# Optical Forums > General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum >  Optician Guild/Union or what ever

## Boldt

So I've been skimming the boards here and I was wondering. Is there some sort or optical Union type thing? If not why not start one?
I bring this up because I've seen some disparaging comments about  our profession's state. So many of us complain and want the respective states do improve yet it sees to me, as a relative new comer to the path of becoming a good optician, that something should be done to raise the field. I see equations and thought processes that are easily college level, if not masters level topics. I often find my self over my head in the more technical parts of the forums, yet when not here I'm the one people come to for answers. (I do get more than a few here and thank you all for the answers I get)
Perhaps a national standard beyond the ABO? Maybe form some sort of union or guild that would not only help with income for us, but education, and enforcement of laws. For example here in Georgia there needs to be a LDO at all time unless a doctor uses their status. Yet I know many stores that have no LDO, or dispense with no Doctor or LDO. From what I understand it's a bit on the wrong side of the law, yet maybe one or two store get caught or fined a year. Perhaps this could become a more self regulating industry, or if we come together we could do what needs to be done to improve how the industry is seen.  
Just an idea that I'm tossing around and would like to see what others thought about it.

----------


## Uncle Fester

The well in the USA and Canada is currently too poisoned by the financial government and corporate oligarchs.

Not to mention the OD's and independent chains who would weigh in as it's against their interests.

You'll also need a large pool of money to organize and initiate such a major undertaking.

Now if Wal-Mart and Fast Food gets unionized...   :Rolleyes:

----------


## EyeCare Rich

I know in the great state of Washington there is a limited presence of a union in the Seattle area.  I believe it is a branch of SEIU.  One large optical employer runs with this union.  Been a while since I've been in contact, but it seems to work there.

----------


## Boldt

Something like that could work on the national level. It kills me that a profession like this is so unregulated.

----------


## wmcdonald

The "profession" does not wish to be regulated, unfortunately. But a union is not the answer. Until we develop a solid level of education and training that is the same across the country we are dead in the water, and will continue to decline.

----------


## Gizzo

> The well in the USA and Canada is currently too poisoned by the financial government and corporate oligarchs.
> 
> Not to mention the OD's and independent chains who would weigh in as it's against their interests.
> 
> You'll also need a large pool of money to organize and initiate such a major undertaking.
> 
> Now if Wal-Mart and Fast Food gets unionized...



+1 and it's a damn shame...

----------


## Uncle Fester

Rather than hijack another thread...From Dr. McDonald-




> Always that caveat from this community.......the experience is  important! Of course it is, but if you do not have the knowledge in the  first place your experience can be useless. Just read some of the posts  here on the most basic of topics that clearly reinforce the need for  increased education.


So why not unionize and like the trades require education with experience to advance by an apprenticeship, journeyman then master optician system?

----------


## Johns

I'm not sure about the purpose of unions.  I believe that they were formed to organize labor, and to be able to negotiate pay as a group.  When I was an employee, the last thing I would have wanted was to be lumped in with my peers, many of whom spent their weekends partying, while I took extra classes to learn more about my profession and business. When I thought I deserved more money, I went, hat in hand, to the management, and negotiated a good wage for ME.  Who knows what the others were worth?  I didn't really care.

Do you really need a union to tell you to go out and learn about the profession you are working in?  Really?

----------


## Uncle Fester

The mom and pop small business is being squeezed so badly that the day of the independent optical shop will soon be like a blacksmith. Sure you can find them but they're not going to be in every village. 

A national standard can be created to ensure that "more than a pulse" is answering your eye wear needs questions and abusive practices over employees now have a voice other than their own to represent them. 

State legislatures would be sidelined so nationally recognized standards could be achieved in all 50 states.

I can see the ophthalmic tech also being a part of us as well.

The recent movement to organize assistant teachers at colleges should be interesting to follow as I see similarities in their plight.

----------


## Boldt

> The mom and pop small business is being squeezed so badly that the day of the independent optical shop will soon be like a blacksmith. Sure you can find them but they're not going to be in every village. 
> 
> A national standard can be created to ensure that "more than a pulse" is answering your eye wear needs questions and abusive practices over employees now have a voice other than their own to represent them. 
> 
> State legislatures would be sidelined so nationally recognized standards could be achieved in all 50 states.
> 
> I can see the ophthalmic tech also being a part of us as well.
> 
> The recent movement to organize assistant teachers at colleges should be interesting to follow as I see similarities in their plight.


Agree with this so much. 
To add in that Optician would be something earned rather than given out like some companies like to do. I hated it at lenscrafters when I started working sales and they called any one who sold an Optician. It belittles a title that I'm working for.  I still call my self a Lab Tech (well lab rat with  the ones I know) and will until I pass my practical. 
Johns: It's not about having to be told to go out and learn, it's about having a standard. It's about our line of work getting the pay and respect it should, as well as raising it up to a higher standard. 
I've seen glasses so far out of Anzi that my jaw dropped. I've met lab techs that where clueless about Anzi. If we as a group would organize this would be brought to a minimum.

----------


## wmcdonald

Hey a union could probably help us out......like they did Detroit!

----------


## Uncle Fester

> Hey a union could probably help us out......like they did Detroit!


 The biggest element of mismanagement was designing and selling poor  products. Anyone who lived in Michigan in the 1970s remembers when  Detroit began building truly terrible cars, like the Chevy Vega, the AMC  Gremlin, the Chrysler Imperial, and the Ford Pinto; it was the  beginning of what became a slow-moving train wreck.
 [...]
*Autoworker wages didn't make the Big Three uncompetitive by  driving prices up; poor value drove prices down. As prices and quality  fell together, consumers fled. The UAW's contracts were almost  irrelevant.* One way to show this is to compare the pricing of  the competitors' vehicles with the size of the labor cost differential  bargained by the UAW. Labor costs make up only 10 percent of the cost of a typical automobile. Before the auto rescue, the Big Three paid $55 an hour in compensation  per auto worker while the Japanese paid only $46 an hour. (Company  lobbyists and publicists inflated the total Big Three labor cost to $71  by attributing the unfunded pension and health benefit costs for decades  of retired workers to the much smaller currently employed workforce;  the legacy costs for Japanese transplants were only $3 an hour.) But  even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the unfairly inflated $71  figure, the difference in the cost of a vehicle attributable to the UAW  (the UAW premium) would be 30 percent of the average 10 percent labor  cost, or 3 percent of total cost.
 In 2008, according to Edmunds, GM sold its average large car for  $21,518. Assuming GM sold its cars at cost, the UAW premium would have  been only $645 (3 percent of $21,518). Did the UAW premium raise the  selling price so high as to make GM cars uncompetitive with Toyotas? Not  exactly. Toyota sold its comparably equipped average large car for  $31,753--$10,000 more than GM. *It wasn't price that made GM cars uncompetitive, it was the quality of the product and the customers' perception of quality.* [The Economic Policy Institute, Working Economics Blog, 5/24/12]

From:  http://mediamatters.org/research/201...d-labor/198343

----------


## Boldt

That was a mix of Unions out of control and Factories being taken over seas. 
What I have in mind would not set wages in stone, but would give us more negotiation power. It would hopefully not harm the indy stores, but more help with the giants that pay rock bottom. Set a national License standard that could move state to state. things like that.

----------


## wmcdonald

Licenses are in state jurisdiction in the US, not the federal government. You can attempt to argue the value of unions all day, and only convince yourselves. In the days of cold mines when people were being injured unnecessarily, and unfairly, unions were of value. But in professional fields, that should be able to stand on their own. The path for Opticians is education, then legislation just like others before us.

----------


## rbaker

'Be vewwy vewwy carefuw wnat you wish for. You may just get it' 
     Elmer Fudd

What we have here is a collective of useful idiots!
     Joseph Stalin

Stop looking to others to solve your problems and learn to stand on your own two feet !
     Dick Baker

----------


## Uilleann

The funny thing is that there is even less of a national educational standard than there is a national optician competency baseline.  Compared to the variable quality, limited locations and lack of any nationally agreed upon standard, the ABO in all it's ridiculous glory still has it all over the possibility of a national opticianry educational system.  Until that changes in a massive and coherent way, there isn't really anything to discuss - let alone promote.

Sure it's a nice thought to wax poetic about, but presently it's nothing more than a national pipe dream.  Hard to say if that will ever change for the better...but appearances haven't been encouraging so far.

----------


## Chris Ryser

That is why the largest optical corporation has chosen this continent as their learning and playing ground for their advance to full worldwide commercial dominance.

----------


## Chris Ryser

That is why the largest optical corporation has chosen this continent as their learning and playing ground for their advance to full worldwide commercial dominance in the optical field.

----------


## Johns

> The biggest element of mismanagement was designing and selling poor  products. Anyone who lived in Michigan in the 1970s remembers when  Detroit began building truly terrible cars, like the Chevy Vega, the AMC  Gremlin, the Chrysler Imperial, and the Ford Pinto; it was the  beginning of what became a slow-moving train wreck.
>  [...]
> *Autoworker wages didn't make the Big Three uncompetitive by  driving prices up; poor value drove prices down. As prices and quality  fell together, consumers fled. The UAW's contracts were almost  irrelevant.* One way to show this is to compare the pricing of  the competitors' vehicles with the size of the labor cost differential  bargained by the UAW. Labor costs make up only 10 percent of the cost of a typical automobile. Before the auto rescue, the Big Three paid $55 an hour in compensation  per auto worker while the Japanese paid only $46 an hour. (Company  lobbyists and publicists inflated the total Big Three labor cost to $71  by attributing the unfunded pension and health benefit costs for decades  of retired workers to the much smaller currently employed workforce;  the legacy costs for Japanese transplants were only $3 an hour.) But  even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the unfairly inflated $71  figure, the difference in the cost of a vehicle attributable to the UAW  (the UAW premium) would be 30 percent of the average 10 percent labor  cost, or 3 percent of total cost.
>  In 2008, according to Edmunds, GM sold its average large car for  $21,518. Assuming GM sold its cars at cost, the UAW premium would have  been only $645 (3 percent of $21,518). Did the UAW premium raise the  selling price so high as to make GM cars uncompetitive with Toyotas? Not  exactly. Toyota sold its comparably equipped average large car for  $31,753--$10,000 more than GM. *It wasn't price that made GM cars uncompetitive, it was the quality of the product and the customers' perception of quality.* [The Economic Policy Institute, Working Economics Blog, 5/24/12]
> 
> From:  http://mediamatters.org/research/201...d-labor/198343


Ok...so now we know what George Soros wants us to think about unions...

----------


## Johns

> Under the leadership of UAW President Walter Reuther, the UAW  insisted on very generous compensation at each company. Reuther engaged  in “pattern bargaining”—targeting one of the Big Three during contract  negotiations for terms of a new (and usually generous) contract.
> 
>  If the automaker would not pay, the union would strike, shutting down  operations, sending business to the other two companies, and costing  the targeted firm billions. So the target company routinely conceded to  union demands. Reuther forced the other two automakers to accept  contracts with similar terms. This strategy allowed the UAW to raise  labor costs across the Big Three without putting any of the automakers  out of business.
>  This arrangement worked incredibly well for UAW members.* Until the  automakers were forced into bankruptcy proceedings in 2008 their labor  costs (wages and benefits) exceeded $70 an hour. UAW members enjoyed  seven weeks of paid vacation and they could retire to generous pension  benefits after 30 years on the job, irrespective of age. They earned  more than many Ph.D. scientists.*
> 
>  However, the UAW—like all cartels—helped its members at the expense  of the rest of the economy. Detroit automakers passed along the cost of  inefficient work rules and higher labor costs by raising their prices.  Since the Big Three controlled almost the entire U.S. market for cars,  and since Reuther did not allow them to compete on labor costs, American  consumers had little choice but to pay more for their product. That  meant higher monthly car payments and less money to spend elsewhere. For  some people the higher costs made buying a car unaffordable. So Detroit  built and sold fewer cars—and needed to hire fewer workers. The UAW  raised its members’ wages by raising prices and by restricting the job  opportunities for everyone else.
> http://capitalresearch.org/2012/01/t...o-the-economy/



So, here's another article from the battling pundits.  Talk to  (former) union workers, and the stories are plenty.  "Slumber rooms" with cots for workers to sleep off a buzz  while on the clock, work stoppages because a small part needed to be moved, but assembly worker were not allowed to touch it, due to their job description.  Yes, I agree with the article that the quality went down, but you can't build a quality product and maintain profits, with an inefficient work force and a bloated payroll.  I know I can't.

----------


## rdcoach5

> Agree with this so much. 
> To add in that Optician would be something earned rather than given out like some companies like to do. I hated it at lenscrafters when I started working sales and they called any one who sold an Optician. It belittles a title that I'm working for.  I still call my self a Lab Tech (well lab rat with  the ones I know) and will until I pass my practical. 
> Johns: It's not about having to be told to go out and learn, it's about having a standard. It's about our line of work getting the pay and respect it should, as well as raising it up to a higher standard. 
> I've seen glasses so far out of Anzi that my jaw dropped. I've met lab techs that where clueless about Anzi. If we as a group would organize this would be brought to a minimum.


ANZI ??? What the Heck is ANZI ? Oh , did you mean ANSI or American National Standards Institute ?

----------


## Boldt

lol Oops. I fat fingered the hell outa that one! ANSI is what I meant. I blame that on the end of day, lack of coffee, and so not lack of looking back at what I put down. 
Thanks for the catch there.

----------


## optical24/7

> The path for Opticians is *education, then legislation* just like others before us.


Though I've asked time and again from the folks that prescribe this, to give me a step by step way (that's grounded in reality) that this would work, I've yet to get ANY answer. What worked for OD's over a century ago will NOT work today. It has to be the other way around,,, legislate THEN educate. I can give you a more realistic way to make Opticianry get educated with mandate than (IMHO) anyone can the other way around.


I've used the analogy of driver's licenses before....If a person did not need to pass a test and pay a fee to drive, whom would? 

 The vast majority in Opticianry are apathetic at best. Ask me how many stepped up when we asked here in Texas for Opticians to help us change from voluntary to mandatory registration/licensure. There were only 4 of us. And even though there were so little of us, we managed to get a bill sponsored. (which got buried in legislative council by one very large retailer). 

There will be no large movement by Opticians to educate themselves, just the opposite. Again, you will have to drag Opticians into the classroom kicking and screaming all the way. And that way has to be, and will only happen through mandate.

----------


## Boldt

> Though I've asked time and again from the folks that prescribe this, to give me a step by step way (that's grounded in reality) that this would work, I've yet to get ANY answer. What worked for OD's over a century ago will NOT work today. It has to be the other way around,,, legislate THEN educate. I can give you a more realistic way to make Opticianry get educated with mandate than (IMHO) anyone can the other way around.
> 
> 
> I've used the analogy of driver's licenses before....If a person did not need to pass a test and pay a fee to drive, whom would? 
> 
>  The vast majority in Opticianry are apathetic at best. Ask me how many stepped up when we asked here in Texas for Opticians to help us change from voluntary to mandatory registration/licensure. There were only 4 of us. And even though there were so little of us, we managed to get a bill sponsored. (which got buried in legislative council by one very large retailer). 
> 
> There will be no large movement by Opticians to educate themselves, just the opposite. Again, you will have to drag Opticians into the classroom kicking and screaming all the way. And that way has to be, and will only happen through mandate.


+1

----------


## Pdarnall

Step #1) Degree from an accredited school. 
Step #2) Pass legislation to require #1.

----------


## wmcdonald

George,
I greatly respect what you attempted to do in Texas, and appreciate it, and I did all I could to support those efforts as you are aware. You are correct, unless folks can see some benefit they will not seek education. Other fields.......not just ODs many years ago, but Nurses, PTs, NPs, PAs, Dental Hygienists, and every other health-related field have benefited. My research clearly described what the field wanted, and I offered that freely to hopefully improve the field. Unfortunately, it has not been successful, but it is the only path that has been proven time and again.

I wish you the best, my friend, but we will (as usual) agree to disagree.
Warren

----------


## Boldt

Could you show me the research? As in I truly want to see it. I'd like to do something to make the industry that much better. A coworker of mine speaks very highly of you and suggested I ask your advice.

----------


## wmcdonald

The easiest thing to do is to go to Eye Care Professional Magazine and read my 7-part series on The American Optician. It has been discussed her many, many times by the same old crowd, always with the same old comments......mine included. Google is also your friend. My contact information is on Optiboard and I am always happy to offer whatever advice I can to an aspiring Optician.

----------


## optical24/7

> Step #1) Degree from an accredited school. 
> Step #2) Pass legislation to require #1.


How are you going to convince Opticians to go to school? Why would they go through a 2 year program, for 10 bucks an hour? Even licensed states do not require ANY schooling, you can apprentice in every one of them that I'm aware of. And for that matter, you don't even need to apprentice, just work for a doc under his/her license. So once again,_ HOW_ are you going to get Opticians into the classroom?




> George,
> I greatly respect what you attempted to do in Texas, and appreciate it, and I did all I could to support those efforts as you are aware. You are correct, unless folks can see some benefit they will not seek education. Other fields.......not just ODs many years ago, but Nurses, PTs, NPs, PAs, Dental Hygienists, and every other health-related field have benefited. My research clearly described what the field wanted, and I offered that freely to hopefully improve the field. Unfortunately, it has not been successful, but it is the only path that has been proven time and again.
> 
> I wish you the best, my friend, but we will (as usual) agree to disagree.
> Warren


Warren, you've always been a great friend, to myself, Texas and Opticianry. I truly appreciate all the support and council I got from you during those years. But I'm still waiting on the "how that's going to happen" argument from the "educate then legislate" crowd. As with the above poster, I've yet to hear a plausible way forward with that philosophy.

----------


## idispense

> The mom and pop small business is being squeezed so badly that the day of the independent optical shop will soon be like a blacksmith. Sure you can find them but they're not going to be in every village. 
> 
> A national standard can be created to ensure that "more than a pulse" is answering your eye wear needs questions and abusive practices over employees now have a voice other than their own to represent them. 
> 
> State legislatures would be sidelined so nationally recognized standards could be achieved in all 50 states.
> 
> I can see the ophthalmic tech also being a part of us as well.
> 
> The recent movement to organize assistant teachers at colleges should be interesting to follow as I see similarities in their plight.



Re: national standards and sidelining legislatures
Agreed

----------


## idispense

The problem with educate and legislate is the word legislate which is synonymous with politicians which is bad news.

----------


## idispense

The car companies sold garbage to the public and ignored that the public wanted quality and would pay for it. 

The government was and is no better. They assisted.

Look at GM today and tell me the government did their part to protect the public from poor quality garbage being sold to the public and in spite of the deaths they did nothing. Legislate is not the answer.  

Legislature and politicians did nothing to protect the public in British Columbia.

----------


## Uilleann

The closest thing to a national standard that exists is the ABO and the AOA's CPO tracks.  And we all know how effective both of these organizations have been in educating the public on the importance of their respective credentials.  _(Although, both are more than happy to take your money!) _ To try and leave the task of national certification/education/consistency to the extremely small hand full of community colleges and trade schools to hash out seems like a non-starter.  They're all in it to make their buck as well, and to that end they have their own ideas of what to teach and how to teach it.  There is no consistent national educational uniformity currently in existence.  So the question remains: how can you legislate something today that doesn't exist?  Perhaps at some unknown point in the future, there will be a new paradigm in optical education that leads to some form of national consistency, and greater access for potential dispensers.  As for the old argument that opticianry doesn't need more schools because: "Look at Optometry", that apple to oranges comparison doesn't, and shouldn't be made.  If a national standard can ever be established and brought to market, and more school locations become available to the population, then a tiny shot at legislation might just be viable.  Maybe.

----------


## Fezz

http://opticalworkers.com/408Home.html

----------


## Wes

If my experiences and observations are any indication of reality, you will not ever fix opticianry.  It does not want to be fixed.  It will linger on and die a slow death. With few exceptions, opticians want to be able to do and know the absolute minimum to get paid.  The exceptions tend to become ABOMs, or open their own businesses (or both).   Most grumble on Optiboard about the sad state of affairs until they realize the truth about opticianry.  Many of us who don't own our own businesses eventually look to other career fields.  Good luck.

----------


## Uncle Fester

I hope everyone had a nice weekend!

  I think we’re shoveling sand against the tide when we think we can mandate education unless it is directly tied to a pay scale.
   I see a union being especially helpful for those working in chains (pun intended) for $10 an hour. 

  The elephant in the room is that corporations only want one thing out of their employees- sales! And large chains are where the entry level jobs (and future opticians) in opticianry are right now. Let the apprentice work for something above that low wage that a union’s bargaining power would get but also give her the hope that the pay will substantially increase with the education and experience.

  Independent opticals and OD/MD practices would not be affected as they would not necessarily hire a union optician. Or they could hire at a lower wage as a nonunion shop. How many of us will weep at the chains increased costs?

  When a critical mass is reached in non-licensed states I would predict a rush by those legislatures to require a license and the yearly fee that comes with it. Tah Dah- required education.

  As things stand now we’ll continue to watch the corporate tide wash away any barrier we put up to protect and educate the profession.

----------


## Joe Zewe

There is a group of ODs attempting to form a union to negotiate with managed care providers.  

http://www.theaado.org/

Different concept but interesting none the less.

----------


## Johns

> There is a group of ODs attempting to form a union to negotiate with managed care providers.  
> 
> http://www.theaado.org/
> 
> Different concept but interesting none the less.


From their website:

_"Fund  a multi-year, nationwide, public relations campaign to change the  public perception of optometrists from the doctors that they go to for  their "glasses and contact lenses" to the doctors they think about and  go to for the care and treatment of all their eye problems. Advertising  will emphasize that Doctors of Optometry are the primary providers of  medical eye care in the United States, and treat virtually all  non-surgical injuries and diseases of the eye and surrounding tissues. 

_Looks like opticians aren't the only ones working on branding...

----------


## wmcdonald

Good point, Johns. The problem we have in branding........we are so different across borders in licensed states, and vastly different in regions around the country even in those unlicensed. To develop a solid, coherent brand, we must have some level of similarity in background, training and education like the ODs. I guess it can be done, because many are determined to do it, but I must wonder about the outcomes. I sure hope they are correct and it helps.

----------


## Golfnorth

> From their website:
> 
> _"Fund  a multi-year, nationwide, public relations campaign to change the  public perception of optometrists from the doctors that they go to for  their "glasses and contact lenses" to the doctors they think about and  go to for the care and treatment of all their eye problems. Advertising  will emphasize that Doctors of Optometry are the primary providers of  medical eye care in the United States, and treat virtually all  non-surgical injuries and diseases of the eye and surrounding tissues. 
> 
> _Looks like opticians aren't the only ones working on branding...


Here's how us opticians in Canada have branded in the past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IHKsn2zpGM

Regards,
Golfnorth

----------


## Uncle Fester

> So, here's another article from the battling pundits.  Talk to  (former) union workers, and the stories are plenty.  "Slumber rooms" with cots for workers to sleep off a buzz  while on the clock, work stoppages because a small part needed to be moved, but assembly worker were not allowed to touch it, due to their job description.  Yes, I agree with the article that the quality went down, but you can't build a quality product and maintain profits, with an inefficient work force and a bloated payroll.  I know I can't.


So we play the player.

And advancing your education is required to get ahead in the big boys chains.

Where's your business' downside?

(I like my pundits article better for the facts it lays out. But then again I don't see opticianry being comparable to the UAW.)   :Wink:

----------


## Johns

[QUOTE=Uncle Fester;493819
. But then again I don't see opticianry being comparable to the UAW.)   :Wink: [/QUOTE]

No union is comparable to opticianry!  That's why I was wondering why the UAW was introduced to the thread in post #12.  You're right...there is no comparison.    So we shouldn't...

----------


## Boldt

So why not start with a rebranding? There is YouTube and other sites now that can help with this. If awareness is raised then demand could push for what we are looking for. Also it would be seen by legislators and that may not be a bad thing, at worst they ignore it. 
I know it would not be an overnight thing I honestly think 5 years would be amazingly quick for something like this, more like 10. But why not?

----------


## tx11

+1 If a cool informational article could be written about ABO certified opticians it could be posted and reposted on every certified opticians facebook page and seen by millions!

----------


## Boldt

I'd throw it on my face book in a heartbeat!

----------


## optical24/7

> So why not start with a rebranding? There is YouTube and other sites now that can help with this. If awareness is raised then demand could push for what we are looking for. Also it would be seen by legislators and that may not be a bad thing, at worst they ignore it. 
> I know it would not be an overnight thing I honestly think 5 years would be amazingly quick for something like this, more like 10. But why not?


Then you will throw the curtain back to expose us for what we are..... NOT what the public already_ thinks_ they know about us. A study in NY a number of years ago showed the public has the impression that we have at minimum of a bachelor's degree (80 some odd percentage believes this..!)

----------


## tx11

> Then you will throw the curtain back to expose us for what we are..... NOT what the public already_ thinks_ they know about us. A study in NY a number of years ago showed the public has the impression that we have at minimum of a bachelor's degree (80 some odd percentage believes this..!)


  :Smile: We could put a positive spin on what the test does test for and the topics that must be studied in order to pass the test

----------


## optical24/7

Are you talking about the basic ABO test? That has been dumbed down for the last 20 years just to keep a 55% pass rate? It would take a lot of spin to make that positive...

----------


## Uilleann

The biggest problem with the licenced/non-licenced/ABO/ABOA/ABOM/NCLE/NCLEA/CPO/CPOA/CPOT/COA/COT/COMT/CCOA/ROUB/CDOS....etc, is that there is often much overlap, and most of the time, the public doesn't know/understand/care about the differences in what exists already.

To many, a tech is a tech, and a frame stylist is a stylist.  They are most interested if you can explain what they can get covered for their "free" VSP/EyeMed glasses, or manage to get them back to the doctor without having to do the dreaded "puffer" eye check, or dilate their eyes during the exam.  The public's guess at required education seems dubious at best, and I would further venture a guess that were more people across the entire US were queried, the perception might be rather different.  Who knows.

It strikes me that there are really only two types of people in the doctors office that the public generally understands: The doctors, and the 'everything else people'.  There is a massive amount of education that would need to take place, at a truly astronomical cost I would expect, to even break the surface of public awareness - let alone attempt to change buying habits (less online in favor of better quality from B&M shops etc)

Could all this realistically be done with YouTube?

----------


## tx11

Still... it is a starting point. Most, if not all, have studied the "Blue Bible" or something like to prep for the Basic ABO. We would not have to mention anything about degrees just the subject matter needed to prep for the test even though some of that may now be tested on the AC test. The 3 levels could be mentioned too. Positive...Positive... :Smile:  ITS A START

----------


## Boldt

> The biggest problem with the licenced/non-licenced/ABO/ABOA/ABOM/NCLE/NCLEA/CPO/CPOA/CPOT/COA/COT/COMT/CCOA/ROUB/CDOS....etc, is that there is often much overlap, and most of the time, the public doesn't know/understand/care about the differences in what exists already.
> 
> To many, a tech is a tech, and a frame stylist is a stylist.  They are most interested if you can explain what they can get covered for their "free" VSP/EyeMed glasses, or manage to get them back to the doctor without having to do the dreaded "puffer" eye check, or dilate their eyes during the exam.  The public's guess at required education seems dubious at best, and I would further venture a guess that were more people across the entire US were queried, the perception might be rather different.  Who knows.
> 
> It strikes me that there are really only two types of people in the doctors office that the public generally understands: The doctors, and the 'everything else people'.  There is a massive amount of education that would need to take place, at a truly astronomical cost I would expect, to even break the surface of public awareness - let alone attempt to change buying habits (less online in favor of better quality from B&M shops etc)
> 
> Could all this realistically be done with YouTube?


For YouTube? It'd be hard, there would have to be commercials that would grab the Viewers attention. A well done channel is a must. It can't be just a washed out background and someone sitting there on a chair in a lab coat. It's possible, hell with the help of Doctor's offices and even the big chains I'd say it can be done. From there TV spots to bring more to the channel, then legislation.
It's a rough outline for what needs to be done and the time line would be in the years.

----------


## ziggy

> Are you talking about the basic ABO test? That has been dumbed down for the last 20 years just to keep a 55% pass rate? It would take a lot of spin to make that positive...


 LMAO I am  just now reading through this thread and was thinking the same thing! if the public realized that a a drunk monkey with a #2 pencil can pass the ABO then the profession would loose what little respect we still have with the public! Those of you who know me know that I have always believed in the educate then legislate route. But it has many many problems. If we as an Opticians collectively could agree on this it would still go nowhere! You would a a large group who is educated but that's it. There is a reason why we have not a a new "licensed" state since 1979. As opticians, our collective pockets are not deep enough to make any changes. I have been on the legislative end for the last few years and have been unable to make any changes due to the influence of the retail giants, Optom's and our fellow opticians who are afraid that if the "bar" is raised it will somehow harm them. I've been in this business over 25 years(not as long as some but longer than most) and nothing has really changed, and I'm going to step out on a limb here and say in the next 25 years there will be no (positive) changes. As to the person who started the thread, learn everything about your craft, take classes, get degree, and be the best Optician you know. If you want to be happy, leave the "advancing Opticianry" political Bull Sh!t to the people who have made a living talking about it. :Smile:

----------


## rbaker

> LMAO I am just now reading through this thread and was thinking the same thing! if the public realized that a a drunk monkey with a #2 pencil can pass the ABO then the profession would loose what little respect we still have with the public! Those of you who know me know that I have always believed in the educate then legislate route. But it has many many problems. If we as an Opticians collectively could agree on this it would still go nowhere! You would a a large group who is educated but that's it. There is a reason why we have not a a new "licensed" state since 1979. As opticians, our collective pockets are not deep enough to make any changes. I have been on the legislative end for the last few years and have been unable to make any changes due to the influence of the retail giants, Optom's and our fellow opticians who are afraid that if the "bar" is raised it will somehow harm them. I've been in this business over 25 years(not as long as some but longer than most) and nothing has really changed, and I'm going to step out on a limb here and say in the next 25 years there will be no (positive) changes. As to the person who started the thread, learn everything about your craft, take classes, get degree, and be the best Optician you know. If you want to be happy, leave the "advancing Opticianry" political Bull Sh!t to the people who have made a living talking about it.


Right on but I think an apology to drunken monkeys is in order.

----------


## ziggy

> Right on but I think an apology to drunken monkeys is in order.


 Your right Dick, I could not sleep a wink last night fearing that I most likely offended our inebriated simian brothers. For that remark and all the other ones I thought of saying but did not,,,,, I am truly sorry. :Redface:

----------


## tx11

EXACTLY when did the NOCE take turn for the worst? WHAT YEAR(s) was the ABO "DUMBED DOWN"? The current exams are said to be "pshycometrically developed"...what does that mean? http://www.abo-ncle.org/ABO/Certific...icExamTestPage

----------


## ziggy

> EXACTLY when did the NOCE take turn for the worst? WHAT YEAR(s) was the ABO "DUMBED DOWN"? The current exams are said to be "pshycometrically developed"...what does that mean? http://www.abo-ncle.org/ABO/Certific...icExamTestPage


 "pshycometrically developed" is a termed that is used a lot when talking about test,,,, that being said i have no idea what it means!! LOL all I know is the the first time i took the ABO was in (i think) 91 and the test was nothing but Optics, the theory behind it and anatomy & physiology. These latest versions have (from what I'm told by folks taking the test) has very little math. I drilled formulas in to my apprentice head, even suggesting they sleep with Stoner's book, and was told by several people that it was a waste of time. There was very little A&P on the new test. I was told that there was a ton of questions about HIPPA and record retention. Of course I understand that there are several versions but these people took the test at diffrent times and locations.  HIPPA is important, but I think that this is something that can be picked up in a CE course.
Also interesting how the ABO/NCLE no longer send out the  individuals score or even the national average. its just pass or fail. As mentors, we use to be able to take the score and tell where the person was deficient and give them some additional instruction in that area. Now I sound like an old man, "back in my day"...

----------


## Boldt

If it's been dumbed down I'd hate to see years passed.
I had a manager talk me into taking it twice about a year after I started in a lab, and I failed. It was close both times (4 points and one point), but some of the questions are about lenses that are almost never used, and some very obscure things for some one who is new. Part of it goes back to education, something Georgia lacked and being able to wade through some misinformation. I've got the study guides now and this time I should be ready, but I cant say a test with a pass rate of under 60% from what I hear is easy.

----------


## tx11

> "pshycometrically developed" is a termed that is used a lot when talking about test,,,, that being said i have no idea what it means!! LOL all I know is the the first time i took the ABO was in (i think) 91 and the test was nothing but Optics, the theory behind it and anatomy & physiology. These latest versions have (from what I'm told by folks taking the test) has very little math. I drilled formulas in to my apprentice head, even suggesting they sleep with Stoner's book, and was told by several people that it was a waste of time. There was very little A&P on the new test. I was told that there was a ton of questions about HIPPA and record retention. Of course I understand that there are several versions but these people took the test at diffrent times and locations.  HIPPA is important, but I think that this is something that can be picked up in a CE course.
> Also interesting how the ABO/NCLE no longer send out the  individuals score or even the national average. its just pass or fail. As mentors, we use to be able to take the score and tell where the person was deficient and give them some additional instruction in that area. Now I sound like an old man, "back in my day"...


I passed in 1989 and I remember it being heavy in optics as well...I wonder when the test changed or began to change.

----------


## wmcdonald

It has been a slow, gradual decline since the early 1990s, according to many, including me. It changed in its complexity (although it was never real tough) with each "norming" (which means adjusting the passing scores based upon pass rates and other factors) it declined. In reality, every individual remembers the good old days when they took it....... it had to be tougher then! Truth is, if you had any level of training you should not have trouble with this thing then or now. We have folks like Boldt who are thrown to the wolves and try to pass it without any assistance, and it is allowed. No requirements to sit for this exam other than a check that clears and a pulse. I must admit I wonder about the pulse for those who cannot pass this with a little reading, though. To prove a point some years back, an individual did an experiment in which a new secretary at a national Opticianry organization was asked to read a study guide for a month. After that month was over, she took the NOCE and passed with, if memory serves, an 85. She did not even wear glasses! But she at least had a study guide! We are certainly not attracting the best and brightest, but those we do attract must have some systematic way of learning that is standard across the country somehow.

Psychometric evaluation is designed to assure tests are completely valid measured and as much bias as possible is eliminated. It is done for every kind of standardized assessment.

----------


## ziggy

> and some very obscure things for some one who is new. .


 There has been some talk about implementing a time in the field requirement before one could take the test. This would help with the obscure lens thing, but if you work in a retail type environment or for the average OD there will be a ton of stuff that you will never see.

----------


## wmcdonald

There was a 1-year requirement for many years. Not sure why that was eliminated? Could it be a revenue generator? Pass rates have declined since that happened. The board is going to put a year time requirement back in place very soon, I understand. 

As to things you may never see.......the same is true in any field. But if you are going to use the title, you must go through the education and training required for the full depth and breadth of that field. ONLY in this crazy field do we break away from that. Keep in mind, we historically only did two things.......spectacles and contact lenses, and we separated those, largely because many could not pass the NCLE exam. We continually dumb ourselves down unfortunately.

----------


## ziggy

> We continually dumb ourselves down unfortunately.


 well said! if the ABO/NCLE would re-implement a time requirement and tact on the career progression program that would be a start toward standardizing education for opticians

----------


## Diane

I continually hear people say..."my company/boss/doctor won't pay for that book or this course in order for me to study." When we take charge of our own, we do better.  Take responsibility for your own and you should do better.  I am An apprentice trained optician, but things have changed dramatically in our industry.  If we do not embrace education, we will continue to dumb down ourselves. 

The test questions are geared toward an entry level person, with little or no training.  That is part of the problem.  Listen up to Warren folks, or we will not be around for the next generation.

Just my 2 cents.

Diane

----------


## CCGREEN

> I continually hear people say..."my company/boss/doctor won't pay for that book or this course in order for me to study." When we take charge of our own, we do better.  Take responsibility for your own and you should do better.


I second that big time. I cannot express how passionate I am about looking out and taking/charge of ones own life and destination. No one should want improvement of/for yourself more passionately then you.

----------


## Boldt

Agreed, part of the reason I'm going to start school for it.

----------


## gmc

> I continually hear people say..."my company/boss/doctor won't pay for that book or this course in order for me to study." When we take charge of our own, we do better.  Take responsibility for your own and you should do better.  I am An apprentice trained optician, but things have changed dramatically in our industry.  If we do not embrace education, we will continue to dumb down ourselves. 
> 
> The test questions are geared toward an entry level person, with little or no training.  That is part of the problem.  Listen up to Warren folks, or we will not be around for the next generation.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.
> 
> Diane


I'm not even trained as an apprentice. Shortly after I entered the field in the late eighties I took and passed the ABO and NCLE exams. I passed both but it made me realize how little I knew, so I started devouring as much information as I could. I spent a small fortune on books and training. I became more knowledgeable than the average optician and ultimately completed the ABOM requirements in 1997. 

When I decided to move to Florida in 1994, I was able to get my license by showing (with a nod to Dr. McDonald) a pulse, a cleared check, passage of the ABO and NCLE exams, and five years worth of pay stubs from Alabama.

You shouldn't be able to get your license to practice opticianry today the way I got mine years ago. That doesn't mean I'm going to give up my ability to make a living. Nor do I expect anyone else to. But if we don't institute meaningful educational standards for the future, opticianry will soon be unrecognizable or dead.

----------


## optical24/7

The best place to start instituting meaningful education standards would be in those states that already have licensure. Why haven't any of them started?

----------


## m0002a

> But if we don't institute meaningful educational standards for the future, opticianry will soon be unrecognizable or dead.


A visit to most chain store opticals, or even some independents when the lead optician or owner is not around, would realize that it has already happened.

----------


## tx11

MAYBE there should be course work ( a basic ophthalmic optics work book) that HAS to be completed BEFORE one can sit for the exam will increase the pass rate and produce more optically minded dispensers.

----------


## Uilleann

> MAYBE there should be course work ( a basic ophthalmic optics work book) that HAS to be completed BEFORE one can sit for the exam will increase the pass rate and produce more optically minded dispensers.


Perhaps.  But just make certain the ABO has absolutely nothing to do with it.  And further, has no financial interest in said publication either.

----------


## leeopt

> Hey a union could probably help us out......like they did Detroit!


I needed a laugh.

----------


## ziggy

> MAYBE there should be course work ( a basic ophthalmic optics work book) that HAS to be completed BEFORE one can sit for the exam will increase the pass rate and produce more optically minded dispensers.


 perfect

----------


## Hayde

Interesting line of discourse, but I don't think we're looking at the green.

If we can agree licensure is a tough sell and will be lucky to hold its current boundries--forget advancing where it's not currently in place--then we have to accept 'legislation' isn't a successful strategy. Uncle Fester's post is still informative:




> *the OD's* and independent chains who would weigh in as it's against their interests.


 (emphasis mine)

It's not what we think of the issue that's pertinent. It's what _doctors_ think--and a good portion of them think they're doing fine with green assistants who come cheaper than licensed (or equivelently trained) optitians. Plus the public at large has every right to be sceptical of the economic impact of licensure in any industry.

Uilleann is right...patients see 'doctors' and 'the rest of them.' The more we take a 'union' or authoritarian tone on this subject of professional education, the less we're accomplishing. What sort of science fiction event would have to happen for us to flaunt ourselves in the middle between doctors and their patients about "what they really need" without Optometry's blessing? Should we even want to?

Rather than continue to effectively persuade doctors their interests are aligned with corporate fast-food, we need to ask ourselves WHY optician certification (of whatever level) isn't more valuable to doctors? Why doesn't our expertise market THEM better? What would it take to make it so? If we really want the value of competent opticianry sold to patients, it has to be done Through the docs & AOA--not around them. Which means this subject has to be approached in such a way we're not suspected of 'unionizing' or whatever posturing that seems we want to drive up their cost of doing business.

We don't own the title 'optician'...no point pretending we do. Regardless of who you think should, it's Doctors that do. Any 'minimum curriculum bible' of 'opticians' needs to be sold to doctors--in economic terms. They're the only ones who can make it stick. When _enough_ docs see it in the interests of their practices as well as the field of optometry, they'll put the semantic bar of "optician" high enough to distinguish us from McGlasses employees. If and when they decide to snap their fingers, I bet the ABO will jump wherever they're told.

----------


## Uncle Fester

> Which means this subject has to be approached in such a way we're not suspected of 'unionizing' or whatever posturing that seems we want to drive up their cost of doing business...
> 
> We don't own the title 'optician'...no point pretending we do. Regardless of who you think should, it's Doctors that do. Any 'minimum curriculum bible' of 'opticians' needs to be sold to doctors--in economic terms. They're the only ones who can make it stick. When _enough_ docs see it in the interests of their practices as well as the field of optometry, they'll put the semantic bar of "optician" high enough to distinguish us from McGlasses employees. If and when they decide to snap their fingers, I bet the ABO will jump wherever they're told.


I don't think the Doc's hold the key.

Again I'm not clear as to why it's a bad thing to unionize and drive up the cost of chains doing business. So quarterly profits drop less that .5% of multi-million dollar corporations who could care less about the well being of their employees.

 That's a bad thing for the single mom trying to make a career with her high school diploma by having a much stronger voice advocating for a living wage predicated on getting more education and not what ever add on's she can up-sell to boost the commission?

 I'm advocating for the McGlasses employees who are the future and have very little voice to change the situation. Many of whom cannot contribute to this thread for fear of being found out by their employer and fired. A situation now where they can be given a "supervisor" title and then be forced to work OT with no compensation. Yes-They can quit-- I get that!!! But why not promote an option that would help the little guy and begin to create national standards- all be it to a small but growing segment of opticianry.

Now if your disagreement stems from a belief that all unions are always corrupt then you should say so and let the discussion continue with those who disagree.

----------


## rbaker

> MAYBE there should be course work ( a basic ophthalmic optics work book) that HAS to be completed BEFORE one can sit for the exam will increase the pass rate and produce more optically minded dispensers.


This is a logical solution which is why it will never be implemented.

----------


## Hayde

> I don't think the Doc's hold the key.


I wouldn't mind being wrong, but I'm not seeing it.  Happy to hear how I'm reading the green wrong.




> Again I'm not clear as to why it's a bad thing to unionize and drive up the cost of chains doing business. So quarterly profits drop less that .5% of multi-million dollar corporations who could care less about the well being of their employees.
> 
>  That's a bad thing for the single mom trying to make a career with her high school diploma by having a much stronger voice advocating for a living wage predicated on getting more education and not what ever add on's she can up-sell to boost the commission?
> 
>  I'm advocating for the McGlasses employees who are the future and have very little voice to change the situation. Many of whom cannot contribute to this thread for fear of being found out by their employer and fired. A situation now where they can be given a "supervisor" title and then be forced to work OT with no compensation. Yes-They can quit-- I get that!!! But why not promote an option that would help the little guy and begin to create national standards- all be it to a small but growing segment of opticianry.
> 
> Now if your disagreement stems from a belief that all unions are always corrupt then you should say so and let the discussion continue with those who disagree.


Wasn't making a value judgment on unions or the economic cause of McGlasses folks.  I used to be one.  Proud of it.  Still have the old store magnet on my fridge.  I don't disagree they're the HR crop field for the industry.

But I'm not the one who steered this thread off the 'union' track.  The OP expressed interest in 'state of the profession' and discussion spiraled in on professional education.  That's the angle I found interesting and volunteered how I 'read the green' on that point.

My opinion on the virtue or vices of unions is irrelevant--what the public and job creators think is.

...and my opinion one way or the other on any subject doesn't inhibit anybody from proceeding with any discussion as they wish.

This thread canvases a lot of topics, kinda like an Occupy rally.  I will say _those_ were awfully silly.  If we're talking about professional education, I'm interested.  To that end, I see 'union' as a side issue that would kill focus and momentum at every juncture.

If the thread is about living wages for McGlasses folks--I missed it entirely.

----------


## Paul Smith LDO

> If it's been dumbed down I'd hate to see years passed.
> I had a manager talk me into taking it twice about a year after I started in a lab, and I failed. It was close both times (4 points and one point), but some of the questions are about lenses that are almost never used, and some very obscure things for some one who is new. Part of it goes back to education, something Georgia lacked and being able to wade through some misinformation. I've got the study guides now and this time I should be ready, but I cant say a test with a pass rate of under 60% from what I hear is easy.


I took and passed both the ABO and NCLE second quarter in my first year of Opticianry School, 1996 and remember being disappointed with each, in their lack of context.  To hear that it is being dumbed down does not bode well for the future of our industry.

----------


## Boldt

I think that's the difference, you took classes, I took it via work experience. I was shocked by some of the questions with blended bi-focals and round segs, something I had never even heard of. Now I'll get it, but it seems like that most people who said it was dumbed down took it years ago when training for it was a bigger thing. This is part of why I am looking for ways to standardize the industry. The educate then legislate seems to have failed. At this point forming a national entity and figuring out political ways of improving.

----------


## idispense

KLEENEX, 

Has no education 

                                          Has no legislation

but everyone knows what it is.

----------


## tx11

> KLEENEX, 
> 
> Has no education 
> 
>                                           Has no legislation
> 
> 
> but everyone knows what it is.


Much like opticians....Many people purchase facial tissue (refer to it as KLEENEX) BUT IT IS NOT KLEENEX .ONLY KLEENEX IS ACTUALLY KLEENEX. Just sayin' :Wink:

----------


## idispense

> Much like opticians....Many people purchase facial tissue (refer to it as KLEENEX) BUT IT IS NOT KLEENEX .ONLY KLEENEX IS ACTUALLY KLEENEX. Just sayin'


just sayin:

KLEENEX is a brand, or branding, it has no education but it educates. 

KLEENEX is a brand or branding, it has no legislation but it rules 

Build the brand, sell the rights to use it to members who qualify and meet the standards of the brand.

----------


## tx11

UNFORTUNATLY IN TEXAS and MANY OTHER STAES if you sell eyewear (and ANYBODY can) in a OD/MD/INDEPENDANT/Chain or BIG BOX you are called an "optician".  Perhaps we need to come up with another Title that can only be used by prequalified professionals and have that start showing up...build that brand...copyright it.

----------


## Paul Smith LDO

> I think that's the difference, you took classes, I took it via work experience. I was shocked by some of the questions with blended bi-focals and round segs, something I had never even heard of. Now I'll get it, but it seems like that most people who said it was dumbed down took it years ago when training for it was a bigger thing. This is part of why I am looking for ways to standardize the industry. The educate then legislate seems to have failed. At this point forming a national entity and figuring out political ways of improving.


I read the same books that most people did on this board, the same books that have been touted for years on this board, the same books that are available to you.  Attending classes does not guarantee acquisition of knowledge.  If you don't study, you don't learn and you don't pass.  If I were you, I'd focus on myself and my education instead of trying to find ways to standardize this industry.

----------


## jonathan barber

> I read the same books that most people did on this board, the same books that have been touted for years on this board, the same books that are available to you.  Attending classes does not guarantee acquisition of knowledge.  If you don't study, you don't learn and you don't pass.


Very true! It's a lot like the old saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink."  As far as the NOCE is concerned, when I'm asked about the exam, I refer to it as the "125 Ways To Straighten A Frame" test. When I took it in 2012 I wasn't sure what to expect, but I had studied every resource I could possibly get my hands on. I too was highly disappointed in the exam and felt that the majority of it only required common sense. I guess it is much better to be over prepared rather than be under prepared.

----------


## Uilleann

> ...Perhaps we need to come up with another Title that can only be used by prequalified professionals and have that start showing up...build that brand...copyright it.


Remember, the point of this silly exercise is to generate greater public awareness of opticianry.  And the vast majority of the public already makes little to no distinction and certainly can't define any differences between the three current O's.  Why would we want to further muddy and confusticate the waters of public ignorance by adding yet another cryptic term to something most people don't even care about?

Step back and look at it from a non-optical public stance.  What can this industry do to simplify (and in so doing define & elevate) our public image - not make things more abstruse.

----------


## tx11

The public isn't the problem..really...its who hires and employs people to the job.

----------


## tx11

> Very true! It's a lot like the old saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink." If anyone is interested, I have a .pdf copy of "System For Ophthalmic Dispensing" that I can send if anyone is looking for great reading material. As far as the NOCE is concerned, when I'm asked about the exam, I refer to it as the "125 Ways To Straighten A Frame" test. When I took it in 2012 I wasn't sure what to expect, but I had studied every resource I could possibly get my hands on. I too was highly disappointed in the exam and felt that the majority of it only required common sense. I guess it is much better to be over prepared rather than be under prepared.


The test must have really changed since 1989

----------


## Boldt

I'm getting book and rectifying the situation on my own. I own my education no problem. :^)
The problem is that until I went to the small office world I had no clue to what was out there. If some one has no idea what is out there then how can they be expected to learn it? And this is the norm in the industry. 
That being said I'm not trying to stabilize the industry. (yet I need many more years under my belt before I try that :^)  ) I'm making an observation that there is quite literally masters level if not PHD levels of knowledge that go into being a good optician. I'd like to see people rewarded for what they had done to get where they are. 

:^) all that being said what books are they? I have a detailed study guide for the ABO, a doctor's book on contacts that I'm struggling through, and read everything I can find on the web. I would love to get the books you're speaking of.

----------


## Boldt

> Very true! It's a lot like the old saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink." If anyone is interested, I have a .pdf copy of "System For Ophthalmic Dispensing" that I can send if anyone is looking for great reading material. As far as the NOCE is concerned, when I'm asked about the exam, I refer to it as the "125 Ways To Straighten A Frame" test. When I took it in 2012 I wasn't sure what to expect, but I had studied every resource I could possibly get my hands on. I too was highly disappointed in the exam and felt that the majority of it only required common sense. I guess it is much better to be over prepared rather than be under prepared.


I would love the PDF!

----------


## tx11

:Smile:

----------


## ziggy

> I If some one has no idea what is out there then how can they be expected to learn it? .


 Boldt you bring up a good point, you, like most people in the industry(new and old) don't know what they don't know. I personally know many licensed Opticians who could not calculate the amount of prism that is induced in a given lens if the horizontal PD is off. these people are good at what they do(sell frames)but they are not what I would consider an Optician. That being said I'm sure there are folks on this thread who know things that I don't, and think that I'm less of an Optician for it. Most licensed states use the ABO and the NCLE basic certification test as a prerequisite in getting a license. If ABO/NCLE made the career progression program or another yet undeveloped program a prerequisite to taking the test, and strengthen the test to actually test optical knowledge, this would go a long ways to having an standard.

----------


## gmc

> If anyone is interested, I have a .pdf copy of "System For Ophthalmic Dispensing" that I can send if anyone is looking for great reading material.


System for Ophthalmic Dispensing is copyrighted. You can buy 2nd editions for under $30.00.

----------


## Uilleann

> The public isn't the problem..really...its who hires and employs people to the job.


I respectfully disagree.  The public is precisely who "hires and employs people to do the job".  Without their decision to walk through your front door, and hire you and/or your doctor/owner to assist in their eye health care, there is no money period.  Doesn't matter if you're dispensing, refracting, or surgery-ing ;).  With the public's proverbial eye drawn more an more to the interwebs in their search for eyewear/care, the onus remains on dispensers to use whatever drive they have if they wish to create some means of differentiating in the public eye (such as a new guild or union or whatever).

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

For well over a decade my firm has been administering a hand-on practical for opticianry.  There are two points that are applicable to this discussion.  First, the test has been described as “too easy” by many who have reviewed it.  Second, it has maintained a 50% pass rate throughout the years.

Interesting statistics:
When presented a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses:
65% can neutralize the distance portion of the lens;
47% can measure the prism thinning;
55% can analyze the lenses for unwanted prism;
55% can measure a monocular PD.

When presented a pair of mounted bifocal lenses:
50% can determine the add power;
36% can measure the distance between prism reference points;
59% can measure the seg height;
48% can analyze the lenses for unwanted prism.

40% can calculate vertical imbalance.
61% can split prism for best cosmetic effect.

----------


## Paul Smith LDO

> For well over a decade my firm has been administering a hand-on practical for opticianry.  There are two points that are applicable to this discussion.  First, the test has been described as “too easy” by many who have reviewed it.  Second, it has maintained a 50% pass rate throughout the years.
> 
> Interesting statistics:
> When presented a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses:
> 65% can neutralize the distance portion of the lens;
> 47% can measure the prism thinning;
> 55% can analyze the lenses for unwanted prism;
> 55% can measure a monocular PD.
> 
> ...


100% job security.  Those of us that have taken the path of education(what ever that forum may be) and certification will always be in demand.  We may never be allowed to retire but there will always be a need for us.

----------


## idispense

> For well over a decade my firm has been administering a hand-on practical for opticianry.  There are two points that are applicable to this discussion.  First, the test has been described as “too easy” by many who have reviewed it.  Second, it has maintained a 50% pass rate throughout the years.
> 
> Interesting statistics:
> When presented a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses:
> 65% can neutralize the distance portion of the lens;
> 47% can measure the prism thinning;
> 55% can analyze the lenses for unwanted prism;
> 55% can measure a monocular PD.
> 
> ...



of the 65 percent who can neutralize the distance portion of progressives,can they do all of the other tasks to 100 per cent satisfaction ? 

Obviously not , otherwise the 50 per cent who can determine the add power of a bifocal would be at least 65 percent

So it comes down to bad teaching and bad students. What is the percentage required to pass ?

----------


## Paul Smith LDO

> of the 65 percent who can neutralize the distance portion of progressives,can they do all of the other tasks to 100 per cent satisfaction ? 
> 
> Obviously not , otherwise the 50 per cent who can determine the add power of a bifocal would be at least 65 percent
> 
> So it comes down to bad teaching and bad students. What is the percentage required to pass ?


It only comes down to bad teachers and bad students if we are a "profession" or an apprenticeship.  Given that there is no set nationalized standard, we are frame benders in some places, associates in others, opticians here, and licensed opticians there.  For the most part you have bad students, who have become bad teachers who are producing more bad students.  The best that we can hope to achieve at this point in time is organized chaos.

----------


## Wes

> The best that we can hope to achieve at this point in time is organized chaos.


I'd rather herd cats than spend any more time trying to organize this chaos.

----------


## Paul Smith LDO

> I'd rather herd cats than spend any more time trying to organize this chaos.


You can get more p---y with catnip then an optician with accreditation.

----------


## ziggy

> I'd rather herd cats than spend any more time trying to organize this chaos.


Well said Wes! as a whole we cant not agree on what an "Optician" is, let alone what these people should know or learn.

----------


## wmcdonald

Spot on Wes and Paul! And until we have a nationally understood, and recognized definition, and a formal approach to entering the field, we are doomed to continue along this same path. It is a shame because we could be so much more than we are if we just would have some vision.

----------


## Wes

The problem with opticianry resembles American politics. Those in power benefit from the dysfunctional system while those at the bottom are too apathetic to care. Few are inclined to change a dysfunctional system until it becomes extremely oppressive, and since opticianry has few standards, it is not oppressive at all.  Just failing miserably.  A majority got into this "profession" by accident and stayed because it was so easy.  Good luck getting them to vote to make it harder.  The opposite is far more likely.

----------


## tx11

> I respectfully disagree.  The public is precisely who "hires and employs people to do the job".  Without their decision to walk through your front door, and hire you and/or your doctor/owner to assist in their eye health care, there is no money period.  Doesn't matter if you're dispensing, refracting, or surgery-ing ;).  With the public's proverbial eye drawn more an more to the interwebs in their search for eyewear/care, the onus remains on dispensers to use whatever drive they have if they wish to create some means of differentiating in the public eye (such as a new guild or union or whatever).


Don't the states strictly regulate MD/OD.ONLY those passing the licensing test can LEGALLY practice. NOT so with "optician". Anybody can be hired to perform optician work. In the public eye...If you work for and eye doctor of any kind or sell eyewear anywhere...you are an "optician". So restricting who can be hired to function as an optician seems key. maybe...

----------


## Boldt

Optician should be simple to define: A person who, using their knowledge of optical science, helps pick out the best frame for the patients visual needs. It should be a title like any other that is earned. 
Speaking as someone who got in the field on a whim of trying something new I'm all about making it more streamlined, improving the education, bringing more to what we do. I've trained quite  a few new people who came in the field and I always hear the same after a wile, "What's next?" I tell them about the tests, ABO A&M, but have to explain that they really only mean something out side of the corporate world.

----------


## tx11

> The problem with opticianry resembles American politics. Those in power benefit from the dysfunctional system while those at the bottom are too apathetic to care. Few are inclined to change a dysfunctional system until it becomes extremely oppressive, and since opticianry has few standards, it is not oppressive at all.  Just failing miserably.  A majority got into this "profession" by accident and stayed because it was so easy.  Good luck getting them to vote to make it harder.  The opposite is far more likely.


Who would you say are "those in power"?

----------


## wmcdonald

> Optician should be simple to define: A person who, using their knowledge of optical science, helps pick out the best frame for the patients visual needs. It should be a title like any other that is earned. 
> Speaking as someone who got in the field on a whim of trying something new I'm all about making it more streamlined, improving the education, bringing more to what we do. I've trained quite  a few new people who came in the field and I always hear the same after a wile, "What's next?" I tell them about the tests, ABO A&M, but have to explain that they really only mean something out side of the corporate world.


Best frame for their visual needs? You have to be kidding, right? SO we are frame salespeople, as you see it? Bless your heart. Go back on this board for years, and you will see all of the disagreements regarding the definition of Optician. I want to see us practice at a much higher level than you to include contact lenses, refraction and low vision. Most here cannot even find the power of a lens in a given axis if their life depended it. So as simple as you feel it may be, you are simply incorrect. It has been tried for many years to no avail.

----------


## wmcdonald

> Don't the states strictly regulate MD/OD.ONLY those passing the licensing test can LEGALLY practice. NOT so with "optician". Anybody can be hired to perform optician work. In the public eye...If you work for and eye doctor of any kind or sell eyewear anywhere...you are an "optician". So restricting who can be hired to function as an optician seems key. maybe...


But as Wes stated above, getting the masses to support increasing standards, when they themselves have none, will be tough. But until we do have some restrictions we will continue to struggle.

----------


## idispense

if a person could answer 100 percent all of the questions from two or three optical text books, what text books would those be and would it satisfy being called an optician ? would it exceed present standards ?

----------


## Boldt

wmcdonald: 
You're right I should have included contact lenses in my post. It should have read more like this: Optician: A person who uses their knowledge of optical science to help people pick out the best visual product for their needs, helps with any trouble shooting with a persons frame/lens/contacts. It's still dumbed down, but more accurate. 
And yes, a frame is very important in helping people see to often I see 26 eyes with a progressive shoved in at 18-20mm giving almost no distance. People using huge frames with high RX's. Frames are not the only part of the whole, but they are important. 
I know that Refractions have been proposed and if we, as an industry, could shape up it could be done. After a long fight with the OD's. 
If we can't find the power, then shouldn't the more experienced opticians show us? I mean no disrespect with this, but I see this happen when new people come to older hands for help.
 I've had it happen many times. I tend to want to find out what I don't know, but not every person does. It's easy to get discouraged and just do the least possible. I know I can't do that if I ever plan to open my own store front or advance my self in this industry. But, I also know that the deck at best in not in my favor in this learning. 
I'm not meaning to rant, but I have always held the belief that those with knowledge are obliged to do their best to pass it on.

----------


## wmcdonald

> wmcdonald: 
> You're right I should have included contact lenses in my post. It should have read more like this: Optician: A person who uses their knowledge of optical science to help people pick out the best visual product for their needs, helps with any trouble shooting with a persons frame/lens/contacts. It's still dumbed down, but more accurate. 
> And yes, a frame is very important in helping people see to often I see 26 eyes with a progressive shoved in at 18-20mm giving almost no distance. People using huge frames with high RX's. Frames are not the only part of the whole, but they are important. 
> I know that Refractions have been proposed and if we, as an industry, could shape up it could be done. After a long fight with the OD's. 
> If we can't find the power, then shouldn't the more experienced opticians show us? I mean no disrespect with this, but I see this happen when new people come to older hands for help.
>  I've had it happen many times. I tend to want to find out what I don't know, but not every person does. It's easy to get discouraged and just do the least possible. I know I can't do that if I ever plan to open my own store front or advance my self in this industry. But, I also know that the deck at best in not in my favor in this learning. 
> I'm not meaning to rant, but I have always held the belief that those with knowledge are obliged to do their best to pass it on.


No one in this industry has done more to help those who seek knowledge than me. I have always lived up to the concept of paying it forward, and want the very best for those in the field. I have met and surpassed that obligation long before you arrived, thank you very much. But do you not also recognize there must be some baseline of knowledge prior to coning into any professional field to serve the general public.......especially in allied health fields? If they....you, or anyone else for that matter, dose not have that baseline of knowledge, you should be required to have it, which is not the case in Opticianry. There is the problem......not the fact that more knowledgeable, experienced folks won't help. It is the system that allows ill-prepared (or in our case, not prepared at all) folks to enter the field in the first place.

As to the silly question about reading textbooks........there is not set "two or three" books to read that makes for an education. Would it raise the standard? Absolutely. Ever notice that some of the "professionals" can't answer even the basic questions one would expect any professional to know?

----------


## Uilleann

> ...I want to see us practice at a much higher level than you to include contact lenses, refraction and low vision...


And you expect no resistance from OD's when trying to muscle in on their turf?  I think strong opticians have plenty enough to concern themselves with and can easily grow the standard of our profession without the need to play doctor on top of it all.  To want to push for such a dramatically expanded scope like that - rather than focusing on what elevates dispensing itself to a new level seems to be folly incarnate.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> if a person could answer 100 percent all of the questions from two or three optical text books, what text books would those be and would it satisfy being called an optician ? would it exceed present standards ?


Corneal Contact Lenses -GirardThe Ophthalmic Assistant -Stein, Stein, FreemanSystem for Ophthalmic Dispensing -Brooks, Borish.
Yes, and yes. 

But as wmcdonald says, they should be part of a formal education.

----------


## Boldt

I'm not saying that you are holding back on you're knowledge, I was able to skim the articles you wrote and agree there needs to be a base line in the industry. 
I agree and disagree with what you say about the industry. I've found a handful of people willing to take the time to teach about lenses (none for contacts) to help beyond sell this it's the best. I agree that there is a desperate need to vastly improve the standards. 
I'm sorry if my last post implied you're not helpful. :^)

----------


## Paul Smith LDO

> Don't the states strictly regulate MD/OD.ONLY those passing the licensing test can LEGALLY practice. NOT so with "optician". Anybody can be hired to perform optician work. In the public eye...If you work for and eye doctor of any kind or sell eyewear anywhere...you are an "optician". So restricting who can be hired to function as an optician seems key. maybe...


State regulatory agencies are reliant on the working professionals and the public at large to police each health care profession.  The general public wouldn't know the tell tale signs that there is something aloof, how can the public not trust the lab coat, it's the perfect disguise much better then the black frame, with big nose, bushy eyebrows, and creepy mustache.  That leaves the police work with the profession.

----------


## tx11

> State regulatory agencies are reliant on the working professionals and the public at large to police each health care profession.  The general public wouldn't know the tell tale signs that there is something aloof, how can the public not trust the lab coat, it's the perfect disguise much better then the black frame, with big nose, bushy eyebrows, and creepy mustache.  That leave the police work with the profession.


Hey!?!?  That's my avatar... :Tongue:  Is the mustache that creepy? Lol...Maybe its time for an update..

----------


## Paul Smith LDO

> Hey!?!?  That's my avatar... Is the mustache that creepy? Lol...Maybe its time for an update..


Creepy works for me, unless your disguise is, Harry Reems.

----------


## tx11

Had to look him up... :Unsure: and then ... :Eek:

----------


## Paul Smith LDO

> Had to look him up...and then ...


He too played a doctor, white lab coat and glasses.

----------


## mervinek

> Had to look him up...and then ...


Ewwwwwwwwwwwww!

----------


## tx11

> He too played a doctor, white lab coat and glasses.



 
REALLY ...Im not sure what you're point is.?? :Unsure:

----------


## Paul Smith LDO

[QUOTE=tx11;494761][/COLOR] 
REALLY ...Im not sure what you're point is.?? :Unsure: [/QUOTE

It's a reference to the regulatory statement you made, Harry Reems played a doctor in the classic, Deep Throat.  It makes my point about the public being fooled by his disguise, lab coat.  Only a member of the health care profession could see that he really wasn't a doctor.   However, thru pure scientific method he was able to prove his hypothesis in a manner that only the adult entertain community could provide.  A regular Professor Henry Higgins, e' was.

----------


## tx11

oh ....ok...got you! I still might consider changing my avatar now though... :Wink:

----------


## Paul Smith LDO

> oh ....ok...got you! I still might consider changing my avatar now though...


That would depend upon what one thinks of his resume.  He was a stand up guy.

----------


## tx11

:Redface: What?.. He was a comedian too?

----------


## wmcdonald

> And you expect no resistance from OD's when trying to muscle in on their turf?  I think strong opticians have plenty enough to concern themselves with and can easily grow the standard of our profession without the need to play doctor on top of it all.  To want to push for such a dramatically expanded scope like that - rather than focusing on what elevates dispensing itself to a new level seems to be folly incarnate.


Unlike some, I am not afraid of the ODs, and in fact, you might be surprised to know many of them support Opticians moving forward as well......unlike some here who support very little beyond their own front door.

----------


## idispense

> Corneal Contact Lenses -GirardThe Ophthalmic Assistant -Stein, Stein, FreemanSystem for Ophthalmic Dispensing -Brooks, Borish.
> Yes, and yes. 
> 
> But as wmcdonald says, they should be part of a formal education.



Trying to educate and legislate on a national level has not worked. You are trying to bring too many variables and interests together in mutual unison. I hear it said that you need a baseline to be a part of formal education. I agree that's desirable. I hear that only a pulse is required and things are polywhatsit dumbed down.

 I hear it said that branding cant take place until there is a common link. Brands are built everyday by industry for products that didn't exist yesterday. Brands are also built everyday that take over from generics. A camera is a camera but then there is GOPRO. These brands go viral in short time and spread quickly.

You have the courses already set up and the educators such as McDonald, Wes, Harry, Barry, yourself and many others already in place. How many do you have that are of the same mind and agreement ?

Take those of the same existing mutual minds and using your present courses and texts  set up your own standard par excellence. Make your own brand. Those that graduate from it will, as I hear you say, reap the rewards that knowledge brings. Your own brand will have a common baseline. Then pray that it spreads. Don't bother trying to convince the world, your grads success  will do that for you.

Move ahead with only a like minded small group without the bickering, a dictatorship if necessary. Seek out and find a brand mentor. Seek out and find a social media mentor. It will grow. Charge for your service.

----------


## tx11

Whew! Thread back on track :Smile:

----------


## Uilleann

> Unlike some, I am not afraid of the ODs, and in fact, you might be surprised to know many of them support Opticians moving forward as well......unlike some here who support very little beyond their own front door.


Don't know that any here are afraid of OD's.  (Most are relatively un-scary)  But they have a dramatically larger war chest from which to draw upon...which did not come from paying a premium rate for premium optical talent across the country.  And to completely ignore their extremely likely national push back should any group of dispensers try to move in on their traditional turf is nothing short of silly and shortsighted.

In short, there is no national plan for opticianry.  Whatsoever.  What does exist, is a continued fracturing of the trade, with this or that new group of the week bragging about how big their cohones are, and yet not offering any concrete, viable plan forward.  Consistent education doesn't exist on a national scale.  The only national competency exam has self reduced to a laughing stock.  State by state licensure is a complete non-starter, and is possibly the most fractured system of the lot.  And all the while, the interwebs continue to draw into question the necessity and value of the "old fashioned" dispenser with each passing year, and in every state.

There are a myriad of possible places to start in beginning to overhaul the system as it currently stands.  But to date, all that's been presented are pie in the sky wishes and unobtainable benchmarks given the current state of everything.  At the end of the day - _no_ viable plans have been offered.

----------


## Paul Smith LDO

> Whew! Thread back on track


Careful what you wish for.  Act local converse global.  Our best hope is to educate and legislate locally, the latter being the more difficult, if not leaning toward the absurd.  The profession has been handled like a hot potato passed from one state to the next.  If it's licenseship you want, move to a licensed state and fight for the continuation of it's existence.  Otherwise the point is moot.

----------


## Boldt

> There are a myriad of possible places to start in beginning to overhaul the system as it currently stands.  But to date, all that's been presented are pie in the sky wishes and unobtainable benchmarks given the current state of everything.  At the end of the day - _no_ viable plans have been offered.


So lets have a starting point. Do we as a group start a fund to start branding our trade? Have commercials that explain what we do? If we can get the general public on our side the chances sky rocket. 
That's why I thought a guild. It'd be non-profit and any and all funds would go to promote and lobby. Like I said if it happens it would take years.
As a start here is a suggestion: Get our top people to get together and come up with a good baseline for what we want our industry to mean. We start the group based on these guide lines, have tests like the ABO/NCLE only we don't dumb them down. Talk to local schools to get classes going and implement a system of graduated levels having optician being the top tear. 
Obviously it's not a well flushed out plan to start, but it's something I have not seen on this thread, a start. 
I see people have tried in the past and have no doubt about the effort put in, but some times it has to be a generational growth. The new builds on the the foundation laid by the more experienced.

----------


## wmcdonald

Your suggestions are very good, but certainly not new. This has been discussed to death here many times, and unfortunately not worked. I know some of my colleagues are stuck on branding, but you cannot brand something that has no common definition across the country. Each state may be able to do so, but not nationally. 

ABO/NCLE needs to have a mandatory entry point. Either a formal education or a completed, true apprenticeship in which mandatory classes are required.

----------


## Hayde

> So lets have a starting point. Do we as a group start a fund to start branding our trade? Have commercials that explain what we do? If we can get the general public on our side the chances sky rocket. 
> That's why I thought a guild. It'd be non-profit and any and all funds would go to promote and lobby. Like I said if it happens it would take years.
> As a start here is a suggestion: Get our top people to get together and come up with a good baseline for what we want our industry to mean. We start the group based on these guide lines, have tests like the ABO/NCLE only we don't dumb them down. Talk to local schools to get classes going and implement a system of graduated levels having optician being the top tear. 
> Obviously it's not a well flushed out plan to start, but it's something I have not seen on this thread, a start. 
> I see people have tried in the past and have no doubt about the effort put in, but some times it has to be a generational growth. The new builds on the the foundation laid by the more experienced.


As a certificate holder, I wouldn't mind seeing the ABO doing more to advertise itself (and me along with it.) Maybe that's the best agreeable focal point of directing resources? Issues remain, but perhaps one of the few feasible starting points.

Could certificatants be asked to contribute to an advertising budget? Or is that already too much cat-herding ?

----------


## Boldt

wmcdonald,
I agree on the education completely. For national standards I'd add in no grandfathering in though so it would be a constant standard for everyone. I know it would people like me at the very bottom, but even with close to 8 years in the industry I'm still learning all kinds of new things that I see most of the people here see as basic. 
I'd say the branding is an important part, not the most important, but with today's world Name has become a huge thing. If the standards are set and the name recognition earned I think I would end up working.  

Hayde,
I think that would work, or use part of the fees to do that.

----------


## wmcdonald

That is not the job of the ABO/NCLE. They are an independent certifying body. That is their only role and they should not be participating in any marketing in any way. The professional associations (OAA/NAO) provide those kinds of services. Both do that now.






> As a certificate holder, I wouldn't mind seeing the ABO doing more to advertise itself (and me along with it.) Maybe that's the best agreeable focal point of directing resources? Issues remain, but perhaps one of the few feasible starting points.
> 
> Could certificatants be asked to contribute to an advertising budget? Or is that already too much cat-herding ?

----------


## wmcdonald

You cannot brand until the product is standardized. If a Big Mac was different from state to state, it would be tough to brand that.






> wmcdonald,
> I agree on the education completely. For national standards I'd add in no grandfathering in though so it would be a constant standard for everyone. I know it would people like me at the very bottom, but even with close to 8 years in the industry I'm still learning all kinds of new things that I see most of the people here see as basic. 
> I'd say the branding is an important part, not the most important, but with today's world Name has become a huge thing. If the standards are set and the name recognition earned I think I would end up working.  
> 
> Hayde,
> I think that would work, or use part of the fees to do that.

----------


## idispense

see post 126

----------


## Hayde

> That is not the job of the ABO/NCLE. They are an independent certifying body. That is their only role and they should not be participating in any marketing in any way. The professional associations (OAA/NAO) provide those kinds of services. Both do that now.


The NAO certainly markets TO me.  For me?  That's another question.

Love the NAO and my $75 study-free letters.  Love me some cheap CEs.  It's a nice newsletter.  They love me and my reading habit, too.
But does it (or the OAA) really _market_ opticianry?  If I have to ask the question, doesn't that answer the question?

I don't see a conflict of interest for the ABO to represent itself and its own importance to the field.  I agree with post 126...we could bicker all day about chicken and the egg, but to get a ball rolling "Certification" is a pretty servicable banner--or shall I say 'brand.'  By advertising itself to the field and consumers, it could improve voluntary demand for its test.  Then the discussion of test standards would be far more meaningful.  I'm fine with the NAO stepping up if it can, but either way the organizations we're talking about need some serious transmission work.

I don't see a perfect mousetrap being conceived and constructed to solve everyone's pet gripe in one fell swoop.  But if some attention and promotion to _more_ competency in the field _earlier_ is a beneficial step in the right direction...then maybe it's the best place to start.

----------


## wmcdonald

I am not sure what your background is, but as one with a solid academic background who has studied this material at length, I can tell you that to brand something like we have is just not possible with the limited resources available. I have read 126, and it is quite frankly wrong. He mentions branding of a product, and that can be done. The products are the same. We are not. Second, for ABO to do the jobs of the professional organizations is clearly a conflict to those who understand the bylaws and purpose of the organization. It will not, and should not be their role. Sorry if you do not agree, but you are welcome to check with board members of the organization, and they will tell you the same.

----------


## Hayde

> I am not sure what your background is, but as one with a solid academic background who has studied this material at length, I can tell you that *to brand something like we have is just not possible with the limited resources available.* I have read 126, and it is quite frankly wrong. He mentions branding of a product, and that can be done. The products are the same. We are not. Second, for ABO to do the jobs of the professional organizations is clearly a conflict to those who understand the bylaws and purpose of the organization. It will not, and should not be their role. Sorry if you do not agree, but you are welcome to check with board members of the organization, and they will tell you the same.


You should be very proud of your academic accomplishments!

You focus on a point I already rhetorically conceded--I'm aware the ABO shed its larger mandate and eventually let the other association sell books. Perhaps it's unpersuadable to any other endeavor than test-making, regardless of the potiential welfare of the test. As I said, if another organization is up to the promotional task, fine. I doubt there's any argument any agenda would require more resources than are currently 'available.' What resources would be required?  Is acquiring them possible?  Do you have a suggestion of a viable tact requring fewer resources?

----------


## Paul Smith LDO

> You should be very proud of your academic accomplishments!
> 
> You focus on a point I already rhetorically conceded--I'm aware the ABO shed its larger mandate and eventually let the other association sell books. Perhaps it's unpersuadable to any other endeavor than test-making, regardless of the potiential welfare of the test. As I said, if another organization is up to the promotional task, fine. I doubt there's any argument any agenda would require more resources than are currently 'available.' What resources would be required?  Is acquiring them possible?  Do you have a suggestion of a viable tact requring fewer resources?


Simply put, opticianry (small O) does not cross state borders.  For the most part the role we play are regulated by each state, as is the area of our scope of practice.  We have no formal educational guide lines there are no national standards.  Some play by the ABO/NCLE others do not.  As to reading material Systems of Ophthalmic Dispensing, Fitting Guide Lines for Soft and Hard Contact Lenses, Ocular Anatomy and Physiology, basic physics text books, to name a few.  To answer your last question, I will put one to you.  Why do you think the current state of Opticianry is where it is?  Hint: you'll need more then a few resources.

----------


## idispense

[QUOTE=wmcdonald;494863]I am not sure what your background is, but as one with a solid academic background who has studied this material at length, I can tell you that to brand something like we have is just not possible with the limited resources available. I have read 126, and it is quite frankly wrong. He mentions branding of a product, and that can be done. The products are the same. We are not. Second, for ABO to do the jobs of the professional organizations is clearly a conflict to those who understand the bylaws and purpose of the organization. It will not, and should not be their role. Sorry if you do not agree, but you are welcome to check with board members of the organization, and they will tell you the same]


We can learn from how the megabrands market. McDonald's does not sell hamburgers; McDonald's sells "McDonald's." 

You  can brand " The McDonald Optician " because each of your grads would be educated by your standards,,,which would be the highest standard in the industry. You are already well known.

----------


## idispense

> You cannot brand until the product is standardized. If a Big Mac was different from state to state, it would be tough to brand that.




McDonald's does not focus on selling hamburgers; McDonald's focuses on selling the brand "McDonald's." 

You can brand " The McDonald Optician " because each of your grads would be educated by your standards,,,which would be the highest standard in the industry. You are already well known.

At the moment, "opticians" are generic and like facial tissue not all are the same, however Kleenex became the standard brand to ask for. Likewise you can create and brand the "STANDARD SETTING OPTICIAN". The " WMcDonald Optician"

----------


## wmcdonald

I am sorry, I have a number of folks who I have trained over the years, and others I did not who had similar beliefs to yours. For example, I eventually won over the late great Harry Jilson at a conference when he sat for a couple of hours with Dr. Ferguson and me. I do not wish to have an independent brand, but want the field to be better before I am gone! It is not really about the folks here now, either, but the future. We have done a great disservice to the future Optician (I use large O to make a statement, thank you very much) and should better prepare them to enter the field. 

Now to selling McDonalds versus hamburgers.......you are correct, but what you do not get is the fact that each McDonalds looks and feels the same. It is just not the case here. Sorry, but you really need to study the subject a bit further, and if you are objective you will soon understand I am right. I asked experts in branding at Harvard, where I did a post-doc about the branding of the American Optician, and they agree with me completely. Unfortunately some here do not, and will not. But I keep trying to help. I am really not against you.......I wish folks knew that sometimes.

----------


## idispense

I do get that all McDonald's look and feel the same, however McDonalds wasn't born a brand and hamburgers existed before McDonald's did. McDonald's still created a brand where none existed. They did it globally.

I am not against you either.

I would like to read your post doc about branding of the American Optician. I'd also be curious to read more of the Harvard experts on branding, their  biographies and portfolio of branding cases which they executed.

I understand it is said that if national standards existed, then branding could occur. I suspect that an experienced and well educated person  could define these standards and put pen to them in a afternoon. If that's the case then would you  agree that a lack of standards and defining those  is not so much the stumbling block to branding, as a lack of persuasive communication to motivate the acceptance of those standards ? Is the real problem not standards but rather salesmanship ?

Would you agree that if you did want to create an independent brand that indeed you could create " the McDonalds Optician - the Standard Setting Optician with 100 percent required to pass" ?

----------


## wmcdonald

Google is your friend on branding. You do not read post-docs.......it is not a book, but an experience. You can read my views on the American Optician in Eye Care Professional magazine, or you can search it here. It was discussed at much length, and if I remember you disagreed then, and have not changed. I published a 7-part series in the topic and it is a free publication. Contact them and they will get them to you, or review it here on Optiboard. 

As to branding......I am experienced and very well educated. I have developed a well published plan for the advancement of the American Optician as a part of in-depth research. I have a vision for this profession that few can see. but those who finally take the time to do more than disagree usually become proponents, like Harry was before he left us. What you seem to finally be hearing is that to brand any entity, it must be at least similar. McDonalds, and the brothers who bought it from the McDonalds had a plan to develop a standard hamburger and hotdog experience from coast to coast for low prices. It took them many years and millions. In Opticianry we are so diverse there is no potential for branding. We must have a consistent product to accomplish that. Read the research,, and it will become clear. Opinions are like rear ends, we all have one. I have based mine in a solid understanding as a tenured full professor now writing my third book on the marketing of health services, which includes a discussion of branding. I want you to get this information and understand it. I am not trying to shut you down.......hell, if we could band ourselves and make things better, I would be all for it. BUT.....in our current state, what would we brand? An ABO certificate that takes an IQ of 30 to pass? Look back at my writing here. You will see I proposed the Society mentioned in my tag line. A part of that was to recognize folks with academic credentials, and let them market themselves as a cut above. Much like the CPA. Anyone can call themselves and accountant, but a CPA has to pass rigorous training and education and a tough examination. We could do the same if we had some consistency, and then branding could take place. That was my approach, and you mention something similar in this thread. It will work.......if we gain consistent products (products in this case meaning us)across the country, and only then.

----------


## m0002a

> McDonalds had a plan to develop a standard hamburger and hotdog experience from coast to coast for low prices.


McDonald's has hot dogs?

But seriously, being an optician is not really like being a CPA. There are some objective principles in opticianary, but a lot of it these days involves suggesting the best lens design, material, and frame to provide the best possible vision, and trying to balance that against what the customer can afford (or what their insurance will pay). Many opticians are constrained by management or company policy on what products they can use. Then the optician has to have some skill in being able to fit the frame/lens properly, and exhibit a sense of fashion in some cases. These are hard things to quantify and hard to test people on. If you think you know the answers, please let us know what the best progressive lens design is, because a lot of people would like to know that (even allowing for the fact that there are different "bests" depending on the Rx).

The industry itself makes things even harder, since it is very difficult, and sometime impossible, to figure out the pros and cons of various lens designs from information provided by manufacturers even within their own product line, much less across lens manufacturers. Just over last few years I have found less and less technical information on lens manufacturer websites about their products, and more attempts by manufacturers to automate the dispensing process. Then one has to deal with local lab quality, which can influence which lens manufacturer one ends up getting. For example, Zeiss has some excellent progressive lens designs, but some local Zeiss labs have had such quality problems recently that opticians have had to use other manufacturers instead. Fortunately, Zeiss seems to be working a solution for this.

I am not trying to suggest that there are no technical optical principles that matter to the profession of being an Optician, and I agree that they should be tested/certified on these things. But I am not sure these things come into play for most patients, compared to the knowledge required of the products and the benefits of each, and the ability to find cost effective solutions and to correctly fit a live patient.

----------


## idispense

> Google is your friend on branding. You do not read post-docs.......it is not a book, but an experience. You can read my views on the American Optician in Eye Care Professional magazine, or you can search it here. It was discussed at much length, and if I remember you disagreed then, and have not changed. I published a 7-part series in the topic and it is a free publication. Contact them and they will get them to you, or review it here on Optiboard. 
> 
> As to branding......I am experienced and very well educated. I have developed a well published plan for the advancement of the American Optician as a part of in-depth research. I have a vision for this profession that few can see. but those who finally take the time to do more than disagree usually become proponents, like Harry was before he left us. What you seem to finally be hearing is that to brand any entity, it must be at least similar. McDonalds, and the brothers who bought it from the McDonalds had a plan to develop a standard hamburger and hotdog experience from coast to coast for low prices. It took them many years and millions. In Opticianry we are so diverse there is no potential for branding. We must have a consistent product to accomplish that. Read the research,, and it will become clear. Opinions are like rear ends, we all have one. I have based mine in a solid understanding as a tenured full professor now writing my third book on the marketing of health services, which includes a discussion of branding. I want you to get this information and understand it. I am not trying to shut you down.......hell, if we could band ourselves and make things better, I would be all for it. BUT.....in our current state, what would we brand? An ABO certificate that takes an IQ of 30 to pass? Look back at my writing here. You will see I proposed the Society mentioned in my tag line. A part of that was to recognize folks with academic credentials, and let them market themselves as a cut above. Much like the CPA. Anyone can call themselves and accountant, but a CPA has to pass rigorous training and education and a tough examination. We could do the same if we had some consistency, and then branding could take place. That was my approach, and you mention something similar in this thread. It will work.......if we gain consistent products (products in this case meaning us)across the country, and only then.


Warren:

Thank you for your time to answer. 

Could you please address the matter of academics vs the ability to sell the academia. Could you verify that you heard the two thoughts below:

1) the problem in branding is not the ability to develop and define standards, it's the ability to sell those standards 
2) should you care to develop an independent brand of optician, accountable to the highest of standards, then you could do that

I have read the first of your series The American Optician - where do we go from here

----------


## tx11

Our situation is this...we are viewed as some one who produces a product NOT someone who performs a service or sells knowledge. Our product (at least in the publics eye) is eyewear NOT eyewear expertise and advising. Anybody can sell eyewear...We should probably investigate how the registered pharmacist came into being. They retail drugs . Its also interesting that most (if not all) MDs do not dispense the drugs they prescribe. Our industry is not that way.

----------


## Boldt

What about this:
Start a group that has a minimum of ABO certification to join. (I leave out NCLE because there are shops that don't dispense contacts and would still be a good fit)
Make it like a buying group, only requiring more than a monthly payment to stay in. Such as only employing certified opticians, keeping up to date on advances in the field, and standards that go beyond ansi, and continuing to advance in not certifications, but real world knowledge, eventually have our own certifications, and a way to keep the group up to date as a whole. 
Have incentives to train new opticians such as lab discounts help with schooling. We could work with local labs to get better pricing for members. Offer quarterly classes or even Moocs to expand our knowledge.
If we get offices to join slowly the name and brand will expand as will our reputation. 
It would have to be non-profit, have by laws on how much the people who run it make (Ex: CEO no more than x% of the annual income or 150k which ever is lower. obviously needing work but a gross example) annually and safe guards to keep it honest. 
Hell to be honest the big lens companies may even help sponsor it if only to get their names out to the public more. (I know this could be bad but again an idea, maybe just exclude Essilor ;^)  )

I see plumbers, electricians, and construction workers organized better than us, and yet glasses are no less important.
Start small, plant the seeds. Make the industry take note of a union/guild that we make. Remember without us, the opticians, the industry as a whole fails. We do have the power and clout we need, we just need to realize it. 
(Sorry Reread that and it came off as preachy.)

----------


## wmcdonald

When they started, yes they sold only 3 products. A hamburger, cheeseburger and hotdogs. And they only came one way. And by the way, it is spelled Opticianry. You should learn to spell the name of your own profession if you wish to debate the issues. Most really have no idea of the best lens design, because they have little understanding of optics to start with. The CPA example was used to affect branding. Of course we are not like CPAs.....that was not the point. 

To respond to your concerns will take little effort, really. You are exactly right, as it exists there are many roadblocks in the way. There are there because we have allowed it. Pharmacists, Nurses and many other allied  health fields have headed that off by making themselves more significant, while we continue to measure PDs and take seg heights......little else. Until we improve ourselves and expand what it is we do (much like the ODs, Nurses, Dental Hygienists, and others did in this country, and continue today) we will remain irrelevant. When we can stand on our own, we will again be significant players. I want to see that happen. Rather than shooting at it others, why not contribute something to help.





> McDonald's has hot dogs?
> 
> But seriously, being an optician is not really like being a CPA. There are some objective principles in opticianary, but a lot of it these days involves suggesting the best lens design, material, and frame to provide the best possible vision, and trying to balance that against what the customer can afford (or what their insurance will pay). Many opticians are constrained by management or company policy on what products they can use. Then the optician has to have some skill in being able to fit the frame/lens properly, and exhibit a sense of fashion in some cases. These are hard things to quantify and hard to test people on. If you think you know the answers, please let us know what the best progressive lens design is, because a lot of people would like to know that (even allowing for the fact that there are different "bests" depending on the Rx).
> 
> The industry itself makes things even harder, since it is very difficult, and sometime impossible, to figure out the pros and cons of various lens designs from information provided by manufacturers even within their own product line, much less across lens manufacturers. Just over last few years I have found less and less technical information on lens manufacturer websites about their products, and more attempts by manufacturers to automate the dispensing process. Then one has to deal with local lab quality, which can influence which lens manufacturer one ends up getting. For example, Zeiss has some excellent progressive lens designs, but some local Zeiss labs have had such quality problems recently that opticians have had to use other manufacturers instead. Fortunately, Zeiss seems to be working a solution for this.
> 
> I am not trying to suggest that there are no technical optical principles that matter to the profession of being an Optician, and I agree that they should be tested/certified on these things. But I am not sure these things come into play for most patients, compared to the knowledge required of the products and the benefits of each, and the ability to find cost effective solutions and to correctly fit a live patient.

----------


## wmcdonald

It is spelled out in the series, and I appreciate you taking the time to read the articles. You can't sell a brand, however, until it is developed. Until it is consistent there is nothing to develop. Look to the articles regarding the idea I floated above. The individual who followed with a lengthy post thought I was comparing Opticians to CPAs, which is not the case......only an analogy. The Society to Advance Opticianry seeks to brand those with academic credentials. Allow them to use the trademarked title Ophthalmic Optician to set themselves apart from the pack by marketing their superior background. There are a few who joined the group, and the Summit has taken many of those ideas forward. Unfortunately they eliminated the education requirements, because, quite frankly (my opinion only) some of the leaders of the  thing is a senior executive at Luxottica, and they certainly do not want licensing and education for Opticians to keep us down and underpaid.  It provided a platform for branding a consistent product, but has not gained traction. The reason, we continue to let others establish the criteria that defines us. We should establish our own goals and vision for the future, without corporate America, ODs, and others defining it for us. 





> Warren:
> 
> Thank you for your time to answer. 
> 
> Could you please address the matter of academics vs the ability to sell the academia. Could you verify that you heard the two thoughts below:
> 
> 1) the problem in branding is not the ability to develop and define standards, it's the ability to sell those standards 
> 2) should you care to develop an independent brand of optician, accountable to the highest of standards, then you could do that
> 
> I have read the first of your series The American Optician - where do we go from here

----------


## optical24/7

How many time here do we see folks looking for *free* CE's, *free* course instructions for passing the NOCE, *free* this and *free* that? Opticians are a stingily frugal bunch. The OAA gets more money from sponsor companies than it does from member opticians! They (opticians) are not (as a whole) going to pay for some quasi membership into a group to better educate themselves. If they were, there'd be more members of the NAO. And why should they? For the vast majority it will not lead to more pay or better jobs. The majority couldn't give a flip about advancing Opticianry as a whole, all they want is a paycheck to get them by till the next pay check.

Dreams of advancement and or licensure in non-licensed states is just that...a dream. Licensed states even have had threats of loosing licensures fairly recently (NJ and Ohio). They will be lucky to hold that status in the future. An Optician's PAC would be the only way that Opticians could make advancements, but that takes money..Money that Opticians nor industry will cough up.

 If you wish to advance Opticianry, my advice now a days is to advance yourself, forget about advancing the industry as a whole. Educate yourself by whatever means you can. You need to possibly consider re-locating to another city or state if you want that advancement. Get in on the more medical side of Opticianry by working for MD/MD groups where your skills are more sorely needed, the challenges greater and for the most part pay better. You are also more insulated from internet/cheap provider competition.

Advancing Opticianry left the stable long ago, before Warren, I or anyone in practice today gave a rip about it. It's the wild west out there. Get your six shooter and go out there and make your own Eldorado, cause there ain't no person/company/organization/plan on the table that will correct the course of this sinking ship.



(me? cynical? yea....)

----------


## idispense

> It is spelled out in the series, and I appreciate you taking the time to read the articles. You can't sell a brand, however, until it is developed. Until it is consistent there is nothing to develop. Look to the articles regarding the idea I floated above. The individual who followed with a lengthy post thought I was comparing Opticians to CPAs, which is not the case......only an analogy. The Society to Advance Opticianry seeks to brand those with academic credentials. Allow them to use the trademarked title Ophthalmic Optician to set themselves apart from the pack by marketing their superior background. There are a few who joined the group, and the Summit has taken many of those ideas forward. Unfortunately they eliminated the education requirements, because, quite frankly (my opinion only) some of the leaders of the  thing is a senior executive at Luxottica, and they certainly do not want licensing and education for Opticians to keep us down and underpaid.  It provided a platform for branding a consistent product, but has not gained traction. The reason, we continue to let others establish the criteria that defines us. We should establish our own goals and vision for the future, without corporate America, ODs, and others defining it for us.




As of yet, I have not found the rest in the series on line. Only the first article in ECP magazine is digital. That was listed as the June 2014 issue.

Could you address the salesmanship side of persuasion to your viewpoints. Even if you had uniform standards set and printed then it would still fall apart on inability to sell the concept.

I note that the Society to Advance Opticianry does not of itself set its own standards but rather looks to other standards to gain entry. In so doing it relies on the standards of ABO and such. I believe I have heard it said that these only require a heartbeat. 
I note the statement that "we should set our own goals for the future", why then is ABO promoted to keeper of your gate?

I also take note of the power struggle statement between education requirements and a Luxottica rep. This brings to light a power struggle, loss of control, and inability to sell and persuade others as being the real issue to implementation of educate,legislate, standardization and branding.

----------


## wmcdonald

OK.......send Jeff at the magazine an email. I am sure they will have it archived. It was in 2012, if memory serves.

----------


## tx11

> How many time here do we see folks looking for *free* CE's, *free* course instructions for passing the NOCE, *free* this and *free* that? Opticians are a stingily frugal bunch. The OAA gets more money from sponsor companies than it does from member opticians! They (opticians) are not (as a whole) going to pay for some quasi membership into a group to better educate themselves. If they were, there'd be more members of the NAO. And why should they? For the vast majority it will not lead to more pay or better jobs. The majority couldn't give a flip about advancing Opticianry as a whole, all they want is a paycheck to get them by till the next pay check.
> 
> Dreams of advancement and or licensure in non-licensed states is just that...a dream. Licensed states even have had threats of loosing licensures fairly recently (NJ and Ohio). They will be lucky to hold that status in the future. An Optician's PAC would be the only way that Opticians could make advancements, but that takes money..Money that Opticians nor industry will cough up.
> 
>  If you wish to advance Opticianry, my advice now a days is to advance yourself, forget about advancing the industry as a whole. Educate yourself by whatever means you can. You need to possibly consider re-locating to another city or state if you want that advancement. Get in on the more medical side of Opticianry by working for MD/MD groups where your skills are more sorely needed, the challenges greater and for the most part pay better. You are also more insulated from internet/cheap provider competition.
> 
> Advancing Opticianry left the stable long ago, before Warren, I or anyone in practice today gave a rip about it. It's the wild west out there. Get your six shooter and go out there and make your own Eldorado, cause there ain't no person/company/organization/plan on the table that will correct the course of this sinking ship.
> 
> 
> ...


 I have to agree with your statement concerning our current situation. MD gigs are few and far between...they "need their OD referals". I suppose the discussion should turn to how an *individual* optician can make his/her own Eldorado.

----------


## wmcdonald

I hope not. If we limit our concern to self, and forget those around us, we all lose. This field can improve if......... and I know that is really a big word........if we try.

----------


## tx11

> What about this:
> _Start a group that has a minimum of ABO certification to join. (I leave out NCLE because there are shops that don't dispense contacts and would still be a good fit)_
> Make it like a buying group, only requiring more than a monthly payment to stay in. Such as only employing certified opticians, keeping up to date on advances in the field, and standards that go beyond ansi, and continuing to advance in not certifications, but real world knowledge, eventually have our own certifications, and a way to keep the group up to date as a whole. 
> Have incentives to train new opticians such as lab discounts help with schooling. We could work with local labs to get better pricing for members. Offer quarterly classes or even Moocs to expand our knowledge.
> If we get offices to join slowly the name and brand will expand as will our reputation. 
> It would have to be non-profit, have by laws on how much the people who run it make (Ex: CEO no more than x% of the annual income or 150k which ever is lower. obviously needing work but a gross example) annually and safe guards to keep it honest. 
> Hell to be honest the big lens companies may even help sponsor it if only to get their names out to the public more. (I know this could be bad but again an idea, maybe just exclude Essilor ;^)  )
> 
> I see plumbers, electricians, and construction workers organized better than us, and yet glasses are no less important.
> ...


With almost a 40% failure rate ,I would like an ABO certification to show some sort of meaning (dumbed down or not). Its a start

----------


## tx11

> I hope not. If we limit our concern to self, and forget those around us, we all lose. This field can improve if......... and I know that is really a big word........if we try.


I assume that you are thinking of _future "opticians"_ . I think that much of this type of discussion is trying to deal with the immediate (next 10 years) situation of those in the field. I don't mean to be short sighted ..but are there (IYHO) things that immediately could be done that would make _practical_ difference to those currently in the field?

----------


## Paul Smith LDO

A ground swell of grass roots, not to get on a political soap box, but look at what the Tea Party was able to do.  There would have to be a tremendous up rising on a local level and then a broad sweeping movement nationally.  Perhaps we can enlist Sarah Palin and her Kawasaki frame for the ad campaign. Doncha know.

----------


## wmcdonald

> I assume that you are thinking of _future "opticians"_ . I think that much of this type of discussion is trying to deal with the immediate (next 10 years) situation of those in the field. I don't mean to be short sighted ..but are there (IYHO) things that immediately could be done that would make _practical_ difference to those currently in the field?


I do not see much that can be done for folks currently in the field. We must focus on the future, and make it mean more than it currently does.

----------


## m0002a

> When they started, yes they sold only 3 products. A hamburger, cheeseburger and hotdogs. And they only came one way. And by the way, it is spelled Opticianry. You should learn to spell the name of your own profession if you wish to debate the issues.


You are correct that the McDonald's brothers had hot dogs at their original California locations, but I don't think Ray Kroc's company (McDonalds Corporation) has served them in the USA. What we know today as the McDonald's "brand" has nothing to do with the original McDonald brothers stores in CA.They were always separate legal and operational entities.
Kroc singled out hot dogs as the one food beyond even the pale of experimentation: "On the other hand, there's damned good reason we should never have hot dogs. There's no telling what's inside a hot dog's skin, and our standard of quality just wouldn't permit that kind of item."
I am not an optician, so I don't have spell Opticianry correctly. Not being an optician, and having to employ (and pay) them for my own lenses, sometimes gives me a unique perspective from a patient point of view that not everyone on this forum has.

----------


## optical24/7

> I hope not. If we limit our concern to self, and forget those around us, we all lose. This field can improve if......... and I know that is really a big word........if we try.



It's already lost Warren, and has been since prior to you or me entering the field. Opticians are the lazy end of the eye care profession, always has been, always will be. Over a century ago, doctor started specializing in eye health (now OMD's). After that, a group of refracting Opticians decided to start a unified curriculum and got laws passed allowing them to expand scope ( Now OD's), while the other Opticians sat on their laurels and said to themselves..."Go to school? I'd rather drink another beer..."

 Years ago, we took the Columbus boat that sank, while the OMD and OD boats sailed on. All that's left now is the flotsam and jetsam we call Opticianry floating on the Optic Sea, blown in whatever direction the winds wishes to take us. We can not build a new boat to sail on because we can't agree on how and what to make our ship out of, let alone agree on a course to sail on. 

That does not mean that an Optician can't improve on his own. Make your own life raft. Decide the course _you_ wish to sail. But keep in mind, the wind's gonna blow and you have no control over it.

----------


## idispense

To all of those who would be tempted to respond in the negative to this thread, before posting negatively ask yourself this question: 

"if it were possible, even remotely possible, then would you think standards and branding is a good thing ? "

If your answer to the above question is yes then please don't post anything negative, it's not constructive, it's just apathy and frustrating. If you can say yes to the above question , but you think it can't happen then just copy and post:

*    "I am a disbeliever but I will listen because it is a good idea."


*Warren , could you outline or reprint your article and outline your plan here, if the audience will behave ?

----------


## wmcdonald

I do not concern myself with the behavior of the group. I know most here understand I am trying to help. I was told quietly by another poster that unfortunately Eye Care Professional recently closed up shop, so I am not sure where to access these articles any longer. I will see if I have a copy of all of them someplace. You can also do a search here and see the meat of the material.

----------


## Hayde

So the OP bravely asked for opinions that may be out there.  Surprisingly, he got a few!  ;P

If we were to itemize the major currents:
1. Whatever the fate of the profession is out of mortal control and nothing can be done.
2. The only possible way of 'improving the state of the profession' depends upon advancing legislation of licensure requirements across the country and standardize educational rigors from there.
3.  The only possible way of 'improving the state of the profession' depends  upon standardizing (voluntary?) educational rigors across the country and perhaps advancing legislation of licensure requirements from there.
4. Promoting general awareness of the profession (by some means to some audience) in hopes of directly or indirectly promoting demand for better quality opticianry may result in some degree of improvement of 'the state of the profession.'

(If anyone feels misstated, please correct me.)

Opticians being natural contrarians, proponents of any one take are less likely to constructively contribute to a discussion entertaining an opposing one.  Given the broad scope of this thread, that's been perfectly fine.  However, if there's any interest in entertaining any one or more of these positions more sympathetically, they might enjoy the benefit of less static interference in their own respective threads?

And/or perhaps the OP will care to narrow the focus for this thread at some point at his leisure and whim.

----------


## Paul Smith LDO

> To all of those who would be tempted to respond in the negative to this thread, before posting negatively ask yourself this question: 
> 
> "if it were possible, even remotely possible, then would you think standards and branding is a good thing ? "
> 
> If your answer to the above question is yes then please don't post anything negative, it's not constructive, it's just apathy and frustrating. If you can say yes to the above question , but you think it can't happen then just copy and post:
> 
> *    "I am a disbeliever but I will listen because it is a good idea."
> 
> 
> *Warren , could you outline or reprint your article and outline your plan here, if the audience will behave ?


What!?  Am I understanding you correctly, are you seriously asking us to customize our comments so that they are not perceived as controversial and tempered to suit your opinion.  Discord, be it healthy or not, leads to discussion.  Discussing the pros and cons and weighing opposing points of views is one of the building blocks upon which American was founded on, or any civilized country for that matter.  Your asking a hypothetical question, regarding a guild whose ethos has to bridge across 50 states; who have separate guide lines as to what quantifies and defines one as an Optician.  If I were to have asked such a question, I would expect the same responses many have shared on this thread.

----------


## keithbenjamin

No thanks to ECP Mag for making them easy to find but through the power of Google...

The American Optician
Where Do We Go From Here?
http://www.ecpmag.com/1webmagazine/2...n-optician.asp


The American Optician
Where Do We Go From Here? Part II
http://www.ecpmag.com/1webmagazine/2...n-optician.asp


Educating and Training of the
AMERICAN OPTICIAN: 
Where Do We Go From Here? Part III
http://www.ecpmag.com/1webmagazine/2...n-optician.asp


The American Optician
Where Do We Go From Here? Part IV
http://www.ecpmag.com/1webmagazine/2...n-optician.asp


The American Optician
Where Do We Go From Here? Part V
http://www.ecpmag.com/1webmagazine/2...n-optician.asp


The American Optician
Where Do We Go From Here? Part VI
http://www.ecpmag.com/1webmagazine/2...n-optician.asp


The American Optician
Where Do We Go From Here? Part VII
http://www.ecpmag.com/1webmagazine/2...n-optician.asp

----------


## m0002a

> The biggest element of mismanagement was designing and selling poor  products. Anyone who lived in Michigan in the 1970s remembers when  Detroit began building truly terrible cars, like the Chevy Vega, the AMC  Gremlin, the Chrysler Imperial, and the Ford Pinto; it was the  beginning of what became a slow-moving train wreck.
>  [...]
> *Autoworker wages didn't make the Big Three uncompetitive by  driving prices up; poor value drove prices down. As prices and quality  fell together, consumers fled. The UAW's contracts were almost  irrelevant.* One way to show this is to compare the pricing of  the competitors' vehicles with the size of the labor cost differential  bargained by the UAW. Labor costs make up only 10 percent of the cost of a typical automobile. Before the auto rescue, the Big Three paid $55 an hour in compensation  per auto worker while the Japanese paid only $46 an hour. (Company  lobbyists and publicists inflated the total Big Three labor cost to $71  by attributing the unfunded pension and health benefit costs for decades  of retired workers to the much smaller currently employed workforce;  the legacy costs for Japanese transplants were only $3 an hour.) But  even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the unfairly inflated $71  figure, the difference in the cost of a vehicle attributable to the UAW  (the UAW premium) would be 30 percent of the average 10 percent labor  cost, or 3 percent of total cost.
>  In 2008, according to Edmunds, GM sold its average large car for  $21,518. Assuming GM sold its cars at cost, the UAW premium would have  been only $645 (3 percent of $21,518). Did the UAW premium raise the  selling price so high as to make GM cars uncompetitive with Toyotas? Not  exactly. Toyota sold its comparably equipped average large car for  $31,753--$10,000 more than GM. *It wasn't price that made GM cars uncompetitive, it was the quality of the product and the customers' perception of quality.* [The Economic Policy Institute, Working Economics Blog, 5/24/12]
> 
> From:  http://mediamatters.org/research/201...d-labor/198343


I agree unions are not about cost, it is about quality. Unions almost always require employers to reward people based on seniority, not based on quality.

What is being discussed here is akin to a making an optician a profession, which has certain legal requirements to entry (education, testing, etc) and is substantially self-regulated (along with state regulatory agencies). Similar to lawyers, doctors, and CPA's, none of which are unionized. Professionals are often self-employed, so who are they going to have collective bargaining with?

----------


## wileyguy

To who's benefit?Puplic opinion is,was and always will be the driving force.Not to be a naysayer but until the public is convinced it is something needed,it will never happen.


Why? Cost.Plain and simple.The amount of money needed to sway public opinion is easy 7 figures,maybe 8.That's just to have a fighting chance.Big corporate would spend that and more.PACs don't work,at least in the context it's suggested.A PAC wants to be a long term solution to a long term problem.They don't want to be anybody's 'quick fix'.They are only going to get on board if they see it as a long term investment.They are ultimately more successful when they have some skin in the game,so to speak.


A number of states ( PA being one ) can't even get their own state licensed.


Many states that require licensure don't have the manpower to enforce it.(New York has 2 full time inspectors for the entire state....for all licenses.Optical,electrical,massage therapy....everything.In the rare case they do find non compliance,their budget doesn't allow for prosecution and are usually limited voluntary and non punitive outcomes.)New York is filled with unlicensed opticians ( I know of this personally) and New Jersey is on the way.Take a look at any job boards such as Craigslist and you get the idea.


Btw.....back to public opinion...I thought it was interesting New York voters voted down the public referendum to take the vision exam requirement off the license renewal,even though their own research showed no statistical differences between New York and the neighboring states that didn't have the requirement.hmmm


I am ABO.I only got it for personal fulfillment at the time,nothing more.Never advanced it, in part,because after taking the ABO test,figured it for just another money maker that I didn't want part of.Never received a penny for it either.


Personally,I'm all for opticians being well educated ( at least optically speaking ),not necessarily degreed.I'm all for licensure.I'm all for the advancement of the profession.I'm all for making more money.However to who's benefit?Most times,when speaking with other opticians about licensure,the first,last and everything out of their mouth is about money.I never hear anything about becoming better educated,becoming a better clinician,a certain level of safety for patients or being held to a higher standard.None of that matters.It's the same in private practice as it is the chains.Nobody wants to take responsibility for being better unless it's at the expense of others.In this case the employer and ultimately,the consumer.At least that's what big corporate is going to shout from the mountains....and a lot louder then we can.


If you truly want to see an advancement of the profession,go for it.You will find support and maybe even the means to see it through.If you want to make good money?Become the best opthamagician you can be.If you have the desire and the capacity,you can become a top flight optician.Really good opticians can and do make good money.That hasn't changed in my 20 plus years .ABO or not.License or not.Union or not.And no union dues :)

----------


## m0002a

> The individual who followed with a lengthy post thought I was comparing Opticians to CPAs, which is not the case......only an analogy. The Society to Advance Opticianry seeks to brand those with academic credentials. Allow them to use the trademarked title Ophthalmic Optician to set themselves apart from the pack by marketing their superior background. There are a few who joined the group, and the Summit has taken many of those ideas forward. Unfortunately they eliminated the education requirements, because, quite frankly (my opinion only) some of the leaders of the  thing is a senior executive at Luxottica, and they certainly do not want licensing and education for Opticians to keep us down and underpaid.  It provided a platform for branding a consistent product, but has not gained traction. The reason, we continue to let others establish the criteria that defines us. We should establish our own goals and vision for the future, without corporate America, ODs, and others defining it for us.


The analogy to CPA is interesting. A person is not required to be a CPA to offer accounting services to the public, with the one exception being the auditing and certification of financial statements.

Almost all CPA's, MD's, lawyers, etc have lower level people working for them that interact with customers/patients under the supervision (at least in theory) of the licensed professional. Most of these people are not licensed (with the exception of some nurses). So the best that can expected with regard to licensing and regulation of a professional Optician would be to have at least one per store who supervises non-licensed workers. But that already is a legal requirement in many states, so I don't see a big change there.

There will be no federal government regulation to require optician licensing, since Congress only has jurisdiction over interstate commerce. In theory they could regulate the big box opticals that operate in multiple states, but not independent opticians or the optical employees of an OD or Ophthalmologist office. CPA's, lawyers, and MD's are licensed by states, and the state licensing boards often share the same uniform national exam for efficiency and reciprocity purposes, and not because there is any national licensing requirement by the federal government.

I am still not sure what the main motivation and objective of this discussion is? Is it to improve patient care, or to make it more cost effective? Or is it for opticians to increase their income? If it is primarily the later (which I suspect is the main reason) then who is going to pay for higher wages for opticians? Will it be the OD's, MD's, or optical stores that employ opticians, or will the patients have the increased wages passed on to them in the form of higher prices for eye car products?

Given that a decent quality frame and high-quality progressive lens with A/R retails for $700 and higher, it would be a hard pill for the public to swallow to have to pay even more money due to more stringent optician licensing requirements, given that the marginal production cost of these products is substantially less than the retail cost, and gross margins are ridiculously high compared to almost any other business. As I said previously, I doubt there is a correlation between education/exams and being able to recommend the best and/or most cost effective progressive design. The general rule of thumb often given to patients seeking progressives is to seek out an optician who wears progressives themselves, and is old enough to have sufficient experience as to which designs work best for each patient, and not necessarily one who just graduated with a four year degree in an optical field and passed a slew of exams (this applies to OD's also).

But even with the best and most experienced optician, matching of a progressive (and sometimes SV lenses) to the patient often seems to be voodoo according to many opticians on this forum (whom I assume to be way above average in education, skill, and experience). Maybe I am off-base, but this seems to be a much bigger problem than licensing according to the public. If I had a medical, legal, or accounting problem and sought out multiple opinions on what to do form various professionals, I would expect that there would be some sort of eventual convergence of opinion for the correct course of action (most of the time). The odds of that happening in the optical dispensing field are close to nil.

----------


## tx11

Upon further thought I realized that the scope of opticianry has indeed expanded but not in the direction that many would have liked. Today more and more opticians are required to be insurance filers, front desk and check out ,topflite sales people and to some degree optometric assistants (contact lens I&R classes). It would seem that our scope is being pushed more towards administration than optics and pt care. What happened to the idea of the independent optician refractionist (not eye exams)? IF opticians could independently refract you would see licensing start popping up and a positive change in our fields respect and  compensation.

I guess history shows that serious opticianry evolved into optometry which is trying to evolve into primary care.

----------


## idispense

> No thanks to ECP Mag for making them easy to find but through the power of Google...
> 
> The American Optician
> Where Do We Go From Here?
> http://www.ecpmag.com/1webmagazine/2...n-optician.asp
> 
> 
> The American Optician
> Where Do We Go From Here? Part II
> ...


Thank  you, Keith

----------


## Uncle Fester

Bump

I like top of page 5 post #102

Sums up our situation nicely.

----------


## pezfaerie

Wow resurrected post :Eek:

----------


## Dawud1213

> LMAO I am  just now reading through this thread and was thinking the same thing! if the public realized that a a drunk monkey with a #2 pencil can pass the ABO then the profession would loose what little respect we still have with the public! Those of you who know me know that I have always believed in the educate then legislate route. But it has many many problems. If we as an Opticians collectively could agree on this it would still go nowhere! You would a a large group who is educated but that's it. There is a reason why we have not a a new "licensed" state since 1979. As opticians, our collective pockets are not deep enough to make any changes. I have been on the legislative end for the last few years and have been unable to make any changes due to the influence of the retail giants, Optom's and our fellow opticians who are afraid that if the "bar" is raised it will somehow harm them. I've been in this business over 25 years(not as long as some but longer than most) and nothing has really changed, and I'm going to step out on a limb here and say in the next 25 years there will be no (positive) changes. As to the person who started the thread, learn everything about your craft, take classes, get degree, and be the best Optician you know. If you want to be happy, leave the "advancing Opticianry" political Bull Sh!t to the people who have made a living talking about it.



WoW! Well said and GREAT advice! I too, am a ABOC, CPO passionate Optician whom have been in this field over 20 plus years. SMH! But we as Opticians must look at what we do as Professionals who are extremely valuable to the Optical world. I graduate next month April 25th, 2020 with my MBA in Organizational Leadership. I have a idea in mind that will require Licenced and/or ABOC and above Opticians with "fire" and passion for our craft to educate the many Frame Stylists and Retail Optical "sales people" along with the many private ODs how to effectively run, manage, and grow as a Opticianry business. Again, everything you mentioned was and is The Truth!

 The FLY Optician!!!
YouTube channel.
Inspirational Minutes with David!

----------


## optical24/7

Well, why don't you share your plan with us David? I'd love to hear from anybody that can dispute post #23.

----------


## lensmanmd

> Well, why don't you share your plan with us David? I'd love to hear from anybody that can dispute post #23.


+1

----------

