SAVE $$ on License Renewal Fees

[Refractingoptician.com]

If you want to save $$ on your Ontario License renewal fees , or other provinces for that matter , start selling and dispensing Rx eyewear on line . To qualify be sure to sell bifocals and progressives without taking seg heights.

Ontario, by their inactions , has created a new class of "optician" . It would seem that if you are registered with the Colleges and submit to their payment and fees schedule they will pursue you for infractions, but not perform their own duties to protect the public . It would seem that if you are not registered and openly defy the laws of the province of Ontario by selling on line without a license, then the College has a "do nothing" history of not pursuing offenders. Essentially Ontario has reduced their dues paying members to the same plight as BC opticians . Can anyone dispute this and point to a history of pursuing illegal, unauthorized, on line dispensing or giving away of thousands of RX glasses ?

So if you want to avoid $ 900.00 licensing fees , Years of education and avoid Continuing Education expenses and avoid the unpleasantries of facing discipline proceedings, then it seems like you just have to start selling RX eyewear on line and not send in your renewal fees . Any one want to dispute this ?

If it is fair for the on line unlicensed vendors then it should be fair for the legal dues paying members. Don't pay for inaction !

This new class of "optician" has been created especially for those opticians who do not want to pay fee increases, legal fees in the multi millions of dollars , or brick and mortar rents .

So if you want to save $$ join the crowd . If you want to be treated like a second class citizen , keep your license, pay your fees.

Comments ?

[eyemanflying]

You go first. Check back in and give us all a progress report after the first quarter to see if the increase in volume has offset the unpaid annual fees.

[Refractingoptician.com]

You go first. Check back in and give us all a progress report after the first quarter to see if the increase in volume has offset the unpaid annual fees.

But do you disagree that the application of the laws are selective and discriminatory aganst licensed members ?

Do you believe that there are two classes of "opticians" , those that Colleges will pursue for infractions and those that they will not pursue ?

[eyemanflying]

But do you disagree that the application of the laws are selective and discriminatory aganst licensed members ?

Do you believe that there are two classes of "opticians" , those that Colleges will pursue for infractions and those that they will not pursue ?

It does seem to target and centre out those that are licenced and pay their dues (which in my opinion is *** backwards).

There is only one class of optician - those that are 'licenced and registered'. All others are considered in a class of their own - 'illegal dispensers'...to which should wear the targets on their backs.

[Refractingoptician.com]

It does seem to target and centre out those that are licenced and pay their dues (which in my opinion is *** backwards).

There is only one class of optician - those that are 'licenced and registered'. All others are considered in a class of their own - 'illegal dispensers'...to which should wear the targets on their backs.

They used to be unauthorized and illegal, but if COO is not going to pursue them then they are in fact legalizing them , thereby creating 2 classes of "Opticians" both of which can dispense.

This inaction means that there is no longer a need to have a self governing body because they have failed in their self proclaimed mandate to protect the public.

They have now endangered their own members and reduced them to the level of British Columbia , the lowest common denominator .

A regulatory body can not have two classes of "opticians" , those that they will prosecute and those that they refuse to prosecute.

[eyemanflying]

Heck, we all may as well start our own internet eyewear companies and develop two price lists - one with no service, expertise, measuring or warranty, but the ability to pick it up at your store...the other done with all the bells and whistles by a licenced individual.

Consumers then have a choice. It will also give coastal a run for the money and the ability to penetrate local markets.

[idispense]

Heck, we all may as well start our own internet eyewear companies and develop two price lists - one with no service, expertise, measuring or warranty, but the ability to pick it up at your store...the other done with all the bells and whistles by a licenced individual.

Consumers then have a choice. It will also give coastal a run for the money and the ability to penetrate local markets.

Ah yes , just like the 2 price lists the Colleges use .

[Refractingoptician.com]

Their price list goes like this :
Charge full price to members :
(1) then give interest free , extended payment plan loans to offenders, while the regulators fly off to Switzerland .
(2) spend multiple millions on legal bills that drag on for years and years , then raise the fees to opticians.
(3) Offload the revenue base to other organizations like N - - - -
(4) Charge nothing to illegal dispensers, Do not spend a dime trying to stop them while they tell RO's there is nothing
they can do .
(5) Let a unregulated province take over Ontario's "Registered Optician" name and trademark it . Will that province want
a contract to sell it back to Ontario ?

[Doug]

If you want to save $$ on your Ontario License renewal fees , or other provinces for that matter , start selling and dispensing Rx eyewear on line . To qualify be sure to sell bifocals and progressives without taking seg heights.

Ontario, by their inactions , has created a new class of "optician" . It would seem that if you are registered with the Colleges and submit to their payment and fees schedule they will pursue you for infractions, but not perform their own duties to protect the public . It would seem that if you are not registered and openly defy the laws of the province of Ontario by selling on line without a license, then the College has a "do nothing" history of not pursuing offenders. Essentially Ontario has reduced their dues paying members to the same plight as BC opticians . Can anyone dispute this and point to a history of pursuing illegal, unauthorized, on line dispensing or giving away of thousands of RX glasses ?

So if you want to avoid $ 900.00 licensing fees , Years of education and avoid Continuing Education expenses and avoid the unpleasantries of facing discipline proceedings, then it seems like you just have to start selling RX eyewear on line and not send in your renewal fees . Any one want to dispute this ?

If it is fair for the on line unlicensed vendors then it should be fair for the legal dues paying members. Don't pay for inaction !

This new class of "optician" has been created especially for those opticians who do not want to pay fee increases, legal fees in the multi millions of dollars , or brick and mortar rents .

So if you want to save $$ join the crowd . If you want to be treated like a second class citizen , keep your license, pay your fees.

Comments ?

If you're an Ontario resident your idiotic scheme wouldn't work as you would be in direct violation of the provincial regulations and you put you at the greatest risk of reprimand from your board. Furthermore, encouraging others to follow your "****-eyed" theory is disappointing G.

[eyemanflying]

Doug D., meet Gary W.; Gary meet Doug.

Agreed; just gotta hang tight and weather the storm...this sort of thing eventually blows over. Although the coastal thing is very slowly encroaching on marketshare, one (local retailer/practice) cannot blame them for any drop in revenue since their market drawing is mostly North American and even globally obtained.

It should make retailers/practices sharpen their pencils and be more adaptive to economic changes - as change is inevitable, survival is not. Although the high margin gravy train is slowing, last time I checked, I could still make a complete of eyewear for around $50.00 with a decent profit.

[idispense]

If you're an Ontario resident your idiotic scheme wouldn't work as you would be in direct violation of the provincial regulations and you put you at the greatest risk of reprimand from your board. Furthermore, encouraging others to follow your "****-eyed" theory is disappointing G.

Seems to me that it might be more likely that Ontario's regulator and council would be in direct violation of it's own mandate to protect the residents of Ontario . There is a reason that the name College of Opticians of "Ontario" contains the word "Ontario" If they choose not to warn the residents of Ontario about internet vending or unauthorized dispensing of eyewear and if we they did nothing to request a cease and desist of internet vending and dispensing in their province of regulation then in fact only the regulator and its council would be disappointing.

[idispense]

Doug D., meet Gary W.; Gary meet Doug.

Agreed; just gotta hang tight and weather the storm...this sort of thing eventually blows over. Although the coastal thing is very slowly encroaching on marketshare, one (local retailer/practice) cannot blame them for any drop in revenue since their market drawing is mostly North American and even globally obtained.

It should make retailers/practices sharpen their pencils and be more adaptive to economic changes - as change is inevitable, survival is not. Although the high margin gravy train is slowing, last time I checked, I could still make a complete of eyewear for around $50.00 with a decent profit.

Retailers are already sharpening their pencils and it might be a good idea for Regulators to sharpen theirs . Perhaps they might reduce their exorbitant travel expenses and stay within the province of their own jurisdiction and perhaps even the country of their own jurisdiction would be a good start.

After that they could learn what pencils were originally intended for . 10 provinces might even try using one to write to the search engines demanding they obey the laws of the countries that they do business in . Might even write to some MPs about that. Might cost them all of 10.00 bucks for stationary.

It would cost a lot less to do it than argue about it.

[eyemanflying]

Retailers are already sharpening their pencils and it might be a good idea for Regulators to sharpen theirs . Perhaps they might reduce their exorbitant travel expenses and stay within the province of their own jurisdiction and perhaps even the country of their own jurisdiction would be a good start.

After that they could learn what pencils were originally intended for . 10 provinces might even try using one to write to the search engines demanding they obey the laws of the countries that they do business in . Might even write to some MPs about that. Might cost them all of 10.00 bucks for stationary.

It would cost a lot less to do it than argue about it.

I agree their is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the necessity of a global travel budget within the Regulators. The backyard in which you regulate is the absolute boundary to where any such authority or travel funds must be kept.

If any one regulator member chooses to attend any North American or global hob-knob events to pad their resume or compare curriculum notes on status quo, the funds required for such should originate from their own pocket and not be able to expense it back to the COO. Video and tele-conferencing is great technology, so lets utilize it.

There is no 'check and balance' process or due diligence within club COO. Lets all remind oursleves here that their revenue is soley derived from members fees and college exams.

As time passes and no action is taken to the multitude of ongoing shenanigans, opticians will take charge of their own demise and do whatever they have to do to survive - including internet sales. Call it what you may - good ole vigilante justice or survival of the fittest.

[Refractingoptician.com]

I am not against internet sales by licensed opticians within the boundaries of their provincial standards of practise, but I am against unauthorized dispensing by unlicensed people within the jurisdictional boudaries of a regulated province.

I am against wasteful spending by regulators who gag their members while they scream " Accountability, Commitment, Accessibility" from their web site and in the same breath Offer us a " NEW ELECTION ...... as a result of a procedural error with some ballots received from District 6 "

I am against a Council that can justify darn near 2 million in legal fees for one offender yet they can't justify a 10.00 letter to stop internet unauthorized dispensing. Another 300.00 would probably get them a letter on a lawyers letterhead.

Everyone one of you should remember how our mailboxes & home pages used to be filled with penis enlargement , breast enhancement, and on line pharamacy ads . That no longer happens. Do you know why ? It doesn't happen because somebody got off their collective high horse , got off their backsides and did something about it other than pay lip service to it.

The fact is Provincial regulators all meet through NACOR and they have the ability to do something about this. It is time they used the NACOR meeting ground to do it.

Enough lame "we can't do anything " excuses Councilors.

[Refractingoptician.com]

Eloquently and well said Eyemanflying. Thank you

[Refractingoptician.com]

Doug, $$ is the only thing that will inspire some. Cut it off and they have a huge problem and will quickly come to realize their quiet members are fed up. Our customers vote with their dollars , we should be no different.

[Refractingoptician.com]

Doug , give me one good reason why we should accept this behaviour from our Regulators . Do you have one ?

Doug , GOOGLE is voting with it's ad revenue $$ to accept advertisements that they must know violate state and provincial laws . IF they can vote with their $$ and our customers can do the same and our regulators are voting not to spend their/our $$ to uphold their fidiciary duties then explain your position .

This time think it out.

[Refractingoptician.com]

Our regulators spend more money giving away coffee, donuts, & pop in a single meeting than it would take to run an effective anti-internet illegal dispensing campaign.

They spend more $$ reimbursing travel costs for councilors to get to do nothing meetings than it would cost to run a anti-illegal internet dispensing campaign for a year.

So why do they not want to do it ? Do they want deregulation and two classes of "opticians" ?

[LandLord]

Refract, I agree with you 100% on this. There ARE 2 classes. We ARE getting screwed. We SHOULD stop paying our fees.

Its the practicality and likelihood of it happening that I disagree on.

Most opticians (80%?) work for someone else who won't LET them work unlicensed.

IMO that is a brick wall that stops any campaign to "inspire" opticians to revolt. Not going to happen.

[Refractingoptician.com]

If you have a suggestion that you feel would work , feel free to express it.

Those Councillors need to have their revenue stream cut off to bring them to their knees so they will either leave or change their ways. Stop paying them is the best course of action . Or a joint law suit , claiming damages for not prosecuting GG in a reasonable fashion and not warning the public about GG and doing nothing about illegal unauthorized internet dispensing in Ontario and not warning the public about the pitfalls of unauthorized illegal dispensing within a regulated province.

Optometry needs to get on the ball too !

[LandLord]

I don't know how to fix the immediate problems we face. My suggestions are more long term. More opticians should be self employed as other professions are. Opticians should specialize in work that cannot be performed by unlicensed individuals. You don't see turf wars in eye surgery because it is too difficult to do without going to medical school. On the otherhand, I can hire a girl from Tim Hortons and have her dispensing glasses in just a few weeks. Not that I would.

[Refractingoptician.com]

North Carolina has taken a stance to regulte e-business and inspect their records and license the store as well as the opticians


http://www.ncopticians.org/SBORulesS...on-Oct2010.pdf

Ontario used to be leaders in the regulation field

[Doug]

Doug , give me one good reason why we should accept this behaviour from our Regulators . Do you have one ?

Doug , GOOGLE is voting with it's ad revenue $$ to accept advertisements that they must know violate state and provincial laws . IF they can vote with their $$ and our customers can do the same and our regulators are voting not to spend their/our $$ to uphold their fidiciary duties then explain your position .

This time think it out.

Simply put, don't encourage others to violate the law...that's all I was stating. There's more productive ways to tackle your concern. If the council is ineffective, it starts at the top with the president and works its way down all the way to the last councilor. Why do they need so many meetings? The councilors are representatives from across the province, why do they need to meet in person? I've been using Skype for years to communicate with colleagues across Canada and north America. Why cant the board use technology to reduce their operating costs?

What's the cost of a meeting? A dozen councilors staying at a hotel for the night would ring up close to $2400 in Toronto. Throw in travel costs and the cost doubles, if not triples. So tell me what do you get from a $5000+ meeting? What trailblazing decisions have they made? You still can't refract; internet dispensers are still dispensing with no license; you still can't have an OD in your dispensary; if you wanted to work for an OD, you'd still have to give up your license; yes Mr Bergez is going to jail, but I believe the shops are still open... at least some are. Again what's being discussed.

[Refractingoptician.com]

Doug, COO under present leadership/stewardship has demonstrated no intention, that I can see, of dealing with the internet illegal and unauthorized dispensing even though it is their responsibility , just as it is the responsibility of the OD's to deal with it. COO is breaking their legislated mandate to protect the public. COO 's present Council and Registrar are breaking their mandate , the mandate that is the reason for their very existence ! Not paying them is the only recourse and the ultimate recourse that members have to bring them back into line.

The inaction of COO's councilors has created and allowed unauthorized dispensing to become rampant and go unchecked. COO's Exec is discriminating against its own membership and the public by creating two classes of "opticians" , the legal ones that they will prosecute and the illegal ones which they won't prosecute.

Tell me again who is violating the law ?


Whose rule is it that says opticians can't have an OD in their dispensary ? Show me that rule.

Also whose rule is it that says an optician has to give up his license to work for an OD ? That is against the Charter of Rights and an insult to all Canadians and is strictly the device of the OD College. They have lost in court before on this matter ,have they not ?

Perhaps the OD College needs an awakening ?

[Refractingoptician.com]

In this country , we normally believe in democracy and the voting process to maintain order until the effectiveness of that is disproven.