My future ended 4 years ago...

[kjw1231]

rfish777,

I sympathise with you. The chains have penetrated the Optical market so much, that it has become just another retial store in the eyes of the consumer. About 4 years ago, I packed my 15 years in, and went into computers. I started by writing some vision care software, and now do technology consulting. Until the licensing "issue" becomes national policy, the industry will sink lower and lower. I had opened my own shop, franchised for a few years, and worked for a chain. Honestly, raising a family on a optician's salary is a challenge. I thought about going into a private practice, but no OD would pay me for the experience. If there was a hope to nationalize the licensing issue, I might (slim to none chance) get back in. Right now I make more than most OD's, work no nights/weekends, and really enjoy my job.

Have you ever thought about changing careers?

[Homer]

Congratulations, Kevin! You are apparently a survivor!

Would you want to contribute to the development of the Opticianry Council International?

I agree with you, that only a national approach to any kind of licensing has any hope. Even if we are somewhat successful in the state by state approach, we will end up with division rather than unity. If I were the oposing forces, I might allow some kind of licensing in each state but make them all different so no one could understand the requirements from state to state.

Those who play down the national license idea are those who are not willing to give any money or join an organization to make it happen. They just complain and say it isn't possible - too big a project.

The ones who most likely would not support the idea are those who already have state licenses. They like their lives just the way they are and, in a kind of sublime sense, are against the national unity of opticianry. My guess is that most opticians in licensed states have never thought about this concept.

In order to obtain a national license the licensed states would have to be willing to give up their individual state licenses.

Opticianry awaits a unifiying principal.

[stephanie]

I really do agree with you on this one Homer. I am in a licensed state too. I really think if it was a national thing most of these laws would actually be enforced by opticians rather than ignored. Have witnessed so much corruption and so much of people getting away with stuff. I guess they need to be caught in order to get in trouble but how do you enforce the law??? Any thoughts? Do you report, confront....what??? I am a do it the legal way girl and I guess that pretty much makes me wishy washy in this business but do you feel that making the license national would help. I say yes it probably would. Also educating the public as well as opticians that is something wrong is done it needs to be brought to someones attention. I have read throught the state laws here governing opticians and have first hand witnessed almost every law being broken. How can a stop be put on this. Where do you even start. And to answer your question Kevin YES I have very much thought about changing professions. Maybe a lawyer LOL!! Still really don't know what I actually want to do. I love opticianry but can't handle the corruption I have seen. In my opinion the laws were created for a reason if people were not going to follow them why have them?
I'll get off my soap box now.....
Steph

[Homer]

In my philosophical view, this is the human dilemma. We need rules to live by and then after we establish them we look for every way possible around them. No body wants to just play nice - kinda like my oldest granddaughter controling the others in "play" by always comming up with new rules as they go along.

Let me put on the other hat for a moment. If I were to agrue against licensing it would be this:

1) The quality of service is not improved by a license

2) The quality of eyewear is not improved by a license

3) The standard of education is not necessarily improved however hours in the classroom might be increased.

4) Take a survey of licensed states and compare it to unlicensed states and you are likely to find that the general quality of eyewear is about the same.

5) You could not prove that people in unlicensed states are going blind or receive a lower standard of care - we have been unable to prove harm.

6) Schlock houses survive in licensed states as well as unlicensed.

7) Taking local economic factors into account, it would also be hard to prove that wages are that much better in licensed states.
(there is a reason for this - it's another subject)

So if people want licensing to improve their salaries, working conditions and respect in the optical community - they better join a union - they might have more success.

Each optician, each day makes choices the control the quality of service, product and working conditions. All opticians have the license to improve themselves and do a better job.

Laws don't make people, people make laws.

End of philosophy lesson.

[Corey Nicholls]

Say for instance that state XXX had licensing, and the licensing authorities had certain standards that to be licensed you had to abide by. If you actually had some form of random inspection by the governing authority, wouldn't it improve the quality of eyecare in that state?

Licensing is one thing, but it will do "Sweet Diddley Squat" if it is not enforced.

That's what I think anyway.........

[Homer]

I agree Corey, it would need to be regulated. Which of your 3 to 5 freinds(opticians who have be appointed to the regulatrory board) would you want to come and make a radom inspection as to your quality. What if one of them was you big competitor across the street?

Are you saying that unlicensed states generally have a much lower quality of optical products and services? Can you prove that?

Lawyers are licensed and have a regulatory body - does that improve the quality of service?

Just some sweetness to go along with your morning cup of coffee ;)

[Corey Nicholls]

True Homer, but for something like this to work, the inspectors would have to be employed soley by the board, and have no conflicts of interest.

As far as licensed Vs non licensed being worse or better in quality, at the moment you probably don't get much differance as the system for regulation itself isn't working in those states that have it. As I said above, if you have a truly independant regulatory body, with insectors, soley employed by that body, with no conflicting interests, I think you would see quality improve emormously. :cheers:

[Homer]

and what percentage of your gross sales or wages would you be willing to give up to see this happen? Or do you think we should put a tax on AR coating or premium lenses? Or make each optician's license be $500 to $700 per year?

I mean, somebody is going to have to pay a couple of inspectors / inforcement officers wages per state to do what you want.

[Alan W]

MD's cannot be licensed unless they are degreed.
Opticians can't get licensed unless they are degreed.

Then . . .
MD's can't specialized unless they are certified by a specialization board.
Opticians can't specialize unles they are certified by a board of specialization (clinical,cosmetic,manufacturing)

Then . . .
You can't practice medicine unless you are licensed.
You can't work as an optician unless you are licensed.

Then . . .
As an MD you can lose your license for misuse of drugs.
As an optician you can lose your license for using screws and nuts instead of retapping the hole and using a good screw?

Homer . .
Help me out here. I thought I was on a roll.

[Homer]

MD & or OD & or DO can not dispense eyewear unless that also have an optician's license.

Opticians can not practice medecine or optometry unless they have an appropriate license.

Opticians can be considered in violation of their licenses if they simply hand the patient a new pair of glasses and ask how it feels, without any attempt to customize the configuration of the visual appratace to conform to the patients unique facial features and visual requirements.

In addidion, if the old prescription, lens material, lens type and additional pairs of eyewear along with their designed purposes, are not recorded on the new order or have other appropriate documentation of such, they will also be in violation of the usual and customary standard of practice.

I agree, Alan, about the bolt and nut deal. That's high on my list too.

Homer

[Alan W]

We always put licensing in the context of getting one and then after having one it isn't worth much except the fees. But, if the licensee/optician has a heavy price over his head that would cause him to lose it, wouldn't that put some meat in it?

Or, it won't.

Or

Ahhh forget it....let's go bowling!