggest frustration is the ignorance of other healt professions in the hospital that think you came from the street and got trained on the job.

What is your opinion of the AAB certification exam? I graduated from a 2 year technical school MLT program and now that I have 3 years of experience as an MLT I am qualified to to the AAB registry exam to get a state license as an MT. I know this is an unconventional method but I figured I might as well take advantage while I have the opportunity. Also to become an MLT I passed the ASCP exam. I believe the the AMT should be done away with and only recognize the ASCP/NCA.

Here is a link that provides a little bit about MLT in California, as well as them being able to report out results.

www.hospitalcouncil.net/Upload/Frequently%20Asked%20Questions%20About%20MLTs%2010-08.pdf

I'm not sure if this information is out dated or incorrect so if you are able to find more exact please let me know. Also this has some more information about the starting pay for MLT in California.

I've known a few people to that did the AAB certification and became "MT". I say "MT" and not MT because without a BS degree according to CLIAA your not really an MT. I worked with a lab director that recognized the people as MT according to AAB and he was therefore able to give them a few dollars more an hour. But he wasn't able to utilize them to the full degree that MT has, like lab director for example. Also not all hospitals within the accepting states would recognize you as an MT. So if you hospital recognize it as a MT I say go for it. But be prepared for other organizations not to be so generous with the title.

I have worked 8 years in the lab. First, the lab is the red headed step child of the whole medical community. No respect at all towards the work done and the people who work in the lab. It is a rare event you get a little respect from an MD or nurse on the phone or person. What makes it even worse, is the lack of respect by our own people, especially some management.

The degree. Either make it a 4yr or 2yr education. Do you honestly need a 4 yr degree to work in the lab? I have done fluids, manual diffs, micro and all the "hands on" things. Really? You need a 4 yr degree? The MLT and MT education is the same! Why? The only difference being the 4yr degree people took art appreciation, world religion, anthropology...etc. the first 2 years to meet bachelor requirements.

I have worked with mlt/mt techs that should have been surgeons. They were so smart. I have also worked with mlt/mt's that I would not let pump gas in my car!
I recently worked with a new MT that has not been able to do urines because she can't tell the difference between rbc's and wbc's on the microscopic. Really? Yet, she is performing and reporting other results.

The solution is to get rid of the MLT programs ASAP if the standard is MT. Why are there 2 degree programs to do the same exact job in most states? Or get rid of the 4 yr MT programs then. What a disservice to the people who spend so much money and time on a 4yr degree to make such little money at work. The top out at a few places is $25/hr. New graduates get in at $18. The money sucks! What other 4 yr medical degree pays as bad? That's right none! Lab pays the worst money.

I have seen so many young MT people leave the field to other medical programs. They are all disgusted by the lack of everything. To be honest, the automation and point of care testing, will eventually make the labs a very different "job". Good luck on just keeping and/or finding a lab job 10 or more from now. The "old" people retiring? Yeah right!

CLS48 in California said: The problem is technicians can't release results because they don't have the license. Laboratories will always need MTs.

In, CA, technicians get paid $12 to $20 per hour depending on experience. MTs get $28 to $48 depending on experience and hospital location in CA.

The difference in salary appears to be more pronounced here than other places. I find it ridiculous that technicians can make almost as much as MTs in some places given that people with just high school diplomas can become technicians with experience, while MTs have to get the BS degree.

In MN that is not true, you can't become a MLT unless you have a 2 year degree in it and take your boards and pass. MLT's can release results here. I think it's ridiculous for you to put down MLT's they work just as hard for there money as MT's do and I had to go to school for two years, 6 months of clinicals full time and take my boards and pass them, so it was by no means an easy trip.

A 2 yr degree is overkill for lab work now days. I forsee downloadable certificates in the future for lab work. You push buttons most of the time. Some places have already started cutting back on techs at all levels.

The automated process can centifuge, aliquot, test, release, and store specimens. Why pay a mlt/mt to do what a machine does? This is the real cause of why salaries continue to stay stagnant and young techs are leaving the lab in hordes. Why would a young person stick around?

Yes, there are still techs needed for manual tests, but for how long? How many? Labs are counting pennies in this corner and that corner. It's a rough world for the bench tech.

crflava in El Paso, Texas said: A 2 yr degree is overkill for lab work now days. I forsee downloadable certificates in the future for lab work. You push buttons most of the time. Some places have already started cutting back on techs at all levels.

The automated process can centifuge, aliquot, test, release, and store specimens. Why pay a mlt/mt to do what a machine does? This is the real cause of why salaries continue to stay stagnant and young techs are leaving the lab in hordes. Why would a young person stick around?

Yes, there are still techs needed for manual tests, but for how long? How many? Labs are counting pennies in this corner and that corner. It's a rough world for the bench tech.

I have worked in one lab with a nuemonic arm that does everything mentioned, the downfall of that was there was the system was constantly down. There will be bigger hospitals that will look into more automation, but there will also be plenty of techs working as well. I see standards increasing because some major universities carry the CLS/MT degree. If u look into the naacls website they are talking about starting the curriculum in a doctorate cls program. So standards will increase, there might be less specimen processing ppl, but techs will always have a job.

crflava in El Paso, Texas said: A 2 yr degree is overkill for lab work now days. I forsee downloadable certificates in the future for lab work. You push buttons most of the time. Some places have already started cutting back on techs at all levels.

The automated process can centifuge, aliquot, test, release, and store specimens. Why pay a mlt/mt to do what a machine does? This is the real cause of why salaries continue to stay stagnant and young techs are leaving the lab in hordes. Why would a young person stick around?

Yes, there are still techs needed for manual tests, but for how long? How many? Labs are counting pennies in this corner and that corner. It's a rough world for the bench tech.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. There is way more to being a Lab tech then just pushing buttons. I think that is the biggest misconception that people have about Lab techs. When a doctor calls and asks you what the result means you had better be able to tell him, you can't say oh well I just pushed a button. Have you ever been to a real lab before? Microbiology has people sitting all day long reading plates for thousands of things can you do that, Heme has people reading slides to tell whether someone has a disease or not, Chemistry has analyers yes but you better be able to read the results and know what you are doing. There is so much more to lab work then people give credit and I am sick of it. People shouldn't say anything unless they have actullay worked in a big hospital lab.

CLS48 in California said: I'm not sure MLTs can report results out. I'd like to see evidence of that. Do you have a link that specifically says this? While they do have licensed MLT, I do not believe they can report results out yet.

Hi yes I am an MLT working at a hospital in Wisconsin and I report out results everyday.

I have worked in Florida for 12 years. I was hired at the hospital where I did my clinicals. I report out results every day. We have to have at least one MT on site. Usually on second shift we have 2 or more and they are the Lead Tech in charge when no supervisor is present. There are more MTs on first shift than any other shift.

I graduated in 1997 and at that time we took a State of Florida test in Orlando not the ASCP or other test (also was a paper test not on computer...LOL). I have been working at the same hospital since.

My question is since I have a State of Florida certificate instead of one from one of the agencies what would happen if I moved to another state? Would I have to have an ASCP? I have heard some states accept Florida Licenses? Does anyone know where I could find out which states it is? I think it was GA and NC (maybe a few others?).

I've been reading this discussion for awhile now as I've been looking into becoming a CLS. To CLS48, it is true that MLTs are allowed to release results. This is a quote from one of the advisors at De Anza College in Cupertino: "CA licensed MLT's will be able to release waived and moderate complex testing results. The regulations state that when an MLT is performing moderately complex testing there must be a CLS onsite." Combine this with the fact that their must be only ONE CLS to every FOUR MLTs and I think we'll soon see California look like the rest of the states with regard to lower wages. I'm quite concerned actually... I'm even looking into other paths at the moment as I feel that the MLTs will (as a matter of sooner rather than later) swamp the field with cheap labor and thus push CLSs out of the market.

No offense to any MLTs out there as your contributions are valuable to the hospital in that you provide cheapER labor... but you guys will destroy the CLS profession. No one is going to want to go get their bachelors (with some having to do a year of postbac in addition to that) just to start at $20 and max out at $25. As a new college graduate, $25 does sound awfully good... but can you imagine earning that, and no more than that, for the next 20-30 years of your working career? I don't think so... I do feel that the CLSs in California have brought this upon themselves however for not increasing enrollment when there is such a high demand for CLSs.

That is why we need standards:

Standard degree, standard license (not a hard concept)

I don't think you will see CLS pay to that of some other states. I do not believe MLT's will destroy CLS proffesion because we are "cheaper" labor either. That notion is completely selfish. Why would anyone want to get a bachelors degree when you can become an RN and make twice as much as CLS??? There's a reason why there is a high demand for CLS, there are not that many students. All of the CLS and MT that I have worked with has usually been on the job for 10+ years. But you can easily find many new nurses everywhere you go. No matter what there will always be a need for a CLS. If anything technology is an enemy for the proffesion. With automated anylyzers and computer valadation and auto verifying results why would you need a CLS to perform testing? Soon all you would need is a specimen proccessor to assign an accesion number and a repair technician for when they break? Thats as likely as mlt replacing cls or draging the pay down. Also there are standards to the degrees.

Can you imagine, in the SUE happy state of California, MLTs receiving approval for the release of results? You have to be kidding me. It is just a matter of time before they realize that CLS should be in the fasttrack to Management positions. You think CLS wages will be dragged down? Lets look at reality, they are only getting higher in California.

VTRO in Davis, California said: Combine this with the fact that their must be only ONE CLS to every FOUR MLTs and I think we'll soon see California look like the rest of the states with regard to lower wages. I'm quite concerned actually... I'm even looking into other paths at the moment as I feel that the MLTs will (as a matter of sooner rather than later) swamp the field with cheap labor and thus push CLSs out of the market.

I doubt CLS pay will go down here. That just won't happen. Pay generally doesn't go down. Even in this messed up economy I just got a raise, and the scale has increased in many hospitals with new grads passing the $30 mark. As Getemson said, you can expect people suing and not standing for a decrease in pay. What is more likely to happen is less CLS positions will be available to accomodate MLTs. With only two MLT licensed schools in CA at this point, I think we're looking at a decade before MLTs make a dent into the CLS field.

The reason being, you still have all those other "technicians" without an associates who will never be allowed to release results. How do you distinguish and allow certain licensed MLTs to release results and other non-licensed MLTs not to. It'll be a mess.

I don't think it will be a mess. Those other non licensed MLTs are either lab assistants or they work in another state. You can't call them MLT's unless they went to an accredited school, obtained an associates degree along with a year of lab training. Lab assistants only have to a high school diploma and perhaps a phleb certificate. It will be a while before you see an increase in MLT here in CA. Not many hospitals or labs hire MLTs to perform MLT work. Its still new and policies have not been written for the positions. If there is not much demand then there won't be a surge in supply. MLT's from other states won't migrate here if the job supply is short.

To Battie, no where did I state that I am interested in becoming a CLS solely for monetary reasons. I stated that MLTs will lower wages as is similar to what other posters in other states have experienced with the induction of the MLT profession. I wrote that I am concerned that MLTs will lower or cap wages for the CLS which is a deterrent to many prospective students such as myself from the career. As for becoming an RN, I have absolutely no interest in that field.

To Getem and CLS48, I see the CLS profession as a field that is currently in the process of "change." As one of you have stated, it's more likely MLTs will start competing with CLS' (directly or indirectly) leading to competition or less CLS positions being available. And as MLTs are a cheaper alternative to the CLS, I do feel that CLS' wages will decrease (sooner or later). As for the current CLS', what will you do if the hospital gives you an ultimatum to either be laid off or have your wages decreased? The auto industry, for example, when times get tough they: renegotiate pay, fire people and rehire them for lower wages, etc. I am not saying this as a prediction for what is GOING to happen, but rather a concern as to what MAY happen.

In the end, I feel as if the MLT profession is just the beginning. I know there are only two schools right now, but how long will it be before more open? As with any new program (such as MLT in CA), the beginning will likely be slow for them but they'll grow and expand sooner or later. It'll just be a matter of time now.

Vtro you are correct. If they have a standard degree and standard certification, wages will ultimatley go up, but if employers have any chance to get cheap labor (mlt,amt) they will jump on that rather than pay the high salary for the BS MT (ASCP).
That is just a fact, I worked as a traveling tech and I have seen when clinical labs have standards, the employes stay and are payed well, no standards there is a high turnover and a shortage.

To Vtro I did not intend monetary was the only reason but MLT's have not lowered the wages in other parts of the country. MLT's have been around for 50 years now in other states and they have not dragged the wages down. Wages are low across the board for lab. CLS/MT are a necessity as well. Pay is also low for MLT's. We graduate about the same amount as a CLS. MLT's are not considered cheaper labor.

Gene, MLT and CLS have their own standards. They are two separate professions that share a common duties. I have not heard of a lab hiring a MLT over a CLS/MT because of cost. MLTs are a necessity just as are CLS/MT. I also haven't spoken to a CLS/MT that got their wage lowered, or laid off because the hospital hired MLT. Usually they bring in MLT's because they cannot find a CLS/MLT to fill the vacated position. They can't fill the position because the schools do not graduate enough people.

The idea that MLT's will lower wages will keep them out of the state of CA. CLS will join unions and require hospitals not to hire MLTs. If people will not hire MLT's then who would join the programs or move from other states?

MLTs will not lower wages in CA period. That just doesn't happen in the real world. You have to actually work in a CA hospital lab to understand what's going on. CLSs rule the lab. Generally there are no MLTs to a few MLTs around. These MLTs do not release results. Supervisors and managers all believe CLS is the standard and MLTs do not have the same education as a CLS, cannot release results, and don't have the same amount of confidence in MLTS as CLSs. I've heard many times it's hard to find good CLSs. What makes you think if managers can't even find good CLSs, they will look for good MLTs.

The older supervisors do not like change because that's just how life is. People resist change. Having MLTs come in and releasing results with a lower education, after having the impression of an "MLT" just having a high school diploma or with a degree but no relevant CLS classes just won't cut it. It will be a good 10 to 20 years before MLTs start becoming accepted here when the older generation of supervisors and managers retire.

With that said, I found it funny when the state of CA sent me a letter saying I qualify to take the MLT test since I have a BS degree even though I already have my CLS license. So they let anyone with degrees and no CLS relevant classes take the test? Yea I don't think that will fly in the lab.

You have new CLS grads making up to $36 an hour up in northern CA. You have new grads in southern CA making past $30 an hour. This is up about $2 to $3 from almost a year and a half ago and it's still increasing. This was also after the MLT started in CA which was a year ago. Did it make a dent? No. Will it? I doubt it until the impression of the "MLT" as not being allowed to release results, and to do the work that CLSs don't want to do fades away, as well as until more MLT schools appear. As I said, 10 to 20 years you may start seeing a change but not anytime soon.

I know this because the same things about technicians and even automation was being said 10 years ago, about how they would make the career of CLS obsolete. However, the pay and the need for CLSs has only increased.

I am going to school to become and MLT, and I already have a BS in Biology. Does anyone know after I become and MLT what steps to take to become an MT. I am moving to Washington as soon as I get my MLT degree. I am kind of nervous after reading some of the comments about the lab being the step child of the medical field. Do most of you MLT/MT enjoy this field??

Don't be an MLT if you have a bachelors, you're downgrading. Just go for the MT. The pay is more even in Washington and you get more respect. MLT only requires an associates. You probably can get an MT in a year or two.

Why are all you MT/CLS so negative about MLT's? Do you feel that they are not competent? I am in the process of getting my MLT and I assure you that it is not an easy program and the school does not just give the degree away to anyone who walks in the door. I do plan on getting a MT, but reading these comments makes me want to run in the other direction and accept my spot in the nursing program.

Then please do so, because I honestly would only like to see MT as the sole position for any clinical lab. Most would agree because it's the only way to up our standards and demand better pay. If you want to badly become a clinical lab scientist, then go become an MT and nobody will stop you/say anything to you. Looking for shortcuts is just bound to destroy the profession in the long term.

Personally, I don't think of this MLT vs MT issue as an issue of competence, skill, intelligence, etc. This issue reflects on the whole concept of "turf." The whole idea is that an MT, through extra schooling (4 years for bachelor + 1-2 years of specialized training) has a 'better understanding' of the scientific principles/ideas behind what they do and therefore "deserve" a higher pay. An MLT on the other hand is more likley to have received their education through shorter training (2 year program) and is thus more of a technical worker with less in-depth knowledge of the fine details behind the procedures they perform. Whether or not there is any difference in the final outcome of their work does not really matter as in the end the hospital will always favor hiring those who will work for lower wages (less education = lower wage = MLT). This then lowers the salaries of both the MLT and MT leading to the above mentioned conflict.

Not to beat the dead horse, but this very issue has been argued over and over in many different areas in the health field. Think CRNA vs anesthesiologist, nurse practioner vs primary care physician, optician vs optometrist, etc.. In all of these fields, a person with MUCH less education is able to perform nearly the exact same duties as the more advanced practitioner of the same field. Whether or not who does it better is your own opinion.

Now think about this issue if you are in the shoes of the MT. Would you want to give up your "turf" to someone with less education than yourself? How would you feel if, say, a phlebotomist is suddenly able to perform all of the duties of the MLT and your wages go from $20-25 to $10-15? Doesn’t feel too good, right?

Also, for some older/experienced MTs who state that the MLTs pose no threat to us as it'll probably be another 10-20 years before they start churning out enough MLTs to compete/lower MT wages... I have one word for you guys: RETIREMENT. As in some of you MTs are MUCH CLOSER to retirement than some twenty-somethings (like myself). If we do indeed enter the field, we are looking at another 30, maybe even 40 years, before retirement. So yeah, it's little comfort to hear those words..

I work at one of the most competetive paying hospitals and its still not enough to drag in enough CLS/MT. Depending on which statistic you look at the vacancy rate for a MT/CLS is about 60%. That is the reason why MLT's, specimen procceing and phlebs are all needed in the laboratory profession. Its an insane idea to think that only 1 position can cover all the duties that are required in the laboratory. Would you really want to be paid a few extra dollars to be more swamped with work? I wouldn't. Being swamped with that extra load would only worsned the quality that everyone is trying to achieve. MLT's are needed in the lab as much as everyone else. They cannot and will not replace MT/CLS. I'm sorry but it doesn't take a 4 year degree to run an acetest or do any of the rapid waived testing that any nurse w/o any lab experice can perform. MLT's are well trained in the laboratory for 2 years, just like a MT/CLS. Its just our other degree Associates only take another year to achieve. I have not seen a MLT program and degree take anyone less than 2.5 to 3 years to complete. After all theres prerequistes just like bs. Also labs do not favor MLT's over MTs. My hospital gives 2000 stipend to CLS, moving allowance, and few other perks if you sign up. MLT's they just give a hardy hand shake and welcome aboard. Also the pay is about 10 dollars different too. All of the MLT hating that I read really is annoying. Everyone that I work with is glad to have MLT's on board because we take alot of the work load away and they can concentrate better on the problems at task, like why is this instrument running different than this one. Or how can we get our TAT better. Cause if the MLT's were not there doing the testing it would fall on CLS's that are there and that would take away from the quality of care. Don't be discourged its not so hatefull once you get into your facilty. The MT/CLS will be glad your there.

Battie, the more you pay the more interest in the field, when there was a shortage of pharmacist 10 years go they didn't lower standards and create a nurse pharmacist program, they just paid more and there is more interest, hence the saturation of pharmacist in the field, I am sorry my brother is a pharmacist and he said it's the easiest job he has an gets paid 58/hour. He said a pharmacy tech can do his job but the laws are required for a proper degree and license. Unfortunately MT/CLS field would rather hire cheap labor to do the same job. If it's so busy in the lab hire more MA and phelbs for the processing, increase pay for the mt and you will get a saturation in the field as well. But no they would rather make a 2 year program than pay more to increase interest in the field. Thus we will have shortages, and mt will forever be a steeping stone to another better paying career.

Isn't the BS MT degree still just a 3 year degree?

Any bachelors degree is 4 years, It's 3 years pre-reqs + 1 clinicals.

That's right it's still a 3 year degree. MLT is 2 years of college and 6 months of clinicals so I don't consider clinicals college. Everone here considers MLT a 2 year degree so visa versa.

No its a 4 year degree. To get a bachelors it usually takes 4 years. I actually took 6 years getting a bachelors then doing a CLS program for 2 years. To say it's a 3 year degree is dumb.

1 year clinicals meaning, in my school during clinical year. We have to do rotations 4 days a week and 2 days of classes that are 8 hours long each the entire year. Clinical classes are way more harder than the regular pre-reqs you take during the first 3 years.

These people are just jealous, everyone knows a BS degree is 4 years, AS 2 years, unfortunatly this field has no standards so they made a 2 year program instead of increasing pay so there would be more interest like pharmacy, bc of the pay, there is a saturation.

Sure, you keep boosting the 3 year MT degree. It's a joke to Chemistry and Biology degree people. You're the same as a MLT and if it was a true 4 year degree there wouldn't be all this titty twisting on this site. What a bunch of Nancy's.