# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  I've reconsidered

## Spexvet

After many back-and-forth posts, here, I've reconsidered my position on the welfare/unemployment issue. 

Unemployment insurance and welfare are a direct threat to my ability to maximize my income. If there were no UI or Welfare, those workers who lost their jobs would have to either get another job, likely outside my profession, or they would starve to death. Either of these solutions would reduce the supply of opticians, causing me to be in higher demand, and a scarcer resource, thereby increasing my cost (wages).

It may seem to be a callous, selfish perspective, but it's a dog-eat-dog economic environment out there, and it's time that I look out for myself.

I'd like to thank Johns, Obx, Dick, and all you other conservative posters who've convinced me of my folly.




























Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go buy a handgun.

----------


## Jana Lewis

Time to turn in your libby card! :P

----------


## Uncle Fester

Which militia will you be joining?

----------


## k12311997

April Fools

----------


## ih8wlmrt

yikes, hoping your fellow opticians  starve to death so you can make more money is a bit harsh. 
I guess if they stop giving unemployment handouts the opticians who have been layed off  will just have to break down and get a job flipping burgers. 
I would be concerned that when the market is flooded with opticians desperate for work and dying of starvation, how long before they convince all the employers that they can do the same job as us for 1/2 or 1/3 the cost?

----------


## j.maran

> yikes, hoping your fellow opticians starve to death so you can make more money is a bit harsh. 
> I guess if they stop giving unemployment handouts the opticians who have been layed off will just have to break down and get a job flipping burgers. 
> I would be concerned that when the market is flooded with opticians desperate for work and dying of starvation, how long before they convince all the employers that they can do the same job as us for 1/2 or 1/3 the cost?


But that's already the problem.  A lot of Doc's I know already think they can just hire anyone off the street to do our job.  I don't quite agree that there shouldn't be unemployment insurance (and I own a handgun) but maybe a better system to weed out the people who don't know what they are doing.

----------


## wmcdonald

The truth is, they generally can. Just because one calls themself "Optician" does not mean they know anything at all about the field. Most "Opticians" can't do even the simplest of mathematical computations, and actually have little understanding of optics. They sell, take PDs, measure seg heights and write receipts. What makes them any better than the folks in the doc's office? We can no longer talk the talk if we cannot walk the walk! If we want to shout to the rooftops about how wonderful we are, we better be able to back it up. We can no longer fool the public. In most states the only requirement to be call yourself an Optician is a pulse! We must get better. Go to the Entry Requirements thread and you will see more.

There are many well-trained, educated Opticians in every state, but we are judged by our lowest common denominator. We must improve!

----------


## Spexvet

> april fools


bingo!

----------


## ih8wlmrt

> The truth is, they generally can. Just because one calls themself "Optician" does not mean they know anything at all about the field. Most "Opticians" can't do even the simplest of mathematical computations, and actually have little understanding of optics. They sell, take PDs, measure seg heights and write receipts. What makes them any better than the folks in the doc's office? We can no longer talk the talk if we cannot walk the walk! If we want to shout to the rooftops about how wonderful we are, we better be able to back it up. We can no longer fool the public. In most states the only requirement to be call yourself an Optician is a pulse! We must get better. Go to the Entry Requirements thread and you will see more.
> 
> There are many well-trained, educated Opticians in every state, but we are judged by our lowest common denominator. We must improve!


I personally live in a licensed state, I can not hire an $8 an hour "optician" in my state. If I want to be able to go out to lunch or take a day off I have to pony up a almost 3 times that much. 
I was being snarky- the original poster was actually being very snarky- turns out to be an april fools joke,  I should have known no one would be that rediculous.
I followed the entry requirements thread, found some of it pretty offensive.  
There used to be some saying about flies and honey.......

----------


## braheem24

> I followed the entry requirements thread, found some of it pretty offensive.


You're not the only person that feels that way, but why?  The thread is asking to develop a higher standard for all states and raise the minimum requirements to become an optician so that we dont become the travel agents of the future.

----------


## YrahG

> I followed the entry requirements thread, found some of it pretty offensive. 
> There used to be some saying about flies and honey.......


I love sayings, try this one on for size:

_"If your going to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs"_

I hope the majority get offended, this is the strong seperating themselves from the weak, you are going to have to step to one side of the room now.  You pick.

----------


## Spexvet

> ... I should have known no one would be that rediculous.
> ...


Stick around. There's been plenty more ridiculous than that posted here.:p

----------


## k12311997

> Stick around. There's been plenty more ridiculous than that posted here.:p


you can say that again





> Celebrate! 
> In an era when our military is in foreign lands spreading freedom, it’s fitting to take some time to celebrate some of the liberties that we have here at home. Today is the 34th anniversary of the Roe V Wade decision, a decision that expanded the rights and freedom of American women. Since this historic decision, a woman has had the choice to not have sex, to have sex using contraception, to seek to become pregnant, to take no action with regards to an unwanted pregnancy and keep the child she bears, to take no action with regards to an unwanted pregnancy and give up the child she bears for adoption, or to end an unwanted pregnancy in a safe way. Hopefully, a woman weighs all of these options and chooses what is best for her – after all, who would know better? Certainly not you or I. Freedoms like this should be cherished.

----------


## ih8wlmrt

some of the comments in that thread basically say to the reader if you don't have an AA degree you don't belong in the profession.
I agree about improving the profession,I think having national standards would be great and I think an AA would be the way to do that.
I just think they need to find a way to include us in the discussion without calling us "mcticians" and saying we "have no place in the profession" 
even though they preface it with "don't take this personal" and "not to be rude" its still personal and rude.


I just think they need to work on their dialog, get a little tact and figure out how to speak to us with out putting us down.

You can't expect us to feel included when you exclude us right out of the gate. It is clear from the thread what those with a degree think of us "fake" opticians who do not have a degree.

----------


## ih8wlmrt

> I love sayings, try this one on for size:
> 
> _"If your going to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs"_
> 
> I hope the majority get offended, this is the strong seperating themselves from the weak, you are going to have to step to one side of the room now. You pick.


Really thats the way you see it?  you're either with us or against us, with no interest in finding a way to bring everyone together. really?

----------


## wmcdonald

It is about the future, and not about individuals. We want the future Optician to be better educated and trained and be able to do more, that is all. We are not trying to bring anyone together to do anything except improve the field for the future Optician. If that is offensive then then so be it.

----------


## braheem24

An AA degree brings a little biology, math as well as english basics into the field.  If you feel someone is looking down on you because they took a few high school level courses and received an AA I'll lend you a stool to slap them off their high horse.

----------


## Jana Lewis

> Really thats the way you see it?  you're either with us or against us, with no interest in finding a way to bring everyone together. really?


There is nothing to bring together. Either you educate yourself or move aside.

----------


## obxeyeguy

This has to be one of the best hi-jacks ever.

----------


## YrahG

> Really thats the way you see it?  you're either with us or against us, with no interest in finding a way to bring everyone together. really?


arrivederci, sianara, adios, au revoir, good bye.  I am interested in bringing us together but not to the pits, I have better places to be and if you don't want to come because you think your too good to try and get the lowest level degree offered by a college, then it's you that are not interested in bringing us together.  I cannot give back two years of education but you can get two years of education and you should if your goal is the same as mine.  If you really don't want to get an edcuation then you are the majority of opticians now and our goals are very different.  You want to call yourself the creme of the crop but you don't want to do any work to attain it.  I got news for you there are organizations already in place for that.  Contact the OAA for $65 you can be rank and file, for $140 you can be an honored fellow.  There is no need for another me too organization, any new organization should represent the future optician by being the future optician.  I am glad you want to belong but you'll have to earn this one not moan and groan for it.

I would think this new organization should be more a fraternity of the top 10% in our field the other 90% I could care less if they call themselves opticians just to make it very very very clear I could care less what the 90% do or say even on this board if I could distill out the 10% I'd be drinking moonshine optician everyday, maybe the top 10% has been looking at this wrong maybe we should give up the term optician and move on to a higher level with a new title, maybe dispensing opticians and ophthalmic opticians like the UK.  That way anyone that want's to call themselves an optician can still do that, but the top 10% instead of trying to save this leaky raft can step off into a real boat.  It would be easy to do especially since anyone that plans on being in the top 10% will have already done everything in place to be a dispensing opticians it's the plus more that would separate them from the flock.

Maybe take all the requirements from every licensed state and combine them into a new standard for an ophthalmic optician, a national license in a sense because they would qualify to be a licensed optician in every state.

----------


## ih8wlmrt

> There is nothing to bring together. Either you educate yourself or move aside.


I may not have a BS in english but I do have a license. why would you not want my help in trying to get national standards? its comments like this that I am talking about, why get nasty and  rude when I am trying to help.  It takes lots of money to lobby for anything the more people you have who believe in your cause the more money you can raise. Its hard to convince people to donate to something that they don't feel they are a part of. I doubt many people would donate time or money to a group that shuns them.

----------


## wmcdonald

No one is asking for a donation. If you wish to participate in the coming summit, please let me invite you. We need to h ear everyone's views. I do want you to understand that I (I can only speak for me) want everyone to participate. But remember, we are looking towards the future, not the past. We want Opticians to be better than they are now, and gain some respect. I hope you will join us.

Did we hijack this thread? Probably, but it turned in this direction.

----------


## ih8wlmrt

> arrivederci, sianara, adios, au revoir, good bye. I am interested in bringing us together but not to the pits, I have better places to be and if you don't want to come because you think your too good to try and get the lowest level degree offered by a college, then it's you that are not interested in bringing us together. I cannot give back two years of education but you can get two years of education and you should if your goal is the same as mine. If you really don't want to get an edcuation then you are the majority of opticians now and our goals are very different. You want to call yourself the creme of the crop but you don't want to do any work to attain it. I got news for you there are organizations already in place for that. Contact the OAA for $65 you can be rank and file, for $140 you can be an honored fellow. There is no need for another me too organization, any new organization should represent the future optician by being the future optician. I am glad you want to belong but you'll have to earn this one not moan and groan for it.
> 
> I would think this new organization should be more a fraternity of the top 10% in our field the other 90% I could care less if they call themselves opticians just to make it very very very clear I could care less what the 90% do or say even on this board if I could distill out the 10% I'd be drinking moonshine optician everyday, maybe the top 10% has been looking at this wrong maybe we should give up the term optician and move on to a higher level with a new title, maybe dispensing opticians and ophthalmic opticians like the UK. That way anyone that want's to call themselves an optician can still do that, but the top 10% instead of trying to save this leaky raft can step off into a real boat. It would be easy to do especially since anyone that plans on being in the top 10% will have already done everything in place to be a dispensing opticians it's the plus more that would separate them from the flock.
> 
> Maybe take all the requirements from every licensed state and combine them into a new standard for an ophthalmic optician, a national license in a sense because they would qualify to be a licensed optician in every state.


where have you seen me say anywhere that I was unwilling to get more education? I have a license and if my state says I have to get more education to keep it I will. 
what makes you think I got my license by moaning and groaning? 
my only point was that I think it would behoove those of you who are so much more educated than the rest of us to play nice, maybe if you did those of us who do not have a degree  will donate some money so you can go lobby who ever it is you need to lobby to get national standards.  but its clear you don't need my input, you have it all figured out.

----------


## wmcdonald

Let me state (again) that it is not about you personally, or any other current Optician. It is about those in the future. We want those who come behind us to be better. Those currently in practice should not be required to do anything. I also want your input, and hope you understand it is not about you, but the future.

----------


## rbaker

In the real world, trades, crafts and professions typically continue to raise the education and standards of practice over time - constantly getting better and smarter. Opticianry has not followed this pathway to success and I fear never will. I can only draw one rational conclusion from this sad state of affairs. Opticianry is going to slowly wither away and become just another fond memory of a few old timers WHO THINK BACK ON WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN.

----------


## wmcdonald

We will do our best not to let that happen!

----------


## YrahG

> where have you seen me say anywhere that I was unwilling to get more education? I have a license and if my state says I have to get more education to keep it I will. 
> 
> I may have missed it but do you have a license?  How many times have you mentioned that you have a license?  But you don't have an education and don't plan on getting one UNLESS your state says you need one.  I live and work in an unlicensed state, and I have an education.  Your license is all bark no bite, that must change.
> 
> what makes you think I got my license by moaning and groaning? 
> 
> Again I could care less about your license, it means nothing.
> 
> my only point was that I think it would behoove those of you who are so much more educated than the rest of us to play nice
> ...


This is an example of why I feel that anything that is supposed to represent the future of opticians should not include those who didn't put in the proper time to earn the proper credentials I won't be part of anything that includes those who have no place for education.  Get it or get out, their are to date:

- State Associations
- Opticians Association of America
- Contact Lens Society of America
- National Academy of Opticianry
- American Board of Opticianry
- National Contact Lens Examiners

They all have prerequisites, so far the toughest of the group is a 100 question multiple choice mickey mouse test and still 50% can't pass it.  My thought would be any new organization should alienate at least those 50% that can't pass a simple test and more.  It should be tough and rigorous, many should want it and few should be able to earn it.  Already just the talk of a tough to get in organization has one "optician" upset he can't join just by having a pulse.

----------


## Roy R. Ferguson

Once again, the minimum educational standards that are being discussed are for *future individuals entering this field*.  If you lack an AAS in opticianry, you may continue on your way totally unimpeded by such requirements.  Dr. McDonald and I have been strong advocates of educational standards over the past twenty plus years and I cannot recall either of us suggesting that apprentice trained, experienced opticians, be replaced by those with a college degree.

On a personal note, I obtained my opticianry license through an “apprenticeship” program and am fully aware of the shortcomings such career paths offer.  If we are to elevate the profession it must be done through a common educational experience.

Roy

----------


## Spexvet

> you can say that again
> 
> 
> 
> [/INDENT]


Why do you hate America? Why do you hate freedom?

----------


## Jana Lewis

> I may not have a BS in english but I do have a license. why would you not want my help in trying to get national standards? its comments like this that I am talking about, why get nasty and  rude when I am trying to help.  It takes lots of money to lobby for anything the more people you have who believe in your cause the more money you can raise. Its hard to convince people to donate to something that they don't feel they are a part of. I doubt many people would donate time or money to a group that shuns them.



I'm sorry, but can tell me exactly what was rude about that comment? 

Do you find it rude and nasty that I want my profession to be recognized as a highly trained important health job?

----------


## ih8wlmrt

> This is an example of why I feel that anything that is supposed to represent the future of opticians should not include those who didn't put in the proper time to earn the proper credentials I won't be part of anything that includes those who have no place for education. Get it or get out, their are to date:
> 
> 
> It should be tough and rigorous, many should want it and few should be able to earn it. Already just the talk of a tough to get in organization has one "optician" upset he can't join just by having a pulse.


what I was trying to point out was that the nasty way you speak to current  opticians is not conducive to getting everyone involved.
But I see you feel that you don't  want everyone involved. My mistake. 
 you assume that we are all opposed to improving the profession You also assume that  my input and effort would not be of any help to you in getting my state involved in upping our standards. I don't agree, I would think anyone who is willing to  help should be greated with open arms.
the personal attacks on me are uncalled for, if you go back and read the original post all I said was that I thought some of the comments on the entry requirements thread were offensive. 

My original post was directed at just such behavior. itsnot about the current opticians it is about the future, in order to get to the goal we need to work together, not call each other names. I have never said the standards should stay low, I agree that the profession needs improvement.  All I was trying to say is that in order to get something so large to happen we should try to encourage more people to help. I think it is going to take lost of time, planning effort and money if anything is to become of this. 
 "keep their money and the horse they rode in on" .
kind of says it all.
You are the one seperating and dividing us. My only purpose for posting in the first place was to try and point out that posts like yours are not good for the cause, as I see it.    I understand that my view of the cause isvery different from yours, so I will stop trying to convince you that being nasty is not the way to get people on board.

----------


## wmcdonald

What you seem not to understand is that for 25 years we have been attempting to work together, and those of your ilk have not cooperated. No one has called you a name! Those completing simplistic apprenticehip (or should I say OJT) training programs have continued to think this is the way we need to train for the future, and that is not correct. If that is the case why is a license even necessary? You ask to be involved. There is no involvement required, except to support education. I have invited you to the summit, and hope you will come so you can see the passionate people, many with similar training backgrounds to yours, who simply want the future to be better and understand education is the vehicle. I was never attempting to be offensive, but when you tell a large group in a "profession" like Opticianry that has been poorly trained, with the majority having little education, they tend to not like the messenger. That is fine, but if you think objectively about this post, and the others, you will begin to realize you are taking these posts personally, and believe me, it is not about you. Let me summarize: We DO NOT want people without education to be called Opticians in the future. That does not include you, because you are already here. We are talking about the future. We do not want 27 states having a pulse as a requirement. You are fortunate to live in a state that requires a license, and therefore something. Go visit one of the states with 0 requirements, and you will find those 8.00 per hour folks. We want to upgrade those who seek to enter this field by making it consistent across all jurisdictions. We will not change the so-called bad behavior you describe above, because that is the platform we stand upon. It is not seen by most reasonable people as bad behavior, but a legitimate argument. We want to make certain all Opticians in the future are better than those of today. Mr. Baker may be right......it may be too late. We are the ONLY health-related field to continue to do so. Now, if you are offended I am sorry, but apprenticeship must go.....we need a formal process to educate and train the future Optician.

----------


## ih8wlmrt

[QUOTE=wmcdonald;340152]What you seem not to understand is that for 25 years we have been attempting to work together, and those of your ilk have not cooperated. 

_I am really sorry that my ilk and I have been a hinderance, it was never my intent. the truth of the matter is until I came to optiboard I was unaware that there was an issue with it. I have spent my entire career in a licensed state, and assumed that my license was enough. So there you go, thats the problem in a nutshell,  I get it. it would be nice if there was a way to articulate that  so that us idiots can understand it without it coming down to "poison" "dead meat" and "ilk"_ 
 I did not mean to make a big stink,  I really was only trying to offer a little constructive critisism. sorry.

----------


## Spexvet

> ..."ilk" ...


"Ilk" is not an insult. It means "type" or "kind".

----------


## wmcdonald

No one indicated you were an idiot, and your argumentative comments did not appear to be very constructive at any point. That is the problem. I am sure you are competent or you would not have lasted, but you take the issue personally. In essence, you were arguing against educating Opticians. No one on the prervious post or this said anything about you or anyone else personally. What we seek is to improve those who come behind you......and I believe that to be a sound course of action. Most Opticians today cannot perform the very basic computations and have a poor knowledge of the very thing we are suppossed to be good at, optics. Training through apprenticeship has been the primary method for years, and it is not your fault, but it has been a huge hindrance to furthering this profession. Also, you seem offended again by ilk.......that means of similar background, or like you , if that sounds nicer to you. It is not an insult. I hope you can think about this with an open mind. We must be better than we are, and we do need everyone to understand that concept. It is not a personal thing, and change can be tough. But we can do it if we try, and the rewards can be great.

----------


## ih8wlmrt

> No one indicated you were an idiot, and your argumentative comments did not appear to be very constructive at any point. That is the problem. I am sure you are competent or you would not have lasted, but you take the issue personally, but you , in essence, were arguing against educating Opticians. No one on the prervious post or this said anything about you or anyone else personally. What we seek is to improve those who come behind you......and I believe that to be a sound course of action. Most Opticians today cannot perform the very basic computations and have a poor knowledge of the very thing we are suppossed to be good at, optics. Training through apprenticeship has been the primary method for years, and it is not your fault, but it has been a huge hindrance to furthering this profession. Also, you seem offended again by ilk.......that means of similar background, or like you , if that sounds nicer to you. It is not an insult. I hope you can think about this with an open mind. We must be better than we are, and we do need everyone to understand that concept. It is not a personal thing, and change can be tough. But we can do it if we try, and the rewards can be great.


please re read my posts, I was not arguing against education, I was mearly trying to point out that some of the comments made by some people could be and were being interpreted as insults to those of us who do not have a degree. again, I did not want to make a big stink, I was under the impression that the get together in atlanta was about coming up with a way to change the laws, in my mind that requires lots of people, petitions, lobbiests etc.... I thought it would help if lots of opticians were involved and I thought it would be helpful if I could change the tone of the conversation to one where everyone felt included.  I am wrong on all counts. the use of the word Ilk insults me only because I assume(and again I am probably wrong) that you are including me in with those who do not think the profession needs improvement. I am sorry I ever even mentioned any of it.
I came to optiboard to learn more about the industry I am in, I have spent my career in only a very few small private practices and now in my own little office. I just wanted to see what the rest of the world was up to. I stepped into something that I guess I have no place in. I am sorry I have waisted your time and effort. I was not trying to be arumentative, I was trying to make a point that I thought was valid. 
I am a little hard headed I guess, it took me a while to understand what you guys meant when you said "get out of the way" and "no place in the profession"  I did not think I was in the way. 
its hard to interpret the intonation of a person typing, I think had we been having an actual disscussion maybe we both would have understood what the other was saying. I am sorry that I came accross as argumentative, and am really sorry that you thought I was arguing against education. I really only wanted to say I thought there was a better way to bring the message to the masses.

----------


## k12311997

Spex, well you tried to get the thread back on track, it doesn't seem worth pointing out the stupidity of your remark 8 posts later.

----------


## Spexvet

> Spex, well you tried to get the thread back on track, it doesn't seem worth pointing out the stupidity of your remark 8 posts later.


That's a moronic answer

----------


## wmcdonald

> please re read my posts, I was not arguing against education, I was mearly trying to point out that some of the comments made by some people could be and were being interpreted as insults to those of us who do not have a degree. again, I did not want to make a big stink, I was under the impression that the get together in atlanta was about coming up with a way to change the laws, in my mind that requires lots of people, petitions, lobbiests etc.... I thought it would help if lots of opticians were involved and I thought it would be helpful if I could change the tone of the conversation to one where everyone felt included. I am wrong on all counts. the use of the word Ilk insults me only because I assume(and again I am probably wrong) that you are including me in with those who do not think the profession needs improvement. I am sorry I ever even mentioned any of it.
> I came to optiboard to learn more about the industry I am in, I have spent my career in only a very few small private practices and now in my own little office. I just wanted to see what the rest of the world was up to. I stepped into something that I guess I have no place in. I am sorry I have waisted your time and effort. I was not trying to be arumentative, I was trying to make a point that I thought was valid. 
> I am a little hard headed I guess, it took me a while to understand what you guys meant when you said "get out of the way" and "no place in the profession" I did not think I was in the way. 
> its hard to interpret the intonation of a person typing, I think had we been having an actual disscussion maybe we both would have understood what the other was saying. I am sorry that I came accross as argumentative, and am really sorry that you thought I was arguing against education. I really only wanted to say I thought there was a better way to bring the message to the masses.


 
We are NOT attempting to change laws. We are attempting first to find a direction. If you can tell me how to tell folks in a better fashion, please do. You complain about the message, but make no suggestions for imporvement. I would appreciate your letting me know how we can tell folks they have been trained and educated inadequately and make it seem nice, I will be pleased to listen. If you have nothing else to add, let me again invite you to Atlanta. We can use everyone's opinion.

----------


## davelp

Having worked in this industry for over 22 years, I have seen it go from a group of highly trained tradesmen who were compensated fairly to a bunch of just over minimum wage High School kids who have no Idea what they are doing. I blame a few factors, one, the advent of superopticals in the 80's , burning through and burning out the veterans and needing to replace them with lower cost workers , Highly automated equipment, in the old days , you had to be taught how to use the equipment, now you can, with the automatic edgers and generators walk up and push some buttons and not understand at all what you are doing and  a lack of respect for our trade from the professionals we work with and for, many Doctors ( the ones I work for very much excepted)  don't think anyone needs a living wage or benefits besides them and Opticianry has gone from a trade you can make a living and raise your kids on to one where you better have a spouse with a good job

----------


## davelp

To complete my thought that I forgot to make before hitting the post button, I am fully in favor of the creation of a national standard for Opticians, in Europe ( Germany in particular) you can't just call yourself an "Augenoptiker) and open a shop, there is a long training period and national and I understand now EU testing and certification. My state has no standards, you can get hired today and be measuring seg heights and adjusting glasses  by the end of the day I am a rarity in that I am at least ABO certified around here. we need standards and testing or we will be the new travel agents indeed.

----------


## YrahG

*"The future optician will be smarter and better than you"*

This phrase will have one of two effects on the majority of people, you will either be offended in which case I say, "get lost" or you will say not me and work on upgrading your skills and knowledge in which case I say, "welcome".  I think this shoudl be the litmus test for any new organization, again I don't care to belong to another me too organization, if that's the goal then ih8twlmrt can spear head that effort for all I care I have better things to do with my time and money then fly to Atlanta and meet with a bunch of scared to offend anyone individuals.  Let's crack some eggs, offend some folks and mover forward.

I honestly think the time for suggestions on how to make our profession better is over it's been over, the "get losts" and "welcomes" are on even playing fields when it comes to suggestions but when it comes to action the opticians that are welcome are the ones that are needed.

----------


## CCGREEN

I have but one point of view we must all take into account......Be as bright as you want to be about your profession, if you are going to work for someone else and not yourself then you will have to be filling a "need" that your employer  "feels" THEY have. What YOU "feel" THEY "need" is irrelevant. Because your potential employer is the one who holds the check book and THEY are the ones that get to make the decisions as to what they feel is best for their business.

Guess what I am saying you have to convincingly sell yourself and what you have to offer. It's kind of like going to the bank and asking for money to start a business. You may "feel" that the community can use your services but if you cannot show the bank with stats and documentations and numbers that what you want to do will be profitable for you, the bank, and the community. Then chances are you will not get the loan.


> The truth is, they generally can. Just because one calls themself "Optician" does not mean they know anything at all about the field. Most "Opticians" can't do even the simplest of mathematical computations, and actually have little understanding of optics. They sell, take PDs, measure seg heights and write receipts. What makes them any better than the folks in the doc's office? We can no longer talk the talk if we cannot walk the walk! If we want to shout to the rooftops about how wonderful we are, we better be able to back it up. We can no longer fool the public. In most states the only requirement to be call yourself an Optician is a pulse! We must get better. Go to the Entry Requirements thread and you will see more.
> 
> There are many well-trained, educated Opticians in every state, but we are judged by our lowest common denominator. We must improve!

----------


## Spexvet

I've reconsidered starting this thread. ;)

----------


## wmcdonald

> I have but one point of view we must all take into account......Be as bright as you want to be about your profession, if you are going to work for someone else and not yourself then you will have to be filling a "need" that your employer "feels" THEY have. What YOU "feel" THEY "need" is irrelevant. Because your potential employer is the one who holds the check book and THEY are the ones that get to make the decisions as to what they feel is best for their business.
> 
> Guess what I am saying you have to convincingly sell yourself and what you have to offer. It's kind of like going to the bank and asking for money to start a business. You may "feel" that the community can use your services but if you cannot show the bank with stats and documentations and numbers that what you want to do will be profitable for you, the bank, and the community. Then chances are you will not get the loan.


That is true at this point, so long as we let others set the standards for us. We must set the standards! Pharmacists are hired by corporate organizations and are paid according to level of education etc. as well as industry standards. ODs, Audiologists and others are the same. Only Opticians are considered by the chains as "labor". We can do better.

----------


## Fezz

> I've reconsidered starting this thread. ;)


I wish that you would reconsider!

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

----------


## Spexvet

> I wish that you would reconsider!
> 
> :cheers::cheers::cheers:


Ok, I've re-reconsidered.

----------


## ih8wlmrt

> *"The future optician will be smarter and better than you"*
> 
> This phrase will have one of two effects on the majority of people, you will either be offended in which case I say, "get lost" or you will say not me and work on upgrading your skills and knowledge in which case I say, "welcome". I think this shoudl be the litmus test for any new organization, again I don't care to belong to another me too organization, if that's the goal then ih8twlmrt can spear head that effort for all I care I have better things to do with my time and money then fly to Atlanta and meet with a bunch of scared to offend anyone individuals. Let's crack some eggs, offend some folks and mover forward.
> 
> I honestly think the time for suggestions on how to make our profession better is over it's been over, the "get losts" and "welcomes" are on even playing fields when it comes to suggestions but when it comes to action the opticians that are welcome are the ones that are needed.


I won't be in atlanta, not spear heading anything. I understand that you have been working for change for a long time and are frustrated, for some of us it is a new concept. Sorry I got my panties in a wad, I just did not understand, I had to do some real soul searching to get that I am in the way and that my lack of desire for an education was the problem. I never thought about doing more than the state requires, don't know why, I just didn't- "You don't know what you don't know" I think I read on the entry requirements thread.
Still trying to figure out what I make of it all. If I truely believe in the idea of higher education then I need to figure out how I  can get back to school.  Until I have the education and am in your position I  do not belong in the conversation.  so I am out. 
See you are making some headway- one mctician at a time.

----------


## wmcdonald

> I won't be in atlanta, not spear heading anything. I understand that you have been working for change for a long time and are frustrated, for some of us it is a new concept. Sorry I got my panties in a wad, I just did not understand, I had to do some real soul searching to get that I am in the way and that my lack of desire for an education was the problem. I never thought about doing more than the state requires, don't know why, I just didn't- "You don't know what you don't know" I think I read on the entry requirements thread.
> Still trying to figure out what I make of it all. If I truely believe in the idea of higher education then I need to figure out how I can get back to school. Until I have the education and am in your position I do not belong in the conversation. so I am out. 
> See you are making some headway- one mctician at a time.


 
You still do not get it. You do not have to do anything, and we do need and want you in this conversation. I don't care what anyone says, we cannot require current Opticians with a license to go back to school based on our mandate for change. Even in licensure implementation a grandfather clause will have to be employed. What we focus on here is the FUTURE OPTICIAN. Stay with us and voice support for increasing requirements for the future. The idea of a new organization has sprung up on this thread. That is not even the idea. The idea is to get a group of like-minded people to agree with a need for change and then make plans to do so. If a new organization with tougher standards for membership/certification is the answer then we will move in that direction.

Now, that said. YrahG makes an excellent point......to keep up, some additional study certainly will help you keep the playing field level. You do not want these new folks getting too far ahead.

----------


## kcount

> *Can we agree to this?* 
> 
> *Recently I have been sitting on the sidelines of this discussion and have truly enjoyed the comments. Points have been made by all and the debate has been lively, but I would like to refocus on the question at hand.
> 
> If it were the case that a motion came forward to increase the level of education needed for new opticians would you be against it? Bear in mind that all currently certified Opticians would be grandfathered in so long as you did not let your certification laps. The education requirement would be an Associates Degree from an accredited college in liberal arts. I know this will ruffle some peoples feathers for they want the AA to come from a technical college in Opticianry, but the truth is there are very few of these schools. I'm sorry online doesn't cut it. We're talking hands on face to face classroom time. 
> 
> So, its an AA from an accredited college, then sit for the ABO/NCLE I say ABO/NCLE because in this new order the tests will be combined in to one testing session (still two tests but we take them all over one day or one weekend). All those with current, up to date ABO's will be grandfathered in with no further requirement other than continued CE's.
> 
> If we can agree to this, we can start on the road to a fundamentally sound profession with longevity.
> ...




So, as to clarify, I have copied the post I made in the "entry requirements" thread here. As this seems to have become the model we are comparing to lets all go through it together.

_Recently I have been sitting on the sidelines of this discussion and have truly enjoyed the comments. Points have been made by all and the debate has been lively, but I would like to refocus on the question at hand.
_
This was me opening the discussion

_If it were the case that a motion came forward to increase the level of education needed for new opticians would you be against it? Bear in mind that all currently certified Opticians would be grandfathered in so long as you did not let your certification laps._

So, if your ABOC and up to date on your CE's your in!  Why?  'Cause Uncle Kevin didn't get a degree either and isn't gonna' propose a new group that he cant be in!

_ The education requirement would be an Associates Degree from an accredited college in liberal arts. I know this will ruffle some peoples feathers for they want the AA to come from a technical college in Opticianry, but the truth is there are very few of these schools. I'm sorry online doesn't cut it. We're talking hands on face to face classroom time. 

So, its an AA from an accredited college, then sit for the ABO/NCLE I say ABO/NCLE because in this new order the tests will be combined in to one testing session (still two tests but we take them all over one day or one weekend)._ 

So, *New* Opticians will need to meet the bar of an AA and the ABO/ NCLE.

_All those with current, up to date ABO's will be grandfathered in with no further requirement other than continued CE's._
Just in case you missed it the first time ALL CURRENT ABOC OPTICIANS ARE IN THE CLUB! Just keep takin' those frackin' CE courses. (Who knows maybe we can get some together that will actually be helpfull?!)

_If we can agree to this, we can start on the road to a fundementaly sound profession with longevity.
_
That was the close
_
For a historical perspective, Optometry started this same way. At every advancement of educational requirement they would grandfather all existing OD's. The path to licensure is here, and is viable. Opticians before us have marked the way they just happened to be called prescribing opticians, in the 1800's.


How does that sound? Is that something that we can agree on?_ 

That was me typing even after I had made my point


Lets review, ALL ABOC Opticians are grandfathered in. Thats ALL  not some not just the lucky guys in licensed states, not just the ones with seven fingers on one hand. ALL. Everyone, Mucho Opticians.

Now, can we stop gripping that someones being picked on 'cause they didnt do this or that and get to changing the system so we can all make a decent wage and retire early?!

And to who ever said :

*The future optician will be smarter and better than you"*

I say, God, I hope so. I bet I'm signing their checks though.:bbg:

Now where's Fezz with the Growler?

:cheers::cheers:

----------

