# Optical Forums > General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum >  The end could be near

## harry a saake

Today, sadly, we found out that the nc opticians board, has made the list of five boards to be eliminated, under the nc gear  act, which in a nutshell says people are being deprived of the right to work in occupational services, so we will eliminate the license. yeh, that's what we need more people who don,t know what they are doing in the business.

NC opticians, you need to start today, contacting your reps and senators, because you know what the alternative is. also join NCOA

----------


## wmcdonald

This is important, Harry. Please folks, call your local representatives, and tell them to support the bill currently in the General Assembly sponsored by Senators Curtis and others to keep our license in place. Once this is over, then we will talk about the future of NC Opticians. The NCOA was a part of the problem here. If they had not fought their own state board for the last several years, the board could have raised fees, and been on solid ground. But the leadership of NCOA, most who have been in place for decades, spent thousands of members dollars, and made the state board do the same. This did not need to happen and is the reason we are in this mess. Personalities.....probably on both sides, wanted to be in control. Who suffers? The poor Optician, as usual. The NCOA has done good things, and are necessary for our advancement, but did you know that only about 25% of the Opticians in the state now belong? And even with the significant growth they talked about in their email today, it is still less than 30%. Some changes need to take place there, as well. Lets get this bill through, and then lets work to improve the NCOA. New blood is clearly needed in leadership positions.

----------


## rdcoach5

do contact your congress person and complain about this bill. A similar bill  was defeated in Ohio by just such a campaign.

----------


## eeopti

This is ridiculous. The license requirements only benefit Optometrists by limiting experienced optical professionals from entering the market on their own unless they can pass several tests and obtain a degree.  Most occupations with the same earning potential do not have such stringent requirements. And being in a moderate to low salary occupation, most people who would become an optician cannot afford the tuition and fees associated with getting a license. 

It's a skilled trade that can be learned through hands-on experience and shouldn't be so heavily regulated. Beyond all of this, being licensed does no mean you will be earning more income. There have been several articles and research done on licensed vs non licensed opticians, and a license does not equate to a higher salary. License requirements just limits those with hands on knowledge from entering the workforce and benefits optometrists. Sorry, but it's true.

----------


## Paul Smith LDO

Although you are entitled to your opinion, it is unfortunate to hear your remarks.  Licensing benefits the opticians, the public, and the men and women they work for.  Gone are the days of apprenticeship were someone interested can learn from a skilled season professional; the many aspects of our occupation.  Those men and women are rare and the opportunities that once existed for a young apprentice to learn from the ground up are far and few between.  Your second sentence makes no sense, a professional follows a set of standards in education and training that prepares an individual in said profession.  The education and training is what prepares one to sit before a board.  If you want to cut hair, most states require you to have training and education along with a license.  If you can't do the work that is required to obtain a license in a given field, perhaps you don't belong in it.  As to the research regarding salaries, I guarantee that I make more than an ABO certified optical employee in my state.

----------


## eeopti

> a professional follows a set of standards in education and training that prepares an individual in said profession.  The education and training is what prepares one to sit before a board.


This is part of my point. There are no universal standards for opticians. But do I think an optician in California with 15 years experience is less qualified than a licensed optician in New York? Absolutely not. However, the optician in New York had to shell out cash to go to school and be able to take the ABO as well as practical exams. That same optician also has an investment in defending license requirements since they jumped through those hoops. 

As far as being a professional following a set of standards, a mechanic can be a professional mechanic without being a licensed mechanic, and they can do this without any formal training. It doesn't mean they are less skilled. It means they took a different path. It's up to the consumer to make informed decisions on the services they use. The State should not limit employment opportunities, especially in this economy, from skilled workers just because they didn't she'll out cash to obtain a piece of paper for skilled TRADE professions. It's not like opticians are doctors. They are not diagnosing anyone. They are dispensing glasses and fitting frames.

----------


## harry a saake

eeopti, your in optical wholesale and this is the way you talk about a lot of the people who support your business, if not most

----------


## wmcdonald

> This is part of my point. There are no universal standards for opticians. But do I think an optician in California with 15 years experience is less qualified than a licensed optician in New York? Absolutely not. However, the optician in New York had to shell out cash to go to school and be able to take the ABO as well as practical exams. That same optician also has an investment in defending license requirements since they jumped through those hoops. 
> 
> As far as being a professional following a set of standards, a mechanic can be a professional mechanic without being a licensed mechanic, and they can do this without any formal training. It doesn't mean they are less skilled. It means they took a different path. It's up to the consumer to make informed decisions on the services they use. The State should not limit employment opportunities, especially in this economy, from skilled workers just because they didn't she'll out cash to obtain a piece of paper for skilled TRADE professions. It's not like opticians are doctors. They are not diagnosing anyone. They are dispensing glasses and fitting frames.


You have absolutely no idea what NY Opticians have to do. If you knew a great deal, you would have already known the requirements prior to moving to NY! Opticians in California do not fit Contact Lenses, most do not have degrees in Opticianry, as those in NY do, and quite frankly, I have lectured to both groups countless times. The NY Opticians are well prepared, and know optics well beyond what I have seen in California. You should be holding NY up as an example, not trying to dumb them down to fit your personal needs. Now look at the curriculum in most of the schools in NY. Compare what they must know to what you know, and if you are honest with yourself, the difference will be clear. Again, most Opticians only know what they have been trained to know, and have no idea what they are missing!



Trades and professions are two different things......at least in the real world. The left coast must be different? You know, you can always go back if you do not like it in NY, and my Yankee brethren would probably appreciate it.

----------


## eeopti

I actually have a lot of experience in retail dispensing and come from a family of opticians who feel the same way. In fact, my sister works for an optometrists and has 15 years experience dispensing in a non licensed state but currently works in a licensed state. She doesn't have the time to go through the educational program required to become licensed but wants to open an optical retail store and can't due to the license requirements. It seems like the only person bennifiting here is the optometrist. 
I understand most of my work comes from optometrists, but think of the possibilities if opticians were more freely allowed to be owners within their own trade! I do not feel like I'm talking bad about anyone. Honestly, I don't. I'm simply acknowledging a discrepancy in licensing requirements among skilled trades (mechanics for example), and the effects it has on employment opportunities. I haven't even touched on the bennifits for consumers. However, I do see how this could be hard to swallow for someone who has gone through formal training or for an optometrist who has the potential of losing profit.

----------


## eeopti

WMCDONALD, Opticians in CA do fit contacts. Now, whether they are supposed to or not is another story. But this just exemplifies my point about a lack of consistent standards in a skilled trade profession.  I'm not saying opticians are not professionals. I am saying that even without a license they can have a full and complete understanding of their trade. I'm also saying that it is unreasonable to have such strict requirements to become licensed within a trade that is low to moderatly salaried. I'm not trying to "dumb down NY." I'm looking at a larger picture. 
As for your personal attacks on me, that was not the behavior I would expect from a "professional." I'm simply trying to discuss another view point. You can either think on it or dismiss it.

----------


## drk

Licensing is indeed a barrier but it also elevates.  If everyone can be an optician, no one is an optician.

----------


## eeopti

> Licensing is indeed a barrier but it also elevates.  If everyone can be an optician, no one is an optician.


Does this mean only licensed mechanics are mechanics? Is someone who has 15 years experience in human resources less qualified than someone who has an MBA in HR and no experience? Is the experienced HR person not an HR professional? The limits and requirements placed on opticians far outweighs other professions. I'm not saying the license is useless. I'm just wondering the value in the barrier it places.

----------


## Johns

> * She doesn't have the time to go through the educational program* required to become licensed but wants to open an optical retail store and can't due to the license requirements.


Ok...I've read enough.

----------


## rbaker

> Today, sadly, we found out that the nc opticians board, has made the list of five boards to be eliminated, under the nc gear  act, which in a nutshell says people are being deprived of the right to work in occupational services, so we will eliminate the license. yeh, that's what we need more people who don,t know what they are doing in the business.
> 
> NC opticians, you need to start today, contacting your reps and senators, because you know what the alternative is. also join NCOA


Is this similar to the "Sunset Laws" that seemed to be in vogue 10 - 15 years ago in many States?

----------


## eeopti

> Ok...I've read enough.


You're taking one small portion of a much larger picture to minimize the overall message.

----------


## ml43

> Ok...I've read enough.


me as well.  if you're competent in your given profession, any educational or certification barrier should be a walk in the park.  

all the decent lab techs I've worked with and have trained breezed through the abo.  same for all the opticians I'ved worked with.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Is this similar to the "Sunset Laws" that seemed to be in vogue 10 - 15 years ago in many States?*



In public policy, a *sunset provision or clause is a measure within a statute, regulation or other law that provides that the law shall cease to have effect after a specific date, unless further legislative action is taken to extend the law. Most laws do not have sunset clauses and therefore remain in force indefinitely, except under systems in which desuetude applies.

*see at =====>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision

----------


## eeopti

> me as well.  if you're competent in your given profession, any educational or certification barrier should be a walk in the park.  
> 
> all the decent lab techs I've worked with and have trained breezed through the abo.  same for all the opticians I'ved worked with.


 It's far more than just the ABO. if that were the case it wouldn't be an issue. The requirements call for two years of school from one of three schools in the entire State. A passing score on a State practical given in one location in the entire State. In addition to the ABO. The tests are not an issue. It's dedicating 2 years to move closer to one of the 3 schools. She would also have to quit her job to do so. This is absurd for such a moderately paying profession.

----------


## ml43

> It's far more than just the ABO. if that were the case it wouldn't be an issue. The requirements call for two years of school from one of three schools in the entire State. A passing score on a State practical given in one location in the entire State. In addition to the ABO. The tests are not an issue. It's dedicating 2 years to move closer to one of the 3 schools. She would also have to quit her job to do so. This is absurd for such a moderately paying profession.


last time I checked, opticians make a decent wage in NY, or any licensed state for that matter.

its only a moderately paying profession if you sell yourself short, and/or are unwilling to get licensed/educated.

same could be said for almost any profession.

there have been a few topics about optician pay.  

I know me and Warren(WMcDonald) have had a few stabs at each other about optician pay.

However, 
I see no reason why an optician in any state couldn't rival an OD's salary, 
All depends on how much responsibility you are willing to take on, how much experience you have, and how much of that experience you can apply and leverage to make the most money for yourself and/or your employer.


I've met and worked with more than a handful of opticians that can boost gross revenue 200-300%, and at the same time improve quality, customer service, and minimize monthly expenses.


If you can do this, and are willing to settle for "moderate" pay, that's on you.

----------


## eeopti

> last time I checked, opticians make a decent wage in NY, or any licensed state for that matter.
> 
> its only a moderately paying profession if you sell yourself short, and/or are unwilling to get licensed/educated.
> 
> same could be said for almost any profession.
> 
> there have been a few topics about optician pay.  
> 
> I know me and Warren(WMcDonald) have had a few stabs at each other about optician pay.
> ...


The skill set you are talking about now has little to do with the education one would receive from a 2 year program, or by taking the ABO. An optician with 15 years experience, without a license, can still do what you are describing, which has more to do with business savvy. You are missing my point entirely.

----------


## ml43

> The skill set you are talking about now has little to do with the education one would receive from a 2 year program, or by taking the ABO. An optician with 15 years experience, without a license, can still do what you are describing, which has more to do with business savvy. You are missing my point entirely.


Correct, most schools don't teach experience.
Correct, you can do what I describe without a license or an abo cerification.

I understand your point.

Instead of explain it, I'll give you a few perspective questions.

would you go to see a physician who wasn't state licensed?

would you hire an optometrist who wasn't state licensed?

edit:
I just reread a few of your previous posts.

I believe you misunderstand that most licensed states do have standards of what a licensed optician is supposed to be capable of doing.  Especially the ones that require associates degrees.  It's a lot more than just dispensing and adjusting glasses. 

If you come from california, I understand why you feel the way you do about licensing.
Dispensing opticians in california in general are treated like waiters, by both the public and others in healthcare.

I apologize for putting this thread on a tangent, but if we have people in industry against licensure. 
 I can only imagine how it will play with the public and politicians.

----------


## Johns

> It's far more than just the ABO. if that were the case it wouldn't be an issue. The requirements call for two years of school from one of three schools in the entire State. A passing score on a State practical given in one location in the entire State. In addition to the ABO. The tests are not an issue. It's dedicating 2 years to move closer to one of the 3 schools. She would also have to quit her job to do so. This is absurd for such a moderately paying profession.


I took (a paltry) two years, moved 5 states away, and went to a two year college.  Because of that, I am making more than any of the 14 ODs that work with me now.  I know of many other opticians doing the same, both from licensed and non-licensed states.  The common denominator is that they all went well beyond the minimum requirements, and positioned themselves to where they could command what they are worth.  No offense, but if someone told me they didn't "have the time" to advance themselves, that would be the end of the interview.

----------


## Johns

To try to get this thread back on track, I'd like to mention that Ohio is still under assault from many entities that want to take away our opticianry licenses.  Attitudes such as those expressed in this thread continue to numb the public's awareness of exactly how technical opticianry is.  No, you shouldn't need a license to bend frames, even if you're bending them on purpose, but this thread just illustrates the vast differences between frame benders, and opticians.

I would suggest that not only should N. Carolina opticians be writing Senator Curtis and others, but we ALL should be.  Most politicians don't aspire to remain where they are, but rather, they  continually eye the next office, and they can't get there without our vote.   And don't stop there; establish a relationship with your local state representatives NOW, before you need to go to them. Your voice will be much louder if they recognize it.  Meet them for lunch (they love to meet their constituents), talk to them about unrelated issues that affect you to show them you are not single minded,

Finally, Ohio was saved (for the time being), by political action money, some from our national organization which so many opticians love to hate.  Without that, we would be in a different state of affairs now.  Our fight is far from over, and in fact was just a small battle of many that I see on the horizon.  N. Carolina, Florida, and Ohio are not unique; opticianry is under attack in every state, and it is being funded by corporations who (yes they are people) are intent on paying you less, and putting the difference on their bottom line.  If you've never supported your state association, support them now. Contribute to their PAC funds, and attend their seminars.  They are our last line of defense.

----------


## wmcdonald

> WMCDONALD, Opticians in CA do fit contacts. Now, whether they are supposed to or not is another story. But this just exemplifies my point about a lack of consistent standards in a skilled trade profession.  I'm not saying opticians are not professionals. I am saying that even without a license they can have a full and complete understanding of their trade. I'm also saying that it is unreasonable to have such strict requirements to become licensed within a trade that is low to moderatly salaried. I'm not trying to "dumb down NY." I'm looking at a larger picture. 
> As for your personal attacks on me, that was not the behavior I would expect from a "professional." I'm simply trying to discuss another view point. You can either think on it or dismiss it.


I dismissed it when you presented your initial points, but it is you who is attacking a great group of Opticians in NY. If you don't like the rules there, go back home. The road is the same distance both ways. And know that experience does not equate directly to knowledge and understanding. Doing something for 15.....or 50 years does not make you competent. Again, most Opticians have NO IDEA what they do not know.

----------


## wmcdonald

> To try to get this thread back on track, I'd like to mention that Ohio is still under assault from many entities that want to take away our opticianry licenses.  Attitudes such as those expressed in this thread continue to numb the public's awareness of exactly how technical opticianry is.  No, you shouldn't need a license to bend frames, even if you're bending them on purpose, but this thread just illustrates the vast differences between frame benders, and opticians.
> 
> I would suggest that not only should N. Carolina opticians be writing Senator Curtis and others, but we ALL should be.  Most politicians don't aspire to remain where they are, but rather, they  continually eye the next office, and they can't get there without our vote.   And don't stop there; establish a relationship with your local state representatives NOW, before you need to go to them. Your voice will be much louder if they recognize it.  Meet them for lunch (they love to meet their constituents), talk to them about unrelated issues that affect you to show them you are not single minded,
> 
> Finally, Ohio was saved (for the time being), by political action money, some from our national organization which so many opticians love to hate.  Without that, we would be in a different state of affairs now.  Our fight is far from over, and in fact was just a small battle of many that I see on the horizon.  N. Carolina, Florida, and Ohio are not unique; opticianry is under attack in every state, and it is being funded by corporations who (yes they are people) are intent on paying you less, and putting the difference on their bottom line.  If you've never supported your state association, support them now. Contribute to their PAC funds, and attend their seminars.  They are our last line of defense.


Exactly, John. But it is so much easier to dumb things down for our own selfish reasons than to build things up. Opticians are our own worst enemies sometimes, but it is not their fault, really. Leadership, or the lack thereof from the past, had NO vision of what could be, and that continues through today.

----------


## CNG

In times like this unity is required. Licensing is there for the public protection. In many states that do not have opticianry licenses, a simple duplication is not allowed. When things go south in filling a prescription that is when the value of license optician comes into play. Anyone can write an order or measure a seg height... BUT when that person cannot see as expected then what? Seeing is a precious and valuable in so many level. Licensing makes a difference then because it elevates the level of responsibility that the dispenser has. No study has ever address that issue. I was privilege to knowing the exact refund numbers that a big box optical had and it was and always been in non licensed states. Wether you accept this comment or not it is up to you.Before you say that you are better than a license optician vs a non license optician or that you are equal to a license optician I ask you what is your benchmark and ....if you really can guarantee that your fellow opticians in your state have passed a minimal competency exam. I can... is a much better answer that I dunnono.
cng

----------


## wmcdonald

It is my understanding that a study will soon be released that indicates that the services of those who meet minimum standards do a superior job when compared to those who have met no requirements. Look for that soon.

----------


## CNG

There is nothing sweeter than deregulation when is for personal gains...statement like the ones I read are so biased. licensing is unfair...licensing does not prove I am less of an optician because I live in a non license state. Maybe not you as an individual but maybe as a group you have no defense against incompetentcy...it is easy to put down what you not have. It is easy to wish in silence what you cannot achieve. If I was in NC I would be calling each and every politician. Love your profession and protect what you have.

Cng

----------


## eeopti

Not requiring a license does not unprotect your license. The option to become licensed is still there. Leave it up to the consumer and OD to determine its value. 
As for public safety, there have been studies done between licensed states and non licensed states. And the determination was there was not added value in licensed states, or a concern for public safety in non licensed states. Saying a non licensed state creates a public safety issue is absurd.

----------


## wmcdonald

The OD? Opticianry in licensed states is an independent profession. I am sorry you see so little value in what the majority on this board do. It is a clear example you know little of what could be done.

----------


## Johns

> In times like this unity is required.


Very true.  From a pure business stand point, I should be on the other side of this battle, as I would greatly benefit from deregulation. Pay opticians less; what's not to love about that?  Unless you're the optician, of course.

----------


## eeopti

> The OD? Opticianry in licensed states is an independent profession. I am sorry you see so little value in what the majority on this board do. It is a clear example you know little of what could be done.


This is not true. In NY you cannot dispense at all without an OD present or a licensed optician. This is exactly my point. ODs have to hire licensed opticians if they ever want to take a vacation or have a day off, but they are not paying them what an optician would make if they were independent. They also hire non licensed people who are dispensing when they are not present, which technically is illegal. The way I see it this only hurts the non licensed people working for ODs for years, who have the experience and knowledge. It blocks them from becoming independent.

----------


## CNG

Lol

cng

----------


## drk

> *opticianry is under attack in every state, and it is being funded by corporations*


This is it, folks.  

The same underlying principle that brings you Coastal Contacts, Warby Parker, and Blink is in effect here.  Business interests (NOT PROFESSIONALS) who want a piece of the health care pie.  (Think insurance companies, while you're at it.)

Ironically, what small margins we do garner are based upon a professional's service.  When they take the professionalism out, the margins will drop to the level of selling sneakers.  

Is that a win for the health care consumer?

----------


## drk

> This is not true. In NY you cannot dispense at all without an OD present or a licensed optician. This is exactly my point. ODs have to hire licensed opticians if they ever want to take a vacation or have a day off, but they are not paying them what an optician would make if they were independent. They also hire non licensed people who are dispensing when they are not present, which technically is illegal. The way I see it this only hurts the non licensed people working for ODs for years, who have the experience and knowledge. It blocks them from becoming independent.


This is a state by state issue.

----------


## eeopti

> This is a state by state issue.


Again, this is my point. ODs have the privilege of having their education be universal across the U.S.  Sure, maybe they have to take an exam if they move to another state, but not go back to school and take numerous tests. Why should opticians have more stringent requirements? If they can pass the test, shouldn't that be enough? Why should opticians have more roadblocks in advancing themselves? In my opinion it is to limit the amount of opticians able to go out on their own and be independent.

----------


## Andrew Weiss

I am saddened but not surprised to hear of this development in NC.  I agree it's time to act.

As to the larger issue being raised here: I have deep respect for Warren McDonald and have been a long-time supporter of licensure as a way to maintain professional standards for the public's benefit.  I would only suggest that those who do not go to school for a degree in opticianry and who have years of hands-on experience in the field be given an opportunity to prove to the licensing board if they are qualified.  Those who apprentice and do intensive study on their own, and who can prove that they actually have the knowledge, ought to get the license.  To me, the importance is maintaining the standards of knowledge and care, and how one goes about acquiring that knowledge isn't as important as acquiring it.

----------


## eeopti

> I am saddened but not surprised to hear of this development in NC.  I agree it's time to act.
> 
> As to the larger issue being raised here: I have deep respect for Warren McDonald and have been a long-time supporter of licensure as a way to maintain professional standards for the public's benefit.  I would only suggest that those who do not go to school for a degree in opticianry and who have years of hands-on experience in the field be given an opportunity to prove to the licensing board if they are qualified.  Those who apprentice and do intensive study on their own, and who can prove that they actually have the knowledge, ought to get the license.  To me, the importance is maintaining the standards of knowledge and care, and how one goes about acquiring that knowledge isn't as important as acquiring it.


This. Exactly. A universal standard should be set across all states so opticians are not limited. If you have the knowledge, you should be able to be successful within your profession.

----------


## newguyaroundhere

Its difficult to establish a universal standard when those in the field can not agree with each other on what the standard should be. There needs to be a group of leaders strong enough to help establish it. However, egos and pride will prevent such a movement

----------


## drk

> Again, this is my point. ODs have the privilege of having their education be universal across the U.S.  Sure, maybe they have to take an exam if they move to another state, but not go back to school and take numerous tests. Why should opticians have more stringent requirements? If they can pass the test, shouldn't that be enough? Why should opticians have more roadblocks in advancing themselves? In my opinion it is to limit the amount of opticians able to go out on their own and be independent.


Then the answer is reciprocity or a nationally accepted license.  Not "no licensure".  I thought that was your position.

----------


## Andrew Weiss

> Then the answer is reciprocity or a nationally accepted license.  Not "no licensure".  I thought that was your position.


Exactly.

----------


## wmcdonald

> This is not true. In NY you cannot dispense at all without an OD present or a licensed optician. This is exactly my point. ODs have to hire licensed opticians if they ever want to take a vacation or have a day off, but they are not paying them what an optician would make if they were independent. They also hire non licensed people who are dispensing when they are not present, which technically is illegal. The way I see it this only hurts the non licensed people working for ODs for years, who have the experience and knowledge. It blocks them from becoming independent.


It certainly IS true, Sir!! An Optician can be a stand-alone if he/she chooses and open their own office under their professional license. That is what I mean by INDEPENDENT profession, if it was not clear. ODs are great. I consult with several regularly, and have lectured at a number of their conferences over the years, but the truth is they often do NOT hire a licensed Optician, and can and do leave these unlicensed people alone to dispense glasses all day. Again, you have no idea of the reality here.

----------


## Tigerclaw

> Then the answer is reciprocity or a nationally accepted license.  Not "no licensure".  I thought that was your position.


As an OD, reciprocity sure would be nice for us to have. It's not like states are bending over backwards to give us easy access to practice anywhere we'd like. In our case, state boards benefit from being able to control who and how many of "who" are allowed to practice (i.e. compete) with those already there. If you want to know why there are barriers to licensure in various states, I'm sure "follow the money" is a valid adage to consider.

----------


## Jarhead Daddy

http://www.nremt.org/nremt/about/legal_opinion.asp

Licensure vs. certification.  I am for certification, and against licensure for opticians for the following reasons:

1.  Certification encourages advancing a profession in an environment of liberty and choice.  Licensure is compulsory, and can be abused to form a regime that protects itself from the competition of outsiders and innovation (as the MDs of NV have done with glaucoma treatment, and the ODs have done with private practice ownership).

2.  Certification boards are more flexible.  For instance, I may want to be ABO certified, but have no interest in CL dispensing in my business model.  But in NV, I cannot start an eyeglass shop without acquiring my NCLE, and passing the CL fitting portion of the state board.

3.  Certifications are more often tiered.  Anybody here have a Master ABO?
http://www.abo-ncle.org/ABO/Certific...4-f3e881fee795

Just because somebody is against compulsory legal measures does not mean they are slack, or against advancing the industry.

----------


## wmcdonald

> I am saddened but not surprised to hear of this development in NC.  I agree it's time to act.
> 
> As to the larger issue being raised here: I have deep respect for Warren McDonald and have been a long-time supporter of licensure as a way to maintain professional standards for the public's benefit.  I would only suggest that those who do not go to school for a degree in opticianry and who have years of hands-on experience in the field be given an opportunity to prove to the licensing board if they are qualified.  Those who apprentice and do intensive study on their own, and who can prove that they actually have the knowledge, ought to get the license.  To me, the importance is maintaining the standards of knowledge and care, and how one goes about acquiring that knowledge isn't as important as acquiring it.


There is still an apprenticeship pathway, Andrew, and I appreciate the kind comments. But the truth about that in the past has been it was little more than cheap labor, with little teaching going on. I am fine with an Apprenticeship pathway, so long as it is a structured one, with a mandated course of study as a component, like we established in NC with the NAOs CPP program. But the reality is we will never achieve any real recognition professionally until we have mandatory formal education. We are the sole health-related field remaining that allows such a pathway and have been for some time. That was a real sticking point in this latest mess here in NC.

----------


## wmcdonald

> As an OD, reciprocity sure would be nice for us to have. It's not like states are bending over backwards to give us easy access to practice anywhere we'd like. In our case, state boards benefit from being able to control who and how many of "who" are allowed to practice (i.e. compete) with those already there. If you want to know why there are barriers to licensure in various states, I'm sure "follow the money" is a valid adage to consider.


In the case of ODs you are right on the mark. It used to be the same even for state boards, until they developed the national compacts that eliminated some of that. In the case of the Optician, the disparate views of what we are and are not make agreeing on a common approach difficult at best. But is needs to take place. NC, and I am very proud of my state, has one of the strongest licensure laws in America. We are one of only a few that will allow waiver of examination for those who come to the state with similar training and/or education that covers all our scope in this state allows us to do. That includes CL fitting, so many states do not qualify. The answer many want to see is to dumb us down. I want to see us raise, not lower the bar. But the truth is, most no longer fit CLs. Should we still test on the material? We need national leaders that can work across border, and have the synergistic ability to bring together all those disparate views, and make for common ground. The best, and easiest way is to start from a solid foundation of education, whether it be in a college setting full time or dispersed as part of an apprenticeship, all should learn the material that meets the agreed-upon definition we develop for ourselves. Until then, we are dead in the water, and these self-serving folks will want us all to dumb down to meet their agenda.

----------


## wmcdonald

> http://www.nremt.org/nremt/about/legal_opinion.asp
> 
> Licensure vs. certification.  I am for certification, and against licensure for opticians for the following reasons:
> 
> 1.  Certification encourages advancing a profession in an environment of liberty and choice.  Licensure is compulsory, and can be abused to form a regime that protects itself from the competition of outsiders and innovation (as the MDs of NV have done with glaucoma treatment, and the ODs have done with private practice ownership).
> 
> 2.  Certification boards are more flexible.  For instance, I may want to be ABO certified, but have no interest in CL dispensing in my business model.  But in NV, I cannot start an eyeglass shop without acquiring my NCLE, and passing the CL fitting portion of the state board.
> 
> 3.  Certifications are more often tiered.  Anybody here have a Master ABO?
> ...


But until we have a mandatory licensure requirement we will never advance as a field. Certification is voluntary and good to have, but we need more.

----------


## Andrew Weiss

> There is still an apprenticeship pathway, Andrew, and I appreciate the kind comments. But the truth about that in the past has been it was little more than cheap labor, with little teaching going on. I am fine with an Apprenticeship pathway, so long as it is a structured one, with a mandated course of study as a component, like we established in NC with the NAOs CPP program. But the reality is we will never achieve any real recognition professionally until we have mandatory formal education. We are the sole health-related field remaining that allows such a pathway and have been for some time. That was a real sticking point in this latest mess here in NC.


Hi Warren, nice to "see" you again.  I had no idea of the political implications of the apprenticeship path.  What you describe is pretty darn close to the home-schooling path and makes a great deal of sense to me.  I hope we can convince the legislature or the Governor's commission that structured apprenticeship study is the equivalent of classroom education, but if we must cave on this issue, we must.

----------


## wmcdonald

> Then the answer is reciprocity or a nationally accepted license.  Not "no licensure".  I thought that was your position.


There is something similar to reciprocity in several states now, so long as the training and/or education of the individual meets the entering state standards. Unfortunately, many do not, and until we have a common background this approach will not work. The Constitution of the US places licensure in the hands of the states, so unless you change that, you will not have a national "license" any more than you see a national driver's license. But I second your question.........I thought they were against all licensure?

----------


## Jarhead Daddy

Wmmcdonald, you are relying on government to advance your field.  Why not rely on competition and innovation?

----------


## eeopti

> Then the answer is reciprocity or a nationally accepted license.  Not "no licensure".  I thought that was your position.


My position is that current requirements blocks those with experience from moving forward in their career. If it is merely a test, then with experience they should be able to pass. 
I would also support licensing being optional, as it is with many other skilled trades. Leave it up to the consumer to decide where they want to take their business. If the license is truly that much more valuable to the public then licensed professionals will not be threatened.

----------


## wmcdonald

> Hi Warren, nice to "see" you again.  I had no idea of the political implications of the apprenticeship path.  What you describe is pretty darn close to the home-schooling path and makes a great deal of sense to me.  I hope we can convince the legislature or the Governor's commission that structured apprenticeship study is the equivalent of classroom education, but if we must cave on this issue, we must.


Andrew, it is never going to be equivalent, and will lack the depth and breadth of formal education. In an apprenticeship, you are largely limited to the knowledge and experience of the preceptor. Many of those are now the manager at Walmart or Lenscrafters who judge the quality and value of an Optician by sales volume. But schools need more as well, and that is why we require what NC refers to as an "internship" for 6 months are the end of school prior to licensure. Apprenticeship will remain, but I hope it is tightened up a bit!

----------


## wmcdonald

> My position is that current requirements blocks those with experience from moving forward in their career. If it is merely a test, then with experience they should be able to pass. 
> I would also support licensing being optional, as it is with many other skilled trades. Leave it up to the consumer to decide where they want to take their business. If the license is truly that much more valuable to the public then licensed professionals will not be threatened.



But the truth is they do not pass. The ABO has a poor pass rate of less than 60%. The NCLE worse. AN in NY, Opticians must have education and training in both spectacles and CLs. People on this board that loudly claim to be professionals had to take 3x to pass the simple NOCE! What you are saying does not work, and it has been solidly proven over the years. Sadly, you do not even understand what licensing is, so your argument is invalid. Is a driver's license mandatory? Of course, just like every other kind of license. It is mandated.......that means required, and not voluntary.

----------


## Jarhead Daddy

> My position is that current requirements blocks those with experience from moving forward in their career. If it is merely a test, then with experience they should be able to pass. 
> I would also support licensing being optional, as it is with many other skilled trades. Leave it up to the consumer to decide where they want to take their business. If the license is truly that much more valuable to the public then licensed professionals will not be threatened.


Bingo!

----------


## wmcdonald

> Wmmcdonald, you are relying on government to advance your field.  Why not rely on competition and innovation?


You are incorrect, Sir. The government is lonely certifying we have a baseline of knowledge to meet the standards. There is plenty of competition, and we are at a significant disadvantage, due to poor education, training and licensure.

----------


## Jarhead Daddy

Advocating state-mandated licensure = reliance on government to hold your standard.

----------


## Barry Santini

I think the minimum standards in place for licensure are more than "adequate" for adequate care.

Superior standards of care are not part of the USA's legislative culture. 

Too many would be "left behind."

B

----------


## eeopti

> http://www.nremt.org/nremt/about/legal_opinion.asp
> 
> Licensure vs. certification.  I am for certification, and against licensure for opticians for the following reasons:
> 
> 1.  Certification encourages advancing a profession in an environment of liberty and choice.  Licensure is compulsory, and can be abused to form a regime that protects itself from the competition of outsiders and innovation (as the MDs of NV have done with glaucoma treatment, and the ODs have done with private practice ownership).
> 
> 2.  Certification boards are more flexible.  For instance, I may want to be ABO certified, but have no interest in CL dispensing in my business model.  But in NV, I cannot start an eyeglass shop without acquiring my NCLE, and passing the CL fitting portion of the state board.
> 
> 3.  Certifications are more often tiered.  Anybody here have a Master ABO?
> ...


This. Thank you.

----------


## Tigerclaw

John Q. Public is a proven moron when it comes to dealing with the eyes, which is why I am all for reasonable government enforcement in this field. Nobody questions the roles or training of people in medicine or dentistry, but when it comes to the eyes, it's supposed to be entry level? This attitude is why you have people working at The Gap one day, then get hired at Walmart vision the next and are suddenly "opticians". How many times are you supposed to go to the dentist? "Twice a year." When are you supposed to have an eye exam? "When I can't pass my drivers license exam". There are too many hands in the cookie jar, and far too many corporate interests. People are confused and the bar is being lowered for all of us, seeing as how all these long "O" words get lumped in together. Opticians and ophthalmic techs should at a minimum be certified (or grandfathered in). Licensure is too high a bar for the demand to be met. I think you should unify around that fair compromise, personally. "Certified" is indistinguishable from "licensed" to John Q. Public, but in my experience "certified" is a world of difference from "hired off the street".

----------


## newguyaroundhere

> John Q. Public is a proven moron when it comes to dealing with the eyes, which is why I am all for reasonable government enforcement in this field. Nobody questions the roles or training of people in medicine or dentistry, but when it comes to the eyes, it's supposed to be entry level? This attitude is why you have people working at The Gap one day, then get hired at Walmart vision the next and are suddenly "opticians". How many times are you supposed to go to the dentist? "Twice a year." When are you supposed to have an eye exam? "When I can't pass my drivers license exam". There are too many hands in the cookie jar, and far too many corporate interests. People are confused and the bar is being lowered for all of us, seeing as how all these long "O" words get lumped in together. Opticians and ophthalmic techs should at a minimum be certified (or grandfathered in). Licensure is too high a bar for the demand to be met. I think you should unify around that fair compromise, personally. "Certified" is indistinguishable from "licensed" to John Q. Public, but in my experience "certified" is a world of difference from "hired off the street".


I have personally seen general managers/regional managers hire girls from Victoria Secret to sell and dispense eyewear because they were "cute" and "great sales people" only for these same managers be out of a job 18 months later because of poor performance in the  stores.

----------


## Tigerclaw

> I have personally seen general managers/regional managers hire girls from Victoria Secret to sell and dispense eyewear because they were "cute" and "great sales people" only for these same managers be out of a job 18 months later because of poor performance in the  stores.


I won't get into too much detail but yeah, the predatory nature of managers/regional etc. for people of the opposite sex in this field is borderline criminal.

----------


## ml43

> I have personally seen general managers/regional managers hire girls from Victoria Secret to sell and dispense eyewear because they were "cute" and "great sales people" only for these same managers be out of a job 18 months later because of poor performance in the  stores.


story of lux in SoCal at the present moment, and it goes all the way up to the regional level

----------


## Jarhead Daddy

> John Q. Public is a proven moron when it comes to dealing with the eyes, which is why I am all for reasonable government enforcement in this field.


This is the big difference between statists like you, and libertarians like me.  You believe that people are "morons" and coercion is the answer.  I believe government is mostly incompetent, and liberty is the answer.

----------


## Jarhead Daddy

Gotta go fix a toilet. Have fun with the debate.

----------


## eeopti

> It certainly IS true, Sir!! An Optician can be a stand-alone if he/she chooses and open their own office under their professional license. That is what I mean by INDEPENDENT profession, if it was not clear. ODs are great. I consult with several regularly, and have lectured at a number of their conferences over the years, but the truth is they often do NOT hire a licensed Optician, and can and do leave these unlicensed people alone to dispense glasses all day. Again, you have no idea of the reality here.


Yes they CAN be independent. But you are wrong that ODs can leave unlicensed professionals alone to dispense. At least under NY law. But you are correct that they do. Again, it is the unlicensed, knowledgeable, experienced professionals getting the short end of the stick here.

----------


## Tigerclaw

> This is the big difference between statists like you, and libertarians like me.  You believe that people are "morons" and coercion is the answer.  I believe government is mostly incompetent, and liberty is the answer.


"Statism" has a meaning other than "belief in more government than the new wave of 'libertarians' who woke up one day and decided they'd get into politics, follow the most overly simplified doctrines, and suddenly be the smartest guy in any room they entered." There are times when we need government to protect the viability of people doing things the right way from the ability of the deadly combination of free market + public ignorance to leave the wise minority with no options.

----------


## Paul Smith LDO

> Advocating state-mandated licensure = reliance on government to hold your standard.


I would have to strongly disagree with this statement.  WA State DOH, does not have the man power to perform surprise inspections on all Optical's and Dispensary's. The DOH relies on whistle blowing from the public and the men and women who hold licenses for this profession in WA.  As to the standards, for many years it has been the OAW along with support from the, School of Opticianry, that has been responsible for the set of standards. The movement to push Licensure to the curb has been cooperation's; they have been looking for any chink in our armor to do away with any licensing, to lower their bottom line. Take a look at one, Rivet and Sway, to see an example of the OAW's work.  An on line entity selling prescription eyewear using clothing boutiques as their showrooms and dispensaries.

----------


## eeopti

> But the truth is they do not pass. The ABO has a poor pass rate of less than 60%. The NCLE worse. AN in NY, Opticians must have education and training in both spectacles and CLs. People on this board that loudly claim to be professionals had to take 3x to pass the simple NOCE! What you are saying does not work, and it has been solidly proven over the years. Sadly, you do not even understand what licensing is, so your argument is invalid. Is a driver's license mandatory? Of course, just like every other kind of license. It is mandated.......that means required, and not voluntary.


You do not have to be a licensed mechanic to be a mechanic. However, there is an option to be a licensed mechanic. I certainly DO understand what a license is. Again, leave it up to the consumer to decide how valuable the license is. I have gone to several unlicensed mechanics and walked away is a fixed car that is safe to drive.

----------


## Uilleann

So to run with the driver's license analogy as presented above...

Does a drivers license require advanced/expensive schooling in all 50 states to apply?  Are requirements _dramatically_ different from state to state?  Who gets to decide what are the ongoing CE requirements to be able to drive?  How is enforcement ensured across state lines?  Who makes the determination for minimum competencies from state to state, and how to they ensure comparability with the other 49 states?  How long can someone drive without a license if they're never pulled over?  What are the protections for the public when a driver is licensed, but can't see 20/40 or better, has a undetected / non-reported visual field defect, or other medical condition that could create a major hazard to other drivers, property or pedestrians?  Does someone who has caused property damage, or perhaps injured or even killed someone while operating a vehicle automatically loose their license?

----------


## Jarhead Daddy

> "Statism" has a meaning other than "belief in more government than the new wave of 'libertarians' who woke up one day and decided they'd get into politics, follow the most overly simplified doctrines, and suddenly be the smartest guy in any room they entered."


So I am getting the idea that you think libertarians are as moronic as John Q. Public?  Square me away then, how is licensure not a "statist" solution? 


> There are times when we need government to protect the viability of people doing things the right way from the ability of the deadly combination of free market + public ignorance to leave the wise minority with no options.


Agreed.  Drivers' licenses are a great example. Opticianry is a poor example.  Errant drivers kill people every day.  Errant opticians don't.

----------


## Jarhead Daddy

Finished my bathroom repair, and I did it without a licensed plumber.  I used dangerous power tools, chemicals, and affected the city plumbing system (in a very small way).  It was much more dangerous and technical than dispensing glasses.  No license necessary.

----------


## eeopti

> Finished my bathroom repair, and I did it without a licensed plumber.  I used dangerous power tools, chemicals, and affected the city plumbing system (in a very small way).  It was much more dangerous and technical than dispensing glasses.  No license necessary.


Excatly!

----------


## Tigerclaw

> Finished my bathroom repair, and I did it without a licensed plumber.  I used dangerous power tools, chemicals, and affected the city plumbing system (in a very small way).  It was much more dangerous and technical than dispensing glasses.  No license necessary.


So everyone can handle all that at no risk? Saved a few bucks and risk your life? What was that about distancing yourself from the stupidity of John Q. Public?

Besides, there's a big difference from taking the risk that only harms yourself and taking one that harms others.

----------


## ml43

> You do not have to be a licensed mechanic to be a mechanic. However, there is an option to be a licensed mechanic. I certainly DO understand what a license is. Again, leave it up to the consumer to decide how valuable the license is. I have gone to several unlicensed mechanics and walked away is a fixed car that is safe to drive.


since you keep bringing this up.  I have actually worked as a certified/licensed auto technician for 4 years.

I have worked with about 100 other techs in that time frame, some certified/licensed, most not.  

I cannot count the number of times I've had to fix their mistakes that could have killed someone.  luckily either me or one of the other techs caught it or the driver noticed it before they hit the freeway.

----------


## Paul Smith LDO

> Finished my bathroom repair, and I did it without a licensed plumber.  I used dangerous power tools, chemicals, and affected the city plumbing system (in a very small way).  It was much more dangerous and technical than dispensing glasses.  No license necessary.


Errant opticians, as you call them, have created a tremendous amount of work for myself, fellow, LDO's, along with the OD's and OMD's who write the prescriptions.  Simple example, I see daily and talk to the Doc who has to explain to the patient the cause and effects of unwanted prism.  Will it kill the patient, not hardly, does it take away the ability to receive the best possible result of their Rx, yes.  We could and probably will go on and on with examples of poorly executed eyewear and folks will say these errors will weed out these, errant opticians, haven't seen that yet.  Oh, cleaned out my gutters today, hope that adds some relevance to the conversation.  _Please, support NC's Licensed Opticians and write a letter, I will._

----------


## Barry Santini

The question of "unwanted" prism is up for debate...and not by using ANSI standards.

B

----------


## Jarhead Daddy

> So everyone can handle all that at no risk? Saved a few bucks and risk your life? What was that about distancing yourself from the stupidity of John Q. Public?


Just want to make sure I understand.  I refurbished my bathroom (toilet, tile, sink, etc.).  I used hammers, putty, paint, power drill, etc.  Should I have been required to hire licensed individuals to do this work (safer,more efficient, and better than myself)?

If so, what about cooking my meals (bacteria, flames, oil, etc.)?  What about cutting my hair, or wiring my own home theater, or fixing my car, or my kids riding a bike?

----------


## Tigerclaw

Nice strawman. Most people aren't qualified to do things on their own at such a scope, and if you don't understand the difference or the importance of licensure, then reading it in a post won't allow you to process it. You can just rest easy knowing that there are those of us who are better in touch with the nuances that confuse most neo-libertarians, and we will be in the position of the decision-makers, while you can complain to your heart's content to no avail.

----------


## ak47

> This is the big difference between statists like you, and libertarians like me.  You believe that people are "morons" and coercion is the answer.  I believe government is mostly incompetent, and liberty is the answer.


it is really not one or the other.  people are morons and government is incompetent.

jack daniels, however, is not a moron and is highly competent

----------


## Jarhead Daddy

Tigerclaw, you didn't answer my question.  Should I be required to use a licensed carpenter / plumber?  Or should I be allowed to assess the costs and risks on my own?

----------


## Tigerclaw

It's a false comparison. If you were opening to the public you would have to use a licensed contractor.

----------


## Jarhead Daddy

OK, let's make the analogy even more similar.  Should I be allowed to hire an unlicensed friend to refurbish my bathroom? Cut my hair? Cook my dinner?

----------


## eeopti

> since you keep bringing this up.  I have actually worked as a certified/licensed auto technician for 4 years.
> 
> I have worked with about 100 other techs in that time frame, some certified/licensed, most not.  
> 
> I cannot count the number of times I've had to fix their mistakes that could have killed someone.  luckily either me or one of the other techs caught it or the driver noticed it before they hit the freeway.


That's great for you. My father has been an auto mechanic for 30 years, he is not licensed, and is currently a supervisor for CalTrans. He is far more qualified than someone who is certified with 4 years experience. 

Every person has had a different career progression and experience should not be so flippantly dismissed. You are limiting the workforce'so ability to progress. I do not, and never will, assume because you have a license or went to school that you are immediately qualified to do a job. That's a crazy assumption. And it saddens me that hard working people who have dedicated their lives to this profession, but either have not had the means or time to go to school, are looked at like second class citizens.

----------


## eeopti

> It's a false comparison. If you were opening to the public you would have to use a licensed contractor.


This is not true.

----------


## Tigerclaw

Depends on the city/state.

----------


## Tallboy

I would hope that if I was in an elevator it would have been serviced by a licensed and regulated elevator installer.  In a building built with contractors who were licensed and regulated, I could take peace of mind that the building would be less likely to collapse, or at least society recognized the need for regulating the makers of this building.

I live and work in an unregulated optical state, it is the wild wild west (or rather wild wild democratic east).  People learn the hard way through headaches and poor vision/frame fits where they should go for eyecare. Hopefully those in my town end up with me, or with another well meaning optician who cares and tries to learn all they can.  It makes sense that those people should have piece of mind but I think a lot of people are shocked in maryland when they learn that all the education I use at my job is completely voluntary when they ask, "do you have to go to school for this?"

----------


## ml43

> He is far more qualified than someone who is certified with 4 years experience.


according to who?

And qualified by who's standard?





> Every person has had a different career progression and experience should not be so flippantly dismissed. You are limiting the workforce'so ability to progress. I do not, and never will, assume because you have a license or went to school that you are immediately qualified to do a job. That's a crazy assumption. And it saddens me that hard working people who have dedicated their lives to this profession, but either have not had the means or time to go to school, are looked at like second class citizens.


education, certification and licensure among other things is what progresses any field or discipline.  

If you dedicate your life to something, why not dedicate a couple more years to advance by a set standard among your peers and those in industry.

if you choose not to, fine.  But don't ridicule the rest of us for what we have done, because of something you have chosen not to.

edit:
please don't take my responses too harshly, but it's sad to see an industry as small as ophthalmic optics be so divided on such a simple thing.

in my eyes, licensure is like a hurdle,
and instead of just practicing/studying and doing the hurdle, 
there are those that choose to run the opposite way around the track, just to avoid the hurdle, and want to be treated like hurdlers.

----------


## ml43

> 3.  Certifications are more often tiered.  Anybody here have a Master ABO?
> http://www.abo-ncle.org/ABO/Certific...4-f3e881fee795
> 
> Just because somebody is against compulsory legal measures does not mean they are slack, or against advancing the industry.


You guys are debating with a few ABOM's in this thread alone, FYI(not me)

----------


## VisionAiry

This is all about money, pride and trying to keep other peoples hands out of "your" cookie jar. 

There's _plenty of value_ in various certifications but I would _love_ to hear stories of how the public is being harmed by unlicensed opticians. That is the _only_ reasonto support compulsory licensing, except for those who are already in the "good old boys" club. Union mentality...

----------


## Tallboy

> This is all about money, pride and trying to keep other peoples hands out of "your" cookie jar. 
> 
> There's _plenty of value_ in various certifications but I would _love_ to hear stories of how the public is being harmed by unlicensed opticians. That is the _only_ reasonto support compulsory licensing, except for those who are already in the "good old boys" club. Union mentality...


Headaches and loss of money would probably be the worst of it.

----------


## Tigerclaw

> Headaches and loss of money would probably be the worst of it.


Until you get the kid who falls behind in school or gets overminused and needs progessively stronger lenses to correct the abnormally increasing myopia.

----------


## Tallboy

> Until you get the kid who falls behind in school or gets overminused and needs progessively stronger lenses to correct the abnormally increasing myopia.


Great points.  Also as I said, most of my clients or my doctor's patients are mortified to find out that people aren't required a certain amount of training or certification to dispense and make glasses in maryland.

----------


## VisionAiry

> Headaches and loss of money would probably be the worst of it.


Primarily...minimal potential for public harm. It does exist but it also exists in a hundred other services and products we consume and don't get killed or maimed for. I wish with all my heart that it wasn't true, but half the population literally cannot afford the expense of a system which significantly reduces the number of people that are "allowed" to dispense eyewear, which is nearly as important as food in many cases. I'm a 1.75 OU and I could not even remotely drive a car safely without correction. 

Sometimes the hardest thing is to accept that not everyone needs and even fewer people want the valuable services we provide. We may think they need the best of the best we have to offer. Maybe they do need it but if they don't want it, that's not up to us. If you know everything then sell yourself every day and you'll be paid and recognized for it.

----------


## VisionAiry

> Until you get the kid who falls behind in school or gets overminused and needs progessively stronger lenses to correct the abnormally increasing myopia.


Which is easily rectified by a proper examination by an OD...

----------


## Tigerclaw

> Which is easily rectified by a proper examination by an OD...


 Too bad I'm not licensed in Utopia. Besides, the Rx only goes so far in the wrong hands of unqualified opticians/lab.

----------


## VisionAiry

> Too bad I'm not licensed in Utopia. Besides, the Rx only goes so far in the wrong hands of unqualified opticians/lab.


You, as an OD, should be able to (and Im sure you can) oversee and ensure anyone you employ or work with fills your prescriptions properly. The same way MD's use OD's and the same way both use tech's. You don't need any optician to fill your Rx's, you need them to maximize the value of your own education and skills and bring them to more people, which is perfectly reasonable and practical.

----------


## eeopti

> according to who?
> 
> And qualified by who's standard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> education, certification and licensure among other things is what progresses any field or discipline.  
> 
> ...


Apparently he is qualified by the State of California as he is a supervisor at CalTrans and supervises licensed mechanics. His 30 years of professional expierence, and on the job performance proved his knowledge and position within this government agency. I brought this up only to show an example of someone who has dedicated themselves to their profession, while supporting a family, and was able to make something of themselves beyond being just a set of hands. He should have this opportunity. 

I am not ridiculing those that choose to get licensed. I value education, an have a BA myself. But I also understand its place. Having a degree, certification or license does not automatically make you qualified to do squat. It means you can listen well, absorb information and retain it to pass a test. if there is anyone I am ridiculing it would be the elitist that places themself above a non licensed person, mearly on the stance that they had the time and money to become licensed. There are so many people that HAVE to work. They are supporting families, or don't make enough to put themselves through school. That doesn't mean they are any less dedicated to learning, or have invested less than someone that did go to school. People need to stop assuming that just because a person learns from many years of dedicated work that they are less knowledgeable than someone who goes to school for two years. I have a four year degree. I do not automatically think I am smarter or more qualified than anyone with an AA. That is absurd.

----------


## obxeyeguy

Just saw this tread, and thanks all for the laughs!  So glad I am closer to the end than the beginning.

----------


## Tigerclaw

> You, as an OD, should be able to (and Im sure you can) oversee and ensure anyone you employ or work with fills your prescriptions properly. The same way MD's use OD's and the same way both use tech's. You don't need any optician to fill your Rx's, you need them to maximize the value of your own education and skills and bring them to more people, which is perfectly reasonable and practical.


With all due respect, this is not reality. You assume that I or any OD/DO/MD can oversee the production of their prescribed spectacles. You can thank the "Eyeglass Rule" for that. You can preach to patients all you want, but many are quite frankly stupid and will not make the right choices, even for their kids. 
Case in point: Got a 10-12yo kid, first time exam, c/o headaches and fatigue when reading. I refracted him to +4.00 OU. His dad asks "what's his 'PD'?" I told him I don't give that out. He said wull[sic] I don't want to spend money on his glasses. I asked the kid to wait outside and proceeded to tell the dad that it was BEYOND a bad idea to go online for glasses, ESPECIALLY for kids because of his prescription, the shatter-resistant material he needed, the risk of getting the whole thing screwed up. Offered him a 50% off coupon for my neighboring retail tyrant - no dice. "I got MY glasses online and they're JUST FINE (pulling out a pair of probably -1.00's)." I again told him to at least go to Eyedisasters so they could get him something cheap and (in theory) measured and made properly. But he wouldn't have it. He was a cheap _____ and there was no convincing him otherwise.

I reluctantly gave him his PD without my usual fee of $50 just to get him out of my sight, I was so disgusted.

Add to this story the historical failure of kids, their parents, and their teachers to identify vision-related problems, and voila - you have my reason to be protective of the entire chain of production from OD to dispensing. It benefits us ALL, except for those with idealistic but damaging libertarian motives. ;-)

----------


## VisionAiry

> With all due respect, this is not reality. You assume that I or any OD/DO/MD can oversee the production of their prescribed spectacles. You can thank the "Eyeglass Rule" for that. You can preach to patients all you want, but many are quite frankly stupid and will not make the right choices, even for their kids. 
> Case in point: Got a 10-12yo kid, first time exam, c/o headaches and fatigue when reading. I refracted him to +4.00 OU. His dad asks "what's his 'PD'?" I told him I don't give that out. He said wull[sic] I don't want to spend money on his glasses. I asked the kid to wait outside and proceeded to tell the dad that it was BEYOND a bad idea to go online for glasses, ESPECIALLY for kids because of his prescription, the shatter-resistant material he needed, the risk of getting the whole thing screwed up. Offered him a 50% off coupon for my neighboring retail tyrant - no dice. "I got MY glasses online and they're JUST FINE (pulling out a pair of probably -1.00's)." I again told him to at least go to Eyedisasters so they could get him something cheap and (in theory) measured and made properly. But he wouldn't have it. He was a cheap _____ and there was no convincing him otherwise.
> 
> I reluctantly gave him his PD without my usual fee of $50 just to get him out of my sight, I was so disgusted.
> 
> Add to this story the historical failure of kids, their parents, and their teachers to identify vision-related problems, and voila - you have my reason to be protective of the entire chain of production from OD to dispensing. It benefits us ALL, except for those with idealistic but damaging libertarian motives. ;-)


I get it, people can be ridiculous and it drives me crazy every day. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose when trying to help them.

Just to be clear you're an OD, in Texas, which doesn't require optician licensing and you support compulsory licensing of opticians? Texas is very competitive and there are plenty of qualified people there that have licenses or similar qualifications. Especially in Houston or any other big city in TX. DALLAS :Cool:

----------


## ml43

> I am not ridiculing those that choose to get licensed. I value education, an have a BA myself. But I also understand its place. Having a degree, certification or license does not automatically make you qualified to do squat. It means you can listen well, absorb information and retain it to pass a test. if there is anyone I am ridiculing it would be the elitist that places themself above a non licensed person, mearly on the stance that they had the time and money to become licensed. There are so many people that HAVE to work. They are supporting families, or don't make enough to put themselves through school. That doesn't mean they are any less dedicated to learning, or have invested less than someone that did go to school. People need to stop assuming that just because a person learns from many years of dedicated work that they are less knowledgeable than someone who goes to school for two years. I have a four year degree. I do not automatically think I am smarter or more qualified than anyone with an AA. That is absurd.


Let's recap and summarize,

You value experience, you don't value licensure.

what if licensure required experience, 

let's call that experience, apprenticeship.

what if it also required a certain knowledge base, let's call it a degree/certification.

Experience is a great thing.  
But x amount of years experience doesn't really mean much anymore.
especially with the amount of unskilled work that counts as experience these days.
Sad but true.  

I think I understand what you are getting at, it's like people who test well but don't understand, versus those that understand, but test poorly? 


Licensure isn't perfect, nothing is, but it's what we have, and it's one of the few things stopping, or at least slowing the progress of corporate America turning this industry into the chaos that is retail :/

----------


## Bill West

WOW, if the restrictions are lifted in NC I want to be the first to employ 72 beautiful virgins to "sell" eyeglasses door to door in this and any other state I choose. O.K. ladies get your I-phones and your squares and get ready to fly.

----------


## Bill West

If we are lucky,this will be the end. Of this thread I hope.

----------


## Tigerclaw

> I get it, people can be ridiculous and it drives me crazy every day. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose when trying to help them.
> 
> Just to be clear you're an OD, in Texas, which doesn't require optician licensing and you support compulsory licensing of opticians? Texas is very competitive and there are plenty of qualified people there that have licenses or similar qualifications. Especially in Houston or any other big city in TX. DALLAS


You may have missed it but I actually support certification over licensure. I think it is time to help delineate opticals from every other store in the malls, but we have our work cut out for us. We are not served by having such a low bar for obtaining eyewear and contacts, and this concept would be furthered by raising the bar for people in the opticals. Don't get me wrong, I know there are people off the street that in time can understand the industry better than 99% of the others, but it's a numbers game, and putting such crucial responsibilities in the hands of anyone cute enough to catch the eye of a regional manager is a travesty. Same with online sales, which should be banned, IMO.

----------


## eeopti

> Let's recap and summarize,
> 
> You value experience, you don't value licensure.
> 
> what if licensure required experience, 
> 
> let's call that experience, apprenticeship.
> 
> what if it also required a certain knowledge base, let's call it a degree/certification.
> ...


I think we are getting closer to understanding each other, or rather I at least feel you are attempting to hear what I am trying to say. (Although, I never said I do not value licensure. I do however strongly value expierence.) I think I need a better understanding of your view point. Most people have explained the value of licensure in terms of qualifications, and I do not believe that alone qualifies anyone. I've said this before, but just to reiterate, I have a BA myself and do not see myself more qualified based on that alone. But you bring up a point that it slows corporate America from invading the industry. Can you expand on this?

----------


## eeopti

> You may have missed it but I actually support certification over licensure. I think it is time to help delineate opticals from every other store in the malls, but we have our work cut out for us. We are not served by having such a low bar for obtaining eyewear and contacts, and this concept would be furthered by raising the bar for people in the opticals. Don't get me wrong, I know there are people off the street that in time can understand the industry better than 99% of the others, but it's a numbers game, and putting such crucial responsibilities in the hands of anyone cute enough to catch the eye of a regional manager is a travesty. Same with online sales, which should be banned, IMO.


I see value in what you are saying. However, as a woman in this industry, and a cute one in my own biased opinion, I take slight offense that there is a presumed lack of intelligence based on gender and physical appearance. This is for another thread I am sure. But it's not the first time I saw a comment like this and wanted to address it.

----------


## ml43

> I think we are getting closer to understanding each other, or rather I at least feel you are attempting to hear what I am trying to say. (Although, I never said I do not value licensure. I do however strongly value expierence.) I think I need a better understanding of your view point. Most people have explained the value of licensure in terms of qualifications, and I do not believe that alone qualifies anyone. I've said this before, but just to reiterate, I have a BA myself and do not see myself more qualified based on that alone. But you bring up a point that it slows corporate America from invading the industry. Can you expand on this?


It was brought up earlier in the thread and many other threads.

Heres a decently short summary:
chains have found, that employing people from retail, such as Victoria secret or gap boosts sales way more than hiring a licensed optician.  Why, because these people know how to sell, and don't spend foreve trying to find out what's best for the patient.  They just want to make the sale.  

In licensed states, they are required to hire at least one licensed optician to "supervise and train" these people.
But you still have to answer to several managers, most of which are from retail as well, that don't want to hear about Optics, they want to hear numbers.  

Take away licensure, and they will turn over people way faster, and pay way less.
just like every other (public)retail corporate company, cause money talks.

----------


## eeopti

> WOW, if the restrictions are lifted in NC I want to be the first to employ 72 beautiful virgins to "sell" eyeglasses door to door in this and any other state I choose. O.K. ladies get your I-phones and your squares and get ready to fly.


This is completely offensive. It's people with a mindset like this that perpetuates sexism and the objectification of women. Your attempts to derail an intellectual debate and conversation into something that degrades women is offensive and sad.

----------


## eeopti

> It was brought up earlier in the thread and many other threads.
> 
> Heres a decently short summary:
> chains have found, that employing people from retail, such as Victoria secret or gap boosts sales way more than hiring a licensed optician.  Why, because these people know how to sell, and don't spend foreve trying to find out what's best for the patient.  They just want to make the sale.  
> 
> In licensed states, they are required to hire at least one licensed optician to "supervise and train" these people.
> But you still have to answer to several managers, most of which are from retail as well, that don't want to hear about Optics, they want to hear numbers.  
> 
> Take away licensure, and they will turn over people way faster, and pay way less.
> just like every other (public)retail corporate company, cause money talks.


i get it. Then just make obtaining a license fair and equitable among those with expierence and those with formal education. Seems like we are just making it harder on those who can do the job, and do it well. Expecting a cookie cutter path unjustifiably limits the workforce. For example, be able to "test out" of formal education.

----------


## Tigerclaw

> I see value in what you are saying. However, as a woman in this industry, and a cute one in my own biased opinion, I take slight offense that there is a presumed lack of intelligence based on gender and physical appearance. This is for another thread I am sure. But it's not the first time I saw a comment like this and wanted to address it.


No offense, but you seem easily offended. There was nothing sexist in what I said. What I was saying is a throwback to a few hours ago where we discussed the predatory nature of the hiring practice, especially in the corporate lines. Additionally, I never specified the sex of the manager or the hiree, but rather you inserted your own preconceived notions. Life is too short to go around being a box you check in a demographics field. You are a woman in the optical field. Welcome to being in the majority.

----------


## eeopti

> No offense, but you seem easily offended. There was nothing sexist in what I said. What I was saying is a throwback to a few hours ago where we discussed the predatory nature of the hiring practice, especially in the corporate lines. Additionally, I never specified the sex of the manager or the hiree, but rather you inserted your own preconceived notions. Life is too short to go around being a box you check in a demographics field. You are a woman in the optical field. Welcome to being in the majority.


I know exactly what you were referencing, and there it was stated that it was women which was why I was addressing it here. I am not easily offended, but that is a typical male response when called out. It's juvenile, but a typical defensive tactic. As for being a woman in the optical field, clearly you mean sales or non licensed professionals. You couldn't possibly mean in positions where there is higher earning potential like  licensed opticians and certainly not ODs. 

But i digress, because I know this conversation will go nowhere good.

----------


## Tigerclaw

> I know exactly what you were referencing, and there it was stated that it was women which was why I was addressing it here. I am not easily offended, but that is a typical male response when called out. It's juvenile, but a typical defensive tactic. As for being a woman in the optical field, clearly you mean sales or non licensed professionals. You couldn't possibly mean in positions where there is higher earning potential like  licensed opticians and certainly not ODs. 
> 
> But i digress, because I know this conversation will go nowhere good.


No, you have a chip on your shoulder, but I know some people live in that bubble, sorry if it's a sore spot. It is also obvious that you are the sexist one here. Is it a "typical male response" to point out your back-to-back posts expressing offense for no reason based on your sex? If so, then you just complimented typical males. Being offended is the juvenile, defensive tactic, so don't project your flaws on me.

As for women in the field, two-thirds of my graduating class was female. When I taught Optics, about 60% of that class was female. What will your excuses be when you can no longer claim minority status?

----------


## eeopti

> No, you have a chip on your shoulder, but I know some people live in that bubble, sorry if it's a sore spot. It is also obvious that you are the sexist one here. Is it a "typical male response" to point out your back-to-back posts expressing offense for no reason based on your sex? If so, then you just complimented typical males. Being offended is the juvenile, defensive tactic, so don't project your flaws on me.
> 
> As for women in the field, two-thirds of my graduating class was female. When I taught Optics, about 60% of that class was female. What will your excuses be when you can no longer claim minority status?


LOL! Ok.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Warby didn't do anything other than point up the reediculous and protected prices that ECPs have enjoyed while selling cheap Chinese goods.
> 
> Party's over for that. And about time. 
> 
> Instead of worrying about the certification of personnel, worry more about the perception of the quality and pricing of the goods you sell.
> 
> B
> *


I just could not resist to import this post from another thread because it hits the nail directly on its head.

----------


## wmcdonald

Is it just me, or have you noticed that most here against this post do not identify as Opticians in the first place? Other vendor, optical retail, OD, etc. I may be the only one, but it only reinforces my desire for Opticians to again drive their own development......not those on the outside. ODs did it, and so can we.

----------


## rbaker

> Is it just me, or have you noticed that most here against this post do not identify as Opticians in the first place? Other vendor, optical retail, OD, etc. I may be the only one, but it only reinforces my desire for Opticians to again drive their own development......not those on the outside. ODs did it, and so can we.


Well, you see, its just like this. The OD decided early on in the 1920's - 1930's to get some real education, establish an aggressive legislative agenda and most importantly were, and still are, willing to spend big bucks to buy the politicians who would "play ball."  They were also successful in exerting influence on their peers in order to present a unified voice to both the public and the legislators. 

Joe optician, on the other hand, did the opposite and now finds himself sucking hind teat. Now that's just my opinion and I am sticking to it.

----------


## wmcdonald

Your opinion is spot on, Mr. Baker, as I have said many times. I just want to see Opticians improve somehow!

----------


## drk

> Too bad I'm not licensed in Utopia. Besides, the Rx only goes so far in the wrong hands of unqualified opticians/lab.


This is an OD's or MD's perspective.  We are held to high standards.  We share patients with you.  We want some standards, or we've wasted the patient's time and money and delayed their treatment.

----------


## drk

> I just could not resist to import this post from another thread because it hits the nail directly on its head.


That's a crap recap of a crap post, IMO.

----------


## Barry Santini

Drk
Are u saying Im crap????!

----------


## Barry Santini

ECPs have done a **** job distinguishing their value from the eyeglass product.
That's why Warby works

----------


## Tigerclaw

> ECPs have done a **** job distinguishing their value from the eyeglass product.
> That's why Warby works


Warby works because millenials like goofy names and buying online because they are broke and ignorant. They are no competition with me because I carry nice frames for nice people. Rolex was not harmed when velcro-strapped LCD watches came out around the 80's. Porsche was not harmed by Saturn or Yugo. Now where are they?

----------


## idispense

As I read this debate it totally saddens me.

----------


## Tigerclaw

> Joe optician, on the other hand, did the opposite and now finds himself sucking hind teat. Now that's just my opinion and I am sticking to it.


I'm offended by the term "Joe optician", because it implies opticians are all men.

----------


## eeopti

> Warby works because millenials like goofy names and buying online because they are broke and ignorant. They are no competition with me because I carry nice frames for nice people. Rolex was not harmed when velcro-strapped LCD watches came out around the 80's. Porsche was not harmed by Saturn or Yugo. Now where are they?


Wow. Just wow...

----------


## drk

It's a crap post.

Saying that we sell overpriced chinese junk?  And we did it hiding behind regulation? And that we are somehow getting our just desserts at the hand of crap onliners?  

Absolutely the post was crap.

----------


## Tigerclaw

> Wow. Just wow...


Like I said before: ELEVATE.

----------


## drk

Warby works for the reason Tiger says.  It's the truth.

----------


## ml43

> Warby works for the reason Tiger says.  It's the truth.


Not only those reasons, but they know their target market, they know how their target market shops, and they know how to market the crap out of themselves to their target market.

----------


## eeopti

> Warby works for the reason Tiger says.  It's the truth.


My issue is not with the validity of what he said, but how he degrades people. I mean come on, not all millennials are broke and ignorant. He hits below the belt, and based on the little bit I've been exposed to I feel sorry for anyone that has to work with him.
That aside, I do agree with him that high end store fronts or ODs are not competing for the same client as WP.

----------


## rbaker

> I'm offended by the term "Joe optician", because it implies opticians are all men.


rbaker refuses to rise to the bait.

----------


## Tigerclaw

> Not only those reasons, but they know their target market, they know how their target market shops, and they know how to market the crap out of themselves to their target market.


Lots of kids' first cars wereSaturns and Yugos. Lots of kids' first watches were cheap LCD's. Warby will not last. Nobody wants to drive their first car to their first job... 20 years later.


And, Barry, if you think the middle man has been ripping people off and apparently we are all just absolutely BANKING from our eyewear sales (ignoring that LansCrafters sells for a higher median than independent OD's nationally), what does that say about your job? It's hard to make the case that we need qualified staff/opticians when you can be replaced by a keyboard (not my position, btw). You really should take a look at an OD's budget sometimes.

----------


## Tigerclaw

> My issue is not with the validity of what he said, but how he degrades people. I mean come on, not all millennials are broke and ignorant. He hits below the belt, and based on the little bit I've been exposed to I feel sorry for anyone that has to work with him.
> That aside, I do agree with him that high end store fronts or ODs are not competing for the same client as WP.


I didn't mean "ignorant" in the pejorative sense, and they will be the first to tell you about how "broke" they are, especially when you ask them why they have worn the same pair of contacts for 6 months. I tend to be a bit abrasive because I don't believe in mincing words. I call it like I see it, and tiptoeing around, at least to me, is insulting to the current audience.

----------


## ml43

> Lots of kids' first cars wereSaturns and Yugos. Lots of kids' first watches were cheap LCD's. Warby will not last. Nobody wants to drive their first car to their first job... 20 years later.


Without dealing with absolutes, I agree the current business model of WP is not a sustainable one.
They are more of a fashion company right now, and fashion is like music.  
What is in today, could be easily out tomorrow without any notice. 

I'm sure most people who shop at WP would like to shop at places like OSA if they had the money.

----------


## drk

> My issue is not with the validity of what he said, but how he degrades people. I mean come on, not all millennials are broke and ignorant. He hits below the belt, and based on the little bit I've been exposed to I feel sorry for anyone that has to work with him.
> That aside, I do agree with him that high end store fronts or ODs are not competing for the same client as WP.


Well, we shouldn't be harsh, that's true.
But realize, just by pigeonholing someone as a "millenial" in the first place is an sweeping, unfair generality in itself.
So it's not "wrong" to make generalizations about their characteristics, in general, right?

Individuals clearly vary.  So what if you were born around year 2000?  Does that make you like everyone else?  No.  

Personally I think this whole marketing thing is total flim-flam.  I know lots of people who are about 20-ish and, yes, they are a product of their environment, but they're clearly just young people who are trying to make their way around.  I feel sorry for many of them, because they're getting abused by insane tuition, predatory lenders, a super-weak job market, and an unconscionable amount of unfunded liabilities they're on the hook for.  What's more, the college profs are predators in more ways than you know.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ught-they-are/
I should take this off topic.  Sorry.

----------


## eeopti

> Well, we shouldn't be harsh, that's true.
> But realize, just by pigeonholing someone as a "millenial" in the first place is an sweeping, unfair generality in itself.
> So it's not "wrong" to make generalizations about their characteristics, in general, right?
> 
> Individuals clearly vary.  So what if you were born around year 2000?  Does that make you like everyone else?  No.  
> 
> Personally I think this whole marketing thing is total flim-flam.  I know lots of people who are about 20-ish and, yes, they are a product of their environment, but they're clearly just young people who are trying to make their way around.  I feel sorry for many of them, because they're getting abused by insane tuition, predatory lenders, a super-weak job market, and an unconscionable amount of unfunded liabilities they're on the hook for.  What's more, the college profs are predators in more ways than you know.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ught-they-are/
> I should take this off topic.  Sorry.


I don't think classifying someone as a millennial is unfair. It's a generation demographic. I also see the value in making generalizations about demographic characteristics from a marketing perspective. But it should be done with tact. 
You bring up valid points about the job market they face, and the obstacles they face with higher education. I'm a little confused though, don't you support licensure and the education requirements to achieve it? What you outlined has been one of my points exactly on not requiring education as a prerequisite for obtaining a license. The job market is weak. Tuition is high. Why block someone from progressing in their career because they can't afford to go to school?

----------


## drk

I don't pretend to insert myself in opticianry standards (vis a vis certification vs. licensure, etc.).  I just want it to be a regulated profession that we can all depend upon.

----------


## drk

> Without dealing with absolutes, I agree the current business model of WP is not a sustainable one.
> They are more of a fashion company right now, and fashion is like music.  
> What is in today, could be easily out tomorrow without any notice. 
> .


This is astute in my opinion.

First of all we are witnessing a huge bull market on plastic geekster glasses.  The only thing in my lifetime that compares was the huge rush into small, oval/ round tortoise metal frames in the mid-90's. 

A lot of this plays off that.

----------


## idispense

Who has studied WP enough to say with accuracy, not presumption, how WP was able to reach their market so quickly and be in a back order position so fast out of the gate ?

----------


## obxeyeguy

> What you outlined has been one of my points exactly on not requiring education as a prerequisite for obtaining a license. The job market is weak. Tuition is high. Why block someone from progressing in their career because they can't afford to go to school?


I sure hope your only talking about us bottom feeding opticians here. :Rolleyes:   I always wanted to be a heart surgeon, and cut the hell out of that frog in high school biology, can't understand why they won't give me my MD license.

----------


## Bill West

> It's a crap post.
> 
> Saying that we sell overpriced chinese junk?  And we did it hiding behind regulation? And that we are somehow getting our just desserts at the hand of crap onliners?  
> 
> Absolutely the post was crap.


 *I totally agree.*

----------


## Bill West

> this is important, harry. Please folks, call your local representatives, and tell them to support the bill currently in the general assembly sponsored by senators curtis and others to keep our license in place. Once this is over, then we will talk about the future of nc opticians. The ncoa was a part of the problem here. If they had not fought their own state board for the last several years, the board could have raised fees, and been on solid ground. But the leadership of ncoa, most who have been in place for decades, spent thousands of members dollars, and made the state board do the same. This did not need to happen and is the reason we are in this mess. Personalities.....probably on both sides, wanted to be in control. Who suffers? The poor optician, as usual. The ncoa has done good things, and are necessary for our advancement, but did you know that only about 25% of the opticians in the state now belong? And even with the significant growth they talked about in their email today, it is still less than 30%. Some changes need to take place there, as well. Lets get this bill through, and then lets work to improve the ncoa. New blood is clearly needed in leadership positions.


maybe you should have stuck around. Women and children first.

----------


## Bill West

> this is ridiculous. The license requirements only benefit optometrists by limiting experienced optical professionals from entering the market on their own unless they can pass several tests and obtain a degree.  Most occupations with the same earning potential do not have such stringent requirements. And being in a moderate to low salary occupation, most people who would become an optician cannot afford the tuition and fees associated with getting a license. 
> 
> It's a skilled trade that can be learned through hands-on experience and shouldn't be so heavily regulated. Beyond all of this, being licensed does no mean you will be earning more income. There have been several articles and research done on licensed vs non licensed opticians, and a license does not equate to a higher salary. License requirements just limits those with hands on knowledge from entering the workforce and benefits optometrists. Sorry, but it's true.


 *total b.s.*

----------


## Tigerclaw

1 licensed optician isn't necessarily better than 1 unlicensed optician, but 1,000 licensed opticians will always be better than 1,000 unlicensed opticians.

----------


## ml43

> Who has studied WP enough to say with accuracy, not presumption, how WP was able to reach their market so quickly and be in a back order position so fast out of the gate ?


A study now would be close to pointless, imo.

Until they are a public company, we won't know their true numbers.
and even public companies lie about numbers.

I also wouldn't call five years quickly for a mostly Ecommerce company that only sells one product. 
Most decent private practices will rise faster than that.

I will say this though, marketing.  

I willing to bet they spend about 200-1000% more on marketing per pair sold than the majority of private practices. 

And they market themselves, thus creating a brand.
you don't see lux this or E that anywhere on their website.
You won't even see WP or E in the same sentence, for very good reason.

----------


## Speed

What about Durham Tech?  What advice for a potential student?

----------


## idispense

> A study now would be close to pointless, imo.
> 
> Until they are a public company, we won't know their true numbers.
> and even public companies lie about numbers.
> 
> I also wouldn't call five years quickly for a mostly Ecommerce company that only sells one product. 
> Most decent private practices will rise faster than that.
> 
> I will say this though, marketing.  
> ...



A totally useless answer. The only hopeful insight you offered was the word "marketing"

----------


## ml43

> A totally useless answer. The only hopeful insight you offered was the word "marketing"


Touché

wait till they are public, then Chris will give you all the info you need.

----------


## idispense

[QUOTE=ml43;506383]Touché

wait till they are public, then Chris will give you all the info you need.



Why ?  How would going public explain what they accomplished before going public ?

----------


## VisionAiry

> *total b.s.*


Fantastic argument B.W.

You've got more than that...

----------


## Jarhead Daddy

> Warby works because millenials like goofy names and buying online because they are broke and ignorant. They are no competition with me because I carry nice frames for nice people. Rolex was not harmed when velcro-strapped LCD watches came out around the 80's. Porsche was not harmed by Saturn or Yugo. Now where are they?


This is a great post, Tigerclaw.  It highlights your disdain for the common "ignorant" man (which goes along with your "John Q. Public is a moron" comment, your patronization of libertarians, etc.).  But it also demonstrates why we should not be afraid of competition from upstarts and large corporations.  Just as Saturn and Yugo went broke and Porche survived, great opticians and optometrists thrive in an environment of Costo, Warby, and EyeMasters.  

It turns out that John Q. Public is not a moron after all.  No, he can't perform a slit lamp examination on himself, and he probably has no idea what an OC height is.  But he tends to know care and quality when he sees it.  Good companies know this, and they know that they must give quality in order to receive John Q. Public's business.  Great optometrists and opticians are not driven by the state board.  They are driven by a need to compete for John Q. Public's discerning requirements for excellence.

Regulators can ensure a clumsy base line of knowledge and compliance.  But only the free market can drive expanding knowledge, innovation, and care.

----------


## ml43

> Why ?  How would going public explain what they accomplished before going public ?


more info is better than less when making any study.  
Unless someone who works for their accounting department is willing to risk their job, what you are asking for is decently difficult. 

I recently discovered they have been suing other online optical startups. 
http://classicspecs.tumblr.com/post/...o-warby-parker

----------


## Tigerclaw

> This is a great post, Tigerclaw.  It highlights your disdain for the common "ignorant" man (which goes along with your "John Q. Public is a moron" comment, your patronization of libertarians, etc.).  But it also demonstrates why we should not be afraid of competition from upstarts and large corporations.  Just as Saturn and Yugo went broke and Porche survived, great opticians and optometrists thrive in an environment of Costo, Warby, and EyeMasters.  
> 
> It turns out that John Q. Public is not a moron after all.  No, he can't perform a slit lamp examination on himself, and he probably has no idea what an OC height is.  But he tends to know care and quality when he sees it.  Good companies know this, and they know that they must give quality in order to receive John Q. Public's business.  Great optometrists and opticians are not driven by the state board.  They are driven by a need to compete for John Q. Public's discerning requirements for excellence.
> 
> Regulators can ensure a clumsy base line of knowledge and compliance.  But only the free market can drive expanding knowledge, innovation, and care.


If there is one thing I know, it's people. I have debated enough "libertarians", the easily offended members of various groups, and just plain ignorant folk (not that these groups are mutually exclusive - quite to the contrary) to glean patterns. I am a student of human behavior. A good doctor has to be able to pick up on subtleties, and these honed skills do not limit themselves to the exam room. If you want to know why I have such "disdain", it's because when people begin to be simplified into mathematical equations with only slight and predictable variations, i.e. when they allow themselves to become a product of their environment, it doesn't establish them as leaders, but rather followers, and this is why I don't expect great things from them, at least not in the realm of the behavior patterns being observed. This is not to diminish them as a whole, but in the relevant matter at the time. This is no different from not giving the best math student a trophy in track, or not choosing your mate based on their ability to name all the Beatles' songs. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and while your strength may not be politics, you may be a good frame stylist or have a good knack for adjustments that I don't have.   

And there is a big difference in expecting the public to avoid the predators that are held somewhat at bay by regulations and waiting for it to find its way to the wiser choices... eventually. I mean, we still have McDonald's, processed foods, and libertarianism.  :Cool:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Warby works because millenials like goofy names and buying online because they are broke and ignorant.* *They are no competition with me because I carry nice frames for nice people**. Rolex was not harmed when velcro-strapped LCD watches came out around the 80's. Porsche was not harmed by Saturn or Yugo. Now where are they?
> *



How many people out of 100 wear a Rolex watch...........probably not one.

Warby works because their idea is new and even more interesting to the masses is, that they are less expensive, can be ordered on line and are delivered by UPS in a few days. 

You carry nice frames for nice people, but you do not mention that you are a better quality optician than the WarbyParkers and charge more for it..

----------


## Tigerclaw

> How many people out of 100 wear a Rolex watch...........probably not one.
> 
> Warby works because their idea is new and even more interesting to the masses is, that they are less expensive, can be ordered on line and are delivered by UPS in a few days. 
> 
> You carry nice frames for nice people, but you do not mention that you are a better quality optician than the WarbyParkers and charge more for it..


The point is Ruth's Chris or even Olive Garden doesn't need to worry if Burger King opens up next door, and I am not an optician. I am not going to bash my head against the wall try to out-cheap somebody to rein in people foolish enough to go online for eye wear.

The number of people who don't want to be cheap/look cheap and go around with the "drugstore" look is far higher than 1%.

----------


## drk

The "drugstore look".  That's good.

----------


## wmcdonald

> maybe you should have stuck around. Women and children first.


In our day, Bill, you served in the leadership, and new blood followed. The vast majority were members of the association. If I remember correctly, you were always one of the loud voices in the back of the room complaining about the work the leadership was doing, until I asked you to join the board. You did, and became president a few years later. I am proud of all we were able to accomplish. If you remember, I have been a loud voice for many years seeking change, and you are spot on. I should have remained. But now we are in harms way. The NCOA is taking a strong, positive stance, but also need to own up to the fact that they had a major hand in the mess. I am doing my part to help the process in ways only a few know.

----------


## wmcdonald

> I don't think classifying someone as a millennial is unfair. It's a generation demographic. I also see the value in making generalizations about demographic characteristics from a marketing perspective. But it should be done with tact. 
> You bring up valid points about the job market they face, and the obstacles they face with higher education. I'm a little confused though, don't you support licensure and the education requirements to achieve it? What you outlined has been one of my points exactly on not requiring education as a prerequisite for obtaining a license. The job market is weak. Tuition is high. Why block someone from progressing in their career because they can't afford to go to school?


They are NOT learning the material. I will be happy to challenge you to take a basic test in optics, and lets see how much you really know. Affordability is not a valid argument. Grants and loans are abundant, and folks can now go online. What you are saying, really, is that anyone can do this very simple work, and so no investment in money, time or energy should be required. Apprenticeship is no more than cheap labor, and my research has proven it, as has the work of others.......which you obviously have not read. We are dumbing ourselves down with each generation because of folks like you.

----------


## wmcdonald

> 1 licensed optician isn't necessarily better than 1 unlicensed optician, but 1,000 licensed opticians will always be better than 1,000 unlicensed opticians.


I am pleased to hear you report that, and I hope the next time a licensing bill comes around in Texas you will be vocal. Some years back, your association in Texas worked really hard to defeat it and were successful. It did pass both houses of the legislature, but the Governor at the time refused to sign it. Licensure is not evil......and in many states it is not even a rigorous process. It simply shows a person has meet minimum standards to practice. It has always been interesting to me that most of those who have it want to keep it, while those who do not dispute its validity. Could that be fear of not being able to pass a basic licensing exam?

----------


## eeopti

> Licensure is not evil......and in many states it is not even a rigorous process. It simply shows a person has meet minimum standards to practice. It has always been interesting to me that most of those who have it want to keep it, while those who do not dispute its validity. Could that be fear of not being able to pass a basic licensing exam?


Yes in most states it is not a rigorous process, however, in my State it is. I do not fear being able to pass a basic exam proving my knowledge, or indicating that I still have learning to do. What I am not ok with is requiring two years of school and only providing 3 schools within the entire state to get the degree. Then requiring a practical exam offered one time a year in one location in the entire state on top of the ABO. 

You mentioned that there are online schools available...not in my state. 
You mentioned that there are grants and finical help available to pay for tuition....what about having to move to one of the three locations where the course is offered? Who will pay the moving expenses? What about being able to pay rent? If I move, I will need to find another job. 

If we were talking about a basic licensing exam that would be one thing, but clearly you do not know what is required in NY, or you just don't care. IF you had read my previous posts you would know that I am not completely against licensing. I am against unjustifiably making it harder for people with experience to progress within their career. If it was just a test, fine. That would be something I could stand behind. Your experience should enable you to get licensed by passing the test. And if it doesn't then you need to educate yourself to do so. 

All I am saying is as you move forward waving your rally flag to increase licensure in all States, think about the current requirements. Look at the bigger picture. Your goal is to progress the optician position, not stifle it. There is more that needs to be done with the license requirements than just enacting them.

----------


## Tigerclaw

> I am pleased to hear you report that, and I hope the next time a licensing bill comes around in Texas you will be vocal. Some years back, your association in Texas worked really hard to defeat it and were successful. It did pass both houses of the legislature, but the Governor at the time refused to sign it. Licensure is not evil......and in many states it is not even a rigorous process. It simply shows a person has meet minimum standards to practice. It has always been interesting to me that most of those who have it want to keep it, while those who do not dispute its validity. Could that be fear of not being able to pass a basic licensing exam?


Actually I prefer certification for opticians. I was speaking to the flawed reasoning that licensure doesn't have an overall increase in the quality just because SOME unlicensed opticians are better than SOME licensed ones. Would also be nice to have a real means to punish those ____heads who sell glasses or contacts on expired or soon-to-be-expired prescriptions just to keep their numbers high.
Overall the whole field needs a bit of an image overhaul. It is shameful to see a large segment of the industry under the control of people from outside the field, and to see us in malls and retail stores blending in as though Tiffany got assigned to the cash register, Kevin gets the shopping carts. David is doing stock, and Patty was assigned to optical. Add to that the sadistic glee some people here seem to see when the hand that feeds them is bitten by the online retailers. There needs to be some unity on this matter, and at least for us, the AOA seems to be too busy playing with Obamacare and "Global Warming" to be bothered with anything else.

----------


## eeopti

> What you are saying, really, is that anyone can do this very simple work, and so no investment in money, time or energy should be required. Apprenticeship is no more than cheap labor, and my research has proven it, as has the work of others.......which you obviously have not read. We are dumbing ourselves down with each generation because of folks like you.


I am not saying that at all. I am saying that people HAVE put time and energy into investing in their career and people like you are unreasonably hindering them from progressing within their careers because you automatically assume they cannot pass a test. Beyond all of that, you automatically assume that states that require licensure have the same requirements. You are only looking at one side: make all states require opticians to have a license. What about the other side where States are requiring numerous hoops to jump through? To say I am the reason "we are dumbing ourselves down" is absurd. I am asking you to look at the total picture and not dumb yourself down by having such a narrow focus. There is a larger issue here and we shouldn't go barreling forward full speed without taking pause to fully understand the consequences. That would be dumb.

----------


## wmcdonald

If you knew my background and experiences, you would know that I am well aware of all of the requirements in every state, and taught for several years in NY. Nationally accredited (COA) online education is available to you and is not bounded by state lines, but you have to look. J Sargent Reynolds is an accredited institution, and unless things have changed in the last couple of years, it is accepted in every licensed jurisdiction because of it COA accreditation. You can also apprentice in NY. The examination process in NY is now the ABO/NCLE, and the practical, which many in the state complain about being so basic......and I can tell you it is certainly not as rigorous as it used to be. You must go to the practical site to take the exam, but a trip like that is a small investment. Sorry it could not be in your living room. There are people there who can assist you, if you reach out to them. You may be surprised at what you do not know, and it will only make you better. Let me know if you need specific information, and I will be happy to provide it. But for heavens sake, you need to know what you are talking about and stop all the complaining, and make what you seem to want to be your profession better.......not dumb it down. I would be willing to bet that once you went through the education and training required in NY, you would be one of the strongest advocates for it!

----------


## wmcdonald

> Actually I prefer certification for opticians. I was speaking to the flawed reasoning that licensure doesn't have an overall increase in the quality just because SOME unlicensed opticians are better than SOME licensed ones. Would also be nice to have a real means to punish those ____heads who sell glasses or contacts on expired or soon-to-be-expired prescriptions just to keep their numbers high.
> Overall the whole field needs a bit of an image overhaul. It is shameful to see a large segment of the industry under the control of people from outside the field, and to see us in malls and retail stores blending in as though Tiffany got assigned to the cash register, Kevin gets the shopping carts. David is doing stock, and Patty was assigned to optical. Add to that the sadistic glee some people here seem to see when the hand that feeds them is bitten by the online retailers. There needs to be some unity on this matter, and at least for us, the AOA seems to be too busy playing with Obamacare and "Global Warming" to be bothered with anything else.


Certification is voluntary, so will never hold a candle to licensure. How would you like it if they took away OD licensure, and made this unpopular board certification the standard?

----------


## Tigerclaw

> Certification is voluntary, so will never hold a candle to licensure. How would you like it if they took away OD licensure, and made this unpopular board certification the standard?


I wouldn't like it, but I would deal with it. Maybe on paper licensure is vastly superior, but in my experience, the bigger gap is between "certified"and "uncertified" in the world of eye care.

----------


## wmcdonald

> I am not saying that at all. I am saying that people HAVE put time and energy into investing in their career and people like you are unreasonably hindering them from progressing within their careers because you automatically assume they cannot pass a test. Beyond all of that, you automatically assume that states that require licensure have the same requirements. You are only looking at one side: make all states require opticians to have a license. What about the other side where States are requiring numerous hoops to jump through? To say I am the reason "we are dumbing ourselves down" is absurd. I am asking you to look at the total picture and not dumb yourself down by having such a narrow focus. There is a larger issue here and we shouldn't go barreling forward full speed without taking pause to fully understand the consequences. That would be dumb.


Again, you have no idea. One of my battles, and it was mentioned in this thread, is that Opticians have no common standard......which is the reason for these constant disagreements over this issue. That is a major stumbling block, but the "numerous hoops" you mention are not that significant. In NY, the ABO/NCLE and a practical exam are required. If that is excessive, I am sorry, but from conversations with most in NY it is minimal. 

You also mention experience. Doing something 1000 times, and doing it incorrectly is experience, but not reliable and valid experience. You need to learn some baseline material, in my opinion and many who agree with me, before you call yourself an Optician.

----------


## wmcdonald

> I wouldn't like it, but I would deal with it. Maybe on paper licensure is vastly superior, but in my experience, the bigger gap is between "certified"and "uncertified" in the world of eye care.


I'm sure that is correct......you are in Texas, where there is no licensure for Opticians. And I will deal with it if we lost our license, but will not like it. A study that will soon be released will address the value of certification in performance. I can't wait to see it.

----------


## eeopti

> If you knew my background and experiences, you would know that I am well aware of all of the requirements in every state, and taught for several years in NY. Nationally accredited (COA) online education is available to you and is not bounded by state lines, but you have to look. J Sargent Reynolds is an accredited institution, and unless things have changed in the last couple of years, it is accepted in every licensed jurisdiction because of it COA accreditation. You can also apprentice in NY. The examination process in NY is now the ABO/NCLE, and the practical, which many in the state complain about being so basic......and I can tell you it is certainly not as rigorous as it used to be. You must go to the practical site to take the exam, but a trip like that is a small investment. Sorry it could not be in your living room. There are people there who can assist you, if you reach out to them. You may be surprised at what you do not know, and it will only make you better. Let me know if you need specific information, and I will be happy to provide it. But for heavens sake, you need to know what you are talking about and stop all the complaining, and make what you seem to want to be your profession better.......not dumb it down. I would be willing to bet that once you went through the education and training required in NY, you would be one of the strongest advocates for it!


Maybe I am looking in the wrong location...on the COA's website under New York there are the three schools listed that must be attended in person. J Sargent Reynolds program can be done online (but states that it is accredited in the State of Virginia, so I am already hesitant that NY would accept this degree) EXCEPT for labs. So I would have to go to Virginia for labs?

----------


## eeopti

> Again, you have no idea. One of my battles, and it was mentioned in this thread, is that Opticians have no common standard......which is the reason for these constant disagreements over this issue. That is a major stumbling block, but the "numerous hoops" you mention are not that significant. In NY, the ABO/NCLE and a practical exam are required. If that is excessive, I am sorry, but from conversations with most in NY it is minimal. 
> 
> You also mention experience. Doing something 1000 times, and doing it incorrectly is experience, but not reliable and valid experience. You need to learn some baseline material, in my opinion and many who agree with me, before you call yourself an Optician.


Again, if it were just the testing then you and I would be agreeing. Do not downplay the requirements in NY. Yes, doing something 1000 times and doing it wrong does not make your experience reliable. And on the flip side passing a few tests and having a degree doesn't mean you will deliver in real life. There are plenty of people who are great at school and test taking, but practical application...not so much. However, I am a proponent of education and see it's value when valid. I have a BA myself, and my biggest take away from college is learning how to learn, not so much the material covered itself. 

 I do not think those in support of licensure are doing a great job convincing people who are on the fence, or need to understand its value. Saying things like "we are dumbing ourselves down" or "you can't call yourself an optician unless you have a license" is just creating a larger gap between supports, non supports, and people on the fence. You cannot shove your way into agreeance, which is what I have seen so far on this thread.

----------


## optical24/7

I've been following this thread and just don't get some of you. ( Oh, I do, but don't understand your logic.)

Why I think Licensure is important; What would/will you do when presented with a hemianopic patient? Do you know what that is? How about a diplopic patient with compound prism in need of trial Fresnel prism? Would you put the vertical in one eye and the horizontal on the other using 2 separate Fresnels? If you were well trained, you would know to compound the prismatic amount into the resultant prism AND exactly what meridian (axis) to apply it, only on one lens, and the non-dominate eye at that.

 I want my Aunt Sally to be able to go into any optical in the city she lives in and have at least one competent Optician there to help her. How is she supposed to know whom in the city can help her with her particular needs? Referral? Trial and error? A toss of the dice? Licensure ensures that there is at least a given minimum of ophthalmic knowledge of the Optician. As stated earlier, " _1 licensed optician isn't necessarily better than 1 unlicensed optician,  but 1,000 licensed opticians will always be better than 1,000  unlicensed opticians._" 


 If we continue to lessen entry requirements, what will happen to those patients with low/difficult vision? Where will the trained and skilled Opticians come from? If you had a relative with some of these problems but lived too far away to help them personally, wouldn't you feel comfort knowing that someone demonstratively trained in optics was helping them? Suppose they lived next door and had serious eye issues, how do you really know if you can even help them as adequately as someone trained? (Remember, you don't know what you don't know..) 

Opticians can also find themselves on the front line of serious eye care needs. Case in point; last year I was conversing with a client after a simple adjustment. He mentioned to me that the day before and that morning he was seeing "lightning" every once in a while. I told him he needed to go up and see the OMD right away. " I'm too busy, maybe later..." He said.

 I insisted, and escorted him up to the doctors office. Turns out he had a partial detachment and the doc told him if he hadn't come up right then, it probably would have been a complete detachment before the day was over. How many newly hired opticians, with little or no training would have caught those classic signs and insisted the patient see a doctor immediately? This is just one of many examples why Opticians need training. The only way to ensure this training is with licensure.

As to the OP. You complain about becoming licensed in NY. You wish to open your own optical. You can do that today without having a license. Just hire a Licensed Optician! You could benefit from their employment by using them as your proxy. You don't need to go to school, just go through the NAO's Career Progression Program. You won't have to step foot in a classroom.

As far as your comment about low pay; The average salary for Opticians in most places is on par with public school teachers. Also, in NY, you need schooling to cut hair whether in a NY school or reciprocity from a state who's licensure requirement is similar. Heck, you need a license in most states to be a dog groomer. Do you feel the role of an Optician is less than that?

Lastly, why would anybody that believes in this profession wish to dumb it down? Entry is already easier than anything else remotely medically oriented. Every state that requires licensure allows apprenticeship. Every state that requires licensure allows one to work under another's license  (LDO, OD or MD). Who the heck is being held back from entry? Do you think you should be able to open an Optical with no demonstrated competencies? I sure hope Aunt Sally doesn't stumble into your shop "by chance".

Note to the OP; Do not take the last comment personally, I was generalizing.

----------


## Barry Santini

What you are describing I think, optical24/7, is a Optical *specialist.*  Someone who a "routine" individual would "refer out" to.

That way, not everyone needs or pays for specialist when they dont require it...just like other medical professions.

B

----------


## wmcdonald

ONLINE........not in NY. It does not HAVE to be in NY. It is COA accredited, and accepted in NY. You woud do hands-on work with a local preceptor......in your office.

----------


## Tigerclaw

> What you are describing I think, optical24/7, is a Optical *specialist.*  Someone who a "routine" individual would "refer out" to.
> 
> That way, not everyone needs or pays for specialist when they dont require it...just like other medical professions.
> 
> B


Heck, let's just put everything in vending machines and let the patients just see a real person if they are going blind in one or both eyes. Maybe we can put proparacaine and even opioids in there and just "educate" people to do the right thing, you know, since making money and regulating things is bad...

----------


## optical24/7

> What you are describing I think, optical24/7, is a Optical *specialist.*  Someone who a "routine" individual would "refer out" to.
> 
> That way, not everyone needs or pays for specialist when they dont require it...just like other medical professions.
> 
> B


Where are these "specialist's" going to come from? Without required schooling all optical schools would close their doors. Now, where does that leave opticianry? Fend for yourself outcomes. You know better than anyone that you will only learn what your particular mentor(s) teaches you through apprenticeship. How many opticians have you met that had 20 years experience with one years worth of knowledge? Meaning they haven't learned much after their 1st year. There is great need for more knowledgeable Opticians out there, not less. The -.50's of the world don't need you or I. But there are a ton of patients that do. Even in huge Houston, with what I can argue has the highest concentration of ABOC Opticians in a non-licensed state, there are only a handful I would trust to send a low vision patient to.  

As for paying for specialists, I'm sure you, me and plenty of other competent Opticians here charge similar fees for those that need specialized care as we do those that just need routine care. (It's just that their treatment/materials may have a higher cost.)

I'll ask you, with some of the scenario's I outlined above in post #170, who would you like to handle _your_ Aunt Sally's treatment?

----------


## jcasowder

> I actually have a lot of experience in retail dispensing and come from a family of opticians who feel the same way. In fact, my sister works for an optometrists and has 15 years experience dispensing in a non licensed state but currently works in a licensed state. She doesn't have the time to go through the educational program required to become licensed but wants to open an optical retail store and can't due to the license requirements. It seems like the only person bennifiting here is the optometrist. 
> I understand most of my work comes from optometrists, but think of the possibilities if opticians were more freely allowed to be owners within their own trade! I do not feel like I'm talking bad about anyone. Honestly, I don't. I'm simply acknowledging a discrepancy in licensing requirements among skilled trades (mechanics for example), and the effects it has on employment opportunities. I haven't even touched on the bennifits for consumers. However, I do see how this could be hard to swallow for someone who has gone through formal training or for an optometrist who has the potential of losing profit.


I worked in MD, MO, and IL. None of which were license states. I moved to NC in 2006, and after changing from one optometrist office to another, I started the training. I took my test in March 2014 (missed 2 parts in October 2013 and had to retake), and am now officially licensed. So, I understand the perspective you're coming from. BUT, I also know that what would be considered an optician in a non-regulated state was a complete joke. Don't get me wrong, there were a number of good opticians in the unregulated states, but the quality of work and caliber of good people in the field was drastically lower. 

An OD that does not encourage their optician to be licensed is NOT someone to work for. They look to keep you under their thumb and dependent on them. I should know, as my former place of employment in NC treated me like that. My current boss paid for my test, encouraged me and worked with me on practicals, and pays for my continuing education. She wants me to succeed in the field. When I was in the training program, I worked full time with a family and a husband that was deployed most of the time (leaving me to act as a single parent), while I was still active in the church, military spouse support group, and other organizations. It can be done, if you have the drive and dedication. The licensing does have discrepancies, but what is considered wrong or inconsistent varies among opticians. No program is perfect, but being licensed helps to keep a higher caliber of optician servicing the public. 

Patients can tell when they're dealing with someone that knows what they are doing, and will keep going to someone they trust implicitly. I keep a very open and honest dialogue with our patients, and offer to have another optician with a competitor to verify any information or to answer questions. Patients want honesty, but also feel reassured that they are in good hands seeing a license on the wall. 

Car dealerships still require ASE certified mechanics to work on cars. At least the good ones do. And dental technicians HAVE to be licensed to clean teeth. We make glasses for people to DRIVE. Licensing and regulation of some kind is pretty important for something like that, if you think about it.

----------


## DylanDavis

> Well, we shouldn't be harsh, that's true.
> But realize, just by pigeonholing someone as a "millenial" in the first place is an sweeping, unfair generality in itself.
> So it's not "wrong" to make generalizations about their characteristics, in general, right?
> 
> Individuals clearly vary.  So what if you were born around year 2000?  Does that make you like everyone else?  No.  
> 
> Personally I think this whole marketing thing is total flim-flam.  I know lots of people who are about 20-ish and, yes, they are a product of their environment, but they're clearly just young people who are trying to make their way around.  I feel sorry for many of them, because they're getting abused by insane tuition, predatory lenders, a super-weak job market, and an unconscionable amount of unfunded liabilities they're on the hook for.  What's more, the college profs are predators in more ways than you know.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ught-they-are/
> I should take this off topic.  Sorry.


Thanks for stepping in drk. The myth of the catch-all "millenial" term actually meaning anything is only perpetuated by those who wish to dismiss people who they are not willing to understand, or sympathize with.

I feel like it's always about pointing out who we are not, instead of who we are.

----------


## Tigerclaw

Well how often do you see people over 30 getting glasses from WP? I mean it happens, but then again some grown men dress up like My Little Pony. Generalizations have their place, and mine were not out of line.

----------


## jcasowder

> I would hope that if I was in an elevator it would have been serviced by a licensed and regulated elevator installer.  In a building built with contractors who were licensed and regulated, I could take peace of mind that the building would be less likely to collapse, or at least society recognized the need for regulating the makers of this building.
> 
> I live and work in an unregulated optical state, it is the wild wild west (or rather wild wild democratic east).  People learn the hard way through headaches and poor vision/frame fits where they should go for eyecare. Hopefully those in my town end up with me, or with another well meaning optician who cares and tries to learn all they can.  It makes sense that those people should have piece of mind but I think a lot of people are shocked in maryland when they learn that all the education I use at my job is completely voluntary when they ask, "do you have to go to school for this?"


Exactly, Tallboy. I started out in southern MD. "Opticians" is a very loose term to use there. My analytical brain and desire to learn is what pushed me to be the best possible optician I could be. And I will never be where I want to be, because I will always learn something new in this field.

----------


## Barry Santini

YOU must justify...which many have not...why a mark-up of 8x and more has been warranted for the cheap stk lenses and frames I've seen and so many are boastful.

Sure, when you can "control" the sale by prescribing from the chair and making believe that you have no real competition, ok.

B

----------


## eeopti

> ONLINE........not in NY. It does not HAVE to be in NY. It is COA accredited, and accepted in NY. You woud do hands-on work with a local preceptor......in your office.


This is not helpful. At _J Sargent Reynolds the labs have to be done in person per their website (yes, even for distance learning). Other online programs state you must be present during finals week._

----------


## Tigerclaw

> YOU must justify...which many have not...why a mark-up of 8x and more has been warranted for the cheap stk lenses and frames I've seen and so many are boastful.
> 
> Sure, when you can "control" the sale by prescribing from the chair and making believe that you have no real competition, ok.
> 
> B


Since numbers don't matter, why not just make at even thou?

The actual markup is typically a 2x-3x markup, maybe lower on suns. Rent isn't free, qualified staff isn't free, student loans don't go away just because some goofballs want to get into the business with nothing but a website and some "clever" marketing. 

In other words, if you see the average optometrist living in Tony Stark's mansion and driving an Aston Martin, you may have a point. As it stands, it just sounds like sour grapes.

----------


## Barry Santini

Nope. You're missing my point. Many supply equal to or inferior quality to WP for 2-3x their price.

THAT's my point!.

B

----------


## Tigerclaw

And they have 2-3x the overhead, no doubt.

----------


## optical24/7

> Nope. You're missing my point. Many supply equal to or inferior quality to WP for 2-3x their price.
> 
> THAT's my point!.
> 
> B





> And they have 2-3x the overhead, no doubt.


Off topic, take it to the WP thread.

----------


## optical24/7

> This is not helpful. At _J Sargent Reynolds the labs have to be done in person per their website (yes, even for distance learning). Other online programs state you must be present during finals week._


Go read post #170' you don't have to go to school!

----------


## Paul Smith LDO

> What you are describing I think, optical24/7, is a Optical *specialist.*  Someone who a "routine" individual would "refer out" to.
> 
> That way, not everyone needs or pays for specialist when they dont require it...just like other medical professions.
> 
> B


Using 24/7's scenario, as opticians we should be able to understand all Rx's big and small and know what the Rx is intended to do for the patient.  It should not require a specialist unless someone is uncomfortable or ill equipped.  That's why I went to school, to fill prescriptions.  I am quite sure that you would not turn away a client who came to you with such a prescription.  An OD should be able to perform a comprehensive eye exam.  Likewise, an optician should be able to fit and fill a properly executed ophthalmic system.  If not, these people should not be called opticians but sales associates.

----------


## eeopti

> I've been following this thread and just don't get some of you. ( Oh, I do, but don't understand your logic.)
> 
> Why I think Licensure is important; What would/will you do when presented with a hemianopic patient? Do you know what that is? How about a diplopic patient with compound prism in need of trial Fresnel prism? Would you put the vertical in one eye and the horizontal on the other using 2 separate Fresnels? If you were well trained, you would know to compound the prismatic amount into the resultant prism AND exactly what meridian (axis) to apply it, only on one lens, and the non-dominate eye at that.
> 
>  I want my Aunt Sally to be able to go into any optical in the city she lives in and have at least one competent Optician there to help her. How is she supposed to know whom in the city can help her with her particular needs? Referral? Trial and error? A toss of the dice? Licensure ensures that there is at least a given minimum of ophthalmic knowledge of the Optician. As stated earlier, " _1 licensed optician isn't necessarily better than 1 unlicensed optician,  but 1,000 licensed opticians will always be better than 1,000  unlicensed opticians._" 
> 
> 
>  If we continue to lessen entry requirements, what will happen to those patients with low/difficult vision? Where will the trained and skilled Opticians come from? If you had a relative with some of these problems but lived too far away to help them personally, wouldn't you feel comfort knowing that someone demonstratively trained in optics was helping them? Suppose they lived next door and had serious eye issues, how do you really know if you can even help them as adequately as someone trained? (Remember, you don't know what you don't know..) 
> 
> ...


I thought I already responded to this, apparently it didn't post. Rather than typing it all out again and addressing your points, I will just address the NAO's Career Progression Program comment. You need to be sponsored by an optician. When I spoke to the State they said it had to be an approved licensed optician. It can't just be anyone. They also did not know where I could find this approved optician. It should not be this hard. You bring up a valid point about the barbers needing to be licensed; however, there are 10x the amounts of schools to achieve their education OR they have the option to apprentice which seems more like an "on your honor" validation system. I'm not saying being licensed doesn't hold any value. I'm just saying my 6 years of experience shouldn't be flippantly dismissed. 

Honestly, this entire conversation is getting exhausting. Instead of hearing the issues people have with the licensure system, people want to barrel full speed ahead with blinders on pushing an agenda and not pausing to see the full picture. If people really want to progress opticians then they need to address all hurdles facing licensure, rather than just the fact that not all states require it. 

And for the LAST time, I am NOT trying to dumb down this profession. I am asking real questions. It seems like to me that the people who are in support of licensure are faced with someone who is not, or who is on the fence, they want to barrel forward with the same responses over and over and never really say anything of value because they are not LISTENING to the points being brought up. Seriously though...

----------


## eeopti

On a similar note, I'm curious if the same people who think opticians need to be licensed also think lab technicians/owners need to be licensed?

----------


## wmcdonald

> On a similar note, I'm curious if the same people who think opticians need to be licensed also think lab technicians/owners need to be licensed?


No, they do not. It is the individual proving the professional service to the patient directly who needs a license. One state, New Jersey, licenses lab techs, but I see no valid reason for that license and never have. 

I know this is getting frustrating, but I think if you call the program director at J Sargent Reynolds, you will see that you can do the work from your location. I may be wrong, but I am almost certain I am not. 

Now, I am getting a sense that you really want to learn, but your initial threads, and many to follow, degrade a time-tested approach that many fought hard to achieve. To think that is not offensive is naïve, and you need to consider that. 

To the Career Progression Program, and the apprenticeship.......no not anyone can do it. In NY, as in most licensed states, an Optician (someone with the professional title) must be licensed by the state. There are many licensed Opticians in NY who would mentor you, and serve as your sponsor. Hell, if I were close I would do it myself, because I do feel you want to achieve a goal, or you would not have hung around this long in this thread. I do not know where in NY you are, but let me know, and I will see what I can do to help, or contact my colleague, Prof. Robert Russo at NY City College of Technology. Let him know I sent you, and what your needs are. 

Finally, if we loosen standards,, we are dumbing down, and while you may not realize it, that is exactly what you propose. If you want help, we'll find it for you, but you need to understand the full picture.

----------


## optilady1

> Yes in most states it is not a rigorous process, however, in my State it is. I do not fear being able to pass a basic exam proving my knowledge, or indicating that I still have learning to do. What I am not ok with is requiring two years of school and only providing 3 schools within the entire state to get the degree. Then requiring a practical exam offered one time a year in one location in the entire state on top of the ABO. 
> 
> You mentioned that there are online schools available...not in my state. 
> You mentioned that there are grants and finical help available to pay for tuition....what about having to move to one of the three locations where the course is offered? Who will pay the moving expenses? What about being able to pay rent? If I move, I will need to find another job. 
> 
> If we were talking about a basic licensing exam that would be one thing, but clearly you do not know what is required in NY, or you just don't care. IF you had read my previous posts you would know that I am not completely against licensing. I am against unjustifiably making it harder for people with experience to progress within their career. If it was just a test, fine. That would be something I could stand behind. Your experience should enable you to get licensed by passing the test. And if it doesn't then you need to educate yourself to do so. 
> 
> All I am saying is as you move forward waving your rally flag to increase licensure in all States, think about the current requirements. Look at the bigger picture. Your goal is to progress the optician position, not stifle it. There is more that needs to be done with the license requirements than just enacting them.



I can not take any more of this without throwing in my two cents.  
So you chose to move to a state that has made getting one's license tough.  Why would you move there?  Did you have no choice?  

I am a military spouse and I had no choice when we moved to my new state.  I was not upset because Washington is a licensed state, and having come from Connecticut, I was thrilled, with the knowledge that CT has some of the most stringent requirements for Licensure.  Now, I was lucky I went to optical school before kids, so I had the time and energy, and it was a community college.  Back in 2000, it cost the ridiculous price (read the sarcasm please) of 1250/semester, plus the price of books.  It's now up to 1850/ semester.  I know people who spend more on their cable bill every three months than this.  I CHOSE to be an optician, which meant that I could apprentice or go to school.

Fast forward 16 years later, I am married to a Navy guy, and I'm moving to WA.  I find out that the tough requirements of CT are not acknowledged here, so I need to retake my state exam.  Or I can forever be an apprentice optician.  I would probably make the same amount of money either way to be honest.  I did do some *itching about having to take the test, mostly to my husband, but I'm pretty sure I complained here about this.  I took 3 weeks off of work when I moved, took my test, and passed.  

So, did you get forced to move to NY?  BEcause I can understand being frustrated about getting forced to move, and suddenly you have to jump through hoops to keep doing what you WANT to do for a job.  But come on, get over it.  I WANT to be an optometrist because I think I would be really good at it.  But I have never lived close enough to a College that has it on their program.  I can't exactly complain about that can I?  I would also LIKE  to have a higher paying job.  Again, my bad for not having gone into another career path when I was younger.  Don't wanna have to get your license and have to pay all though big giant fees?  Move to another state, or find another career, or do what all the rest of us did, and do the work.  

Working with both licensed and non licensed people, I can say for a fact that there are plenty of non licensed people who know lots of stuff and are AS learned at those who have degrees and licenses.  But they are incredibly few and far between.  I don't care who you are, you can't debate that, and if you think you can, you haven't met high quality opticians.  PLUS, if you are as passionate about this field as you claim, you would want to go to school.  Yeah it sucks to have to do this when you don't have the time, but life kinda sucks sometimes.  

Education is the only way that any other profession gets better, so while the heck not optical?  

NC, shame on you to even consider giving up on the licensing board!!

Man, I take a weekend off to build a chicken coop and I miss all this fun?  Clearly I need to keep up better because this thread has taken me way too long to read, LOL

----------


## drk

> YOU must justify...which many have not...why a mark-up of 8x and more has been warranted for the cheap stk lenses and frames I've seen and so many are boastful.
> 
> Sure, when you can "control" the sale by prescribing from the chair and making believe that you have no real competition, ok.
> 
> B


You know, Barry, some people don't even use a mark up multiplier for optical goods and services like they were so many pairs of socks.

Frankly, we can break any "retail price" into material supply and professional component, and that's how we do it.  But we don't itemize it.

I guarantee there is no "8X".  I also guarantee that I do prescribe from the chair.  All doctors do.

Prescribe AR or photchromics or material upgrades or frames or sunwear or an extra pair?  Nah.   But prescribe lens form?  Yes.  Prescribe glasses for multiple purposes? Yes.

----------


## Barry Santini

> You know, Barry, some people don't even use a mark up multiplier for optical goods and services like they were so many pairs of socks.
> 
> Frankly, we can break any "retail price" into material supply and professional component, and that's how we do it.  But we don't itemize it.
> 
> I guarantee there is no "8X".  I also guarantee that I do prescribe from the chair.  All doctors do.
> 
> Prescribe AR or photchromics or material upgrades or frames or sunwear or an extra pair?  Nah.   But prescribe lens form?  Yes.  Prescribe glasses for multiple purposes? Yes.


What you describe is what Chris Ryser calls the future...and it's here now. I don't completely disagree that many will have to break down their prices the way you described. But some, like me, will continue to offer the package, because want will override need for enough people. 

I don't profess to know all what an OD knows. But prescribing from the chair is an area where professionals should always tread carefully.

I think your phrase "fragmented care" is really apropos. But just keep in mind that many people will decide they have a preferred doctor as much as a preferred provider of optical services.

They should be allowed the freedom of choice.

B

----------


## SharonB

In New York there are three routes to the license (one of which is not widely published). AAS degree from a COA accredited Ophthalmic Dispensing program, ( it doesn't matter where the school is, as long as it has COA accreditation) combined  with the ABO exam, and that will give you entrance into the final piece - the clinical practical. Or - apprentice for two years with a sponsor, and complete the NAO's CPP, and the ABO, and that will give you entrance to the practical exam. Or - have the ABO completed, and years of experience and a license in a state that has similar professional requirements. In that case you will need to provide extensive documentation to make your case. The Ophthalmic Dispensing Board will then make a decision whether or not to admit you to the practical exam, which is a requirement regardless of the route chosen. PM me if you need more info.

----------


## Jason H

Wow, breathtaking string here. If you will forgive my ignorance (and if I can return to the topic a bit), why has North Carolina deemed Optician's licences unnecessary?

----------


## wmcdonald

> Wow, breathtaking string here. If you will forgive my ignorance (and if I can return to the topic a bit), why has North Carolina deemed Optician's licences unnecessary?


NC did not. Certain members of the new Republican-controlled General Assembly see it as unnecessary, since the majority of states have no licensure, and the NC Board of Opticians was in the red for a couple of years. On top of that a study done by a professor at, if memory serve, George Washington that was commissioned by the White House was highly critical of "occupational licensing" and singled out Opticians. It made national news across the country, and I would be surprised if you had not read it. Opticians in NC are fighting to keep their license in tact, and I am optimistic that a current bill to raise fees (it has been needed for several years, but fought by the NCOA) is now on track. The board, and association are finally working together to see that it does, and I applaud their efforts. So.......NC does did not seek to eliminate their license, any more than PA sought not to have one. I know you guys tried hard, but were stymied by ODs and corporate folks.

----------


## Tigerclaw

> What you describe is what Chris Ryser calls the future...and it's here now. I don't completely disagree that many will have to break down their prices the way you described. But some, like me, will continue to offer the package, because want will override need for enough people. 
> 
> I don't profess to know all what an OD knows. But prescribing from the chair is an area where professionals should always tread carefully.
> 
> I think your phrase "fragmented care" is really apropos. But just keep in mind that many people will decide they have a preferred doctor as much as a preferred provider of optical services.
> 
> They should be allowed the freedom of choice.
> 
> B


"The future is here"

Signed,
Betamax
Crystal Pepsi
HD-DVD
Zune
XFL
Sony Mini-Disc
Neo Geo
Ford Edsel
Google Glass
MySpace

----------


## drk

New Coke.

----------


## ziggy

> Licensing is indeed a barrier but it also elevates.  If everyone can be an optician, no one is an optician.


  Great statement! Im going to use that line in the future, let me know where I can send the royalty check.

----------


## ziggy

> Leave it up to the *consumer*


 This is the basis for the national assault on Opticians. Im not sure when it happened, but at some point it the not so distant past we Opticians stopped caring for patients and started selling to consumers or customers. In most peoples opinion there is no need to educate or train a salesperson and thusly no need to licensed that individual. As a patient I care for the health of your eyes as a consumer Im mainly concerned about your credit card clearing! The term should be stricken from the optical vernacular and I challenge all to do so, especially the optical leadership and organizations. This line of thinking just plays to the argument of the retailers who support such legislation.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *NC did not. Certain members of the new Republican-controlled General Assembly see it as unnecessary, since the majority of states have no licensure, and the NC Board of Opticians was in the red for a couple of years.*






> *Wow, breathtaking string here. If you will forgive my ignorance (and if I can return to the topic a bit), why has North Carolina deemed Optician's licences unnecessary?
> *






> *NC did not. Certain members of the new Republican-controlled General Assembly see it as unnecessary, since the majority of states have no licensure, and the NC Board of Opticians was in the red for a couple of years.*



Above post's have clicked open a drawer in my memory of the old times with the former OLA yearly exhibitions where I made friends with a former long time Washington lobbyist whose stories about lobbying and handouts were highly interesting and amusing at least to me who had no idea how politicians sometimes can be guided.

Based on that thought and spinning the thread a little further, could it be that the party (non political, but commercial), that would be most interested in eliminating licensure in NC, has been lobbying certain politicians to start this action, and if successful, then do it in other States ?

----------


## wmcdonald

I am nor privy to any direct lobbying information, but it is my understanding that there has been activity from a number of outside forces. NC has one of the strongest licensing laws in the nation, and if one falls, so will others. Most of the chains would love to see licensure go away, and most see us as nothing but labor anyway. They may have a point, as we have significantly declined over the last few decades. But in all honesty, I suspect this situation came from the national article, and folks here. If our state board and state association had a better relationship I suspect it never would have happened.

----------


## drk

> This is the basis for the national assault on Opticians. Im not sure when it happened, but at some point it the not so distant past we Opticians stopped caring for patients and started selling to consumers or customers. In most peoples opinion there is no need to educate or train a salesperson and thusly no need to licensed that individual. As a patient I care for the health of your eyes as a consumer Im mainly concerned about your credit card clearing! The term should be stricken from the optical vernacular and I challenge all to do so, especially the optical leadership and organizations. This line of thinking just plays to the argument of the retailers who support such legislation.


AMEN.  Opticianry has to join the health care industry, at least halfway.

----------


## drk

> there has been activity from a number of outside forces...Most of the chains would love to see licensure go away


Agree.



> I suspect this situation came from the national article, and  folks here.


WhatchootalkinaboutWillis?  What national article and whom on Optiboard?

----------


## wmcdonald

I do not know Willis, but not folks on Optiboard. I mean people in NC.

----------


## wmcdonald

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econom...income-workers

The Timmons article is what I was referencing earlier, and has been discussed already on Optiboard, although it did not pick up much steam. It is written by a professor from outside the industry with little understanding of the work Opticians SHOULD do. He may be spot on, however, in describing the actual work now done. He is right, there is little rhyme nor reason to licensure, but there are 22 states that require a license, not 21 as the article states. As I have stated MANY times, and some have listened, we must have consistent standards across the country in EVERY jurisdiction to even begin to gain any real credibility. Unfortunately at every turn, it is not just the chains, but the OD leadership fights us as well, which is nothing more than a short-sighted turf battle.

----------


## rbaker

> http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econom...income-workers
> 
> The Timmons article is what I was referencing earlier, and has been discussed already on Optiboard, although it did not pick up much steam. It is written by a professor from outside the industry with little understanding of the work Opticians SHOULD do. He may be spot on, however, in describing the actual work now done. He is right, there is little rhyme nor reason to licensure, but there are 22 states that require a license, not 21 as the article states. As I have stated MANY times, and some have listened, we must have consistent standards across the country in EVERY jurisdiction to even begin to gain any real credibility. Unfortunately at every turn, it is not just the chains, but the OD leadership fights us as well, which is nothing more than a short-sighted turf battle.


Not that I agree with his conclusion, he does represented the other side of the equation, that is to say, he doesn't have a dog in the fight and may represent a more objective analysis.

----------


## wmcdonald

Correct, Dick. What needs to be pointed out is the significant flaws in his methodology, but that is for another day. OAA and others have defended this already quite admirably. But we should realize that when folks view this field from an objective viewpoint like this, they are always amazed at the mess it has become.

----------


## ml43

> Not that I agree with his conclusion, he does represented the other side of the equation, that is to say, he doesn't have a dog in the fight and may represent a more objective analysis.


sounds like his dog is biased towards the other side, as he ends his article by saying the $15million the president is spending on this initiative was not a waste.

I think with a budget of $15mil, he/we could have incorporated an opticianry program into almost every optometry program in the nation.  The facility and classes are already there.  just need someone to organize and standardize it to be inline with the rest of the schools in the nation.  

or we could have tried to put heavy tarrifs on the import of medical devices.  So online spectacle companies would see their profits tumble, and we could see the number of U.S. based jobs increase and at the same time see the U.S. gdp increase.

but they would rather spend $15million on a study to make what little skilled lower middle class workers we have left, be grouped with the unskilled in an attempt to increase the number of jobs.  

why not deregulate teachers as well, since we have a shortage of them.  
they have no liability insurance, so they must be useless. 
(my attempt at reductio ad absurdum)

----------


## OptiStudent

Really? Optometrist are refractionist and not lens experts. This why my Drs partner with me. Just because you work at the Drs office, does not mean you have knowledge of a degree in opticainry. Bet you don't know where the MRP on a PAL is.......prism thinning, or vertical imbalance? And how can you compare ABO certification to state boards? 
,

----------


## Tigerclaw

> or we could have tried to put heavy tarrifs on the import of medical devices.  So online spectacle companies would see their profits tumble, and we could see the number of U.S. based jobs increase and at the same time see the U.S. gdp increase.


Part of the problem is that glasses are not medical devices (contact lenses are). Whether or not they SHOULD be is worthy of debate. Also, most frames are imported. I import handmade frames from other countries and do not want to pay more for them. It's not like high-quality American-made frames are an option. They exist, but not in the variety and name-recognition you find in those made abroad. Consumers ultimately drive the market, and as much as I hate online companies, that's not going to be the answer. Realistically we need to repeal the laws that give people freedom to go to other places with their prescriptions. All it leads to is corporations taking over.

----------


## Jarhead Daddy

Laws don't "give people freedom."  We are born free, and laws restrict those freedoms.

----------


## Jarhead Daddy

And why do you wish to restrict your fellow man?  To avoid competition from corporations.  Don't you realize that large corporations thrive in highly-regulated markets?  They use their lobbyists to promote the loopholes for them an no one else.  greater regulation is not the answer for optometry.

----------


## Tigerclaw

You are not entitled by natural law to the fruits of anyone else's labor. You hire a photographer, that doesn't mean you get unlimited use or even access to all the photos he takes. If you have problems with the concept of intellectual property, then maybe you'd fit right in in China.

----------


## Tigerclaw

> And why do you wish to restrict your fellow man?  To avoid competition from corporations.  Don't you realize that large corporations thrive in highly-regulated markets?  They use their lobbyists to promote the loopholes for them an no one else.  greater regulation is not the answer for optometry.


We are the ones who are restricted. If you support the Eyeglass Rule or the "F"CLCA then you must SUPPORT regulation.

----------


## Jarhead Daddy

What a fortuitous faux pas on my part!  I completely misunderstood your libertarian argument, and erroneously argued for the statist postion.

As I mentioned in a previous post, laws restrict freedom.  In this case (any law requiring an optometrist to give the patient the Rx), it is a restriction on the doctor and the patient to choose the relational arrangement of their preference.  I would absolutely be for deregulating optometry in this manner.  People should have the right to form contracts apart from government interference, and this should include who gets to control the Rx after an exam.

----------


## Jarhead Daddy

And who benefits from this restriction?  The very corporations who sent the lobbyists to push the regulation through.  I could really get on board with this idea.  What would optometry and opticianry look like if we were simply able to eliminate this one foolish regulation?

----------


## Tigerclaw

> And who benefits from this restriction?  The very corporations who sent the lobbyists to push the regulation through.  I could really get on board with this idea.  What would optometry and opticianry look like if we were simply able to eliminate this one foolish regulation?


EXACTLY. Glad we finally agree! lol

Well Brad Scott would be in the unemployment line, Chinese and other online retailers/counterfeiters would be out of business, Lux, VSP, and who knows who else would get publicly neutered, the consumer benefits in the end because the oligopoly is destroyed and with the help of social media/internet consumers have access to finding out which doctors share Rxes or carry frames they like at prices they like. This has made the laws outdated, and they have always been dangerous.

If you support Rand Paul (an ophthalmologist), drop him a letter. Repeal is a long shot, but not an impossibility. Personally I think the Feds had no business implementing it in the first place, as doctor-patient relationships are not interstate commerce.

----------


## Jarhead Daddy

Wow...Tigerclaw...hug?

----------


## Jarhead Daddy

BTW, so far, I am supporting RP.

Seems to me that your idea could really work.  Some points:
1.  Most people would not want the idea to apply to all medical records, and it certainly flies in the face of HIPAA, so the exception should be limited to optometry (tactics).
2.  An argument against cheap Chinese knock-offs (intellectual property) killing American jobs would resound with the public.
3.  The optometric associations would support the idea more than the opticians' associations, since there are many independently-owned optician practices without an optometrist.

----------


## Tigerclaw

The flip side is it would make OD-employed opticians more valuable and thus raise their wages. Additionally, it would effectively shut down chains that don't value a skilled optician. Also, opticians could network with OD's, since an OD isn't likely to risk losing a patient just because he doesn't carry prescription Ray-Bans, "But I can fax your prescription to Melissa, an optician I trust down the street. She sells Ray-Bans and can fix you up over there."

----------

