National Union for Opticians

[cocoisland58]

Yes, I know a lot of union people voted for George Bush. But most of them didn't .Some of them buy at Wal-Mart but most of them don't have a real choice because the other big box chains have followed Wal-marts lead in order to compete.

There is always a choice. I alway shop the locals if I can. I pay only a little more for my groceries and I actually like having the bags toted to the car. It's not always about getting the cheapest deal, it's about service, fresher produce, cheerful and helpful employees, and supporting the local economy. The UAW workers I know (friends and family) are the biggest whiners and most if not all of them try to get things as cheaply as humanly possible. I do not care for Union mentality and I grew up with the rank and file all around me.

[Johns]

(1.) It's interesting that most of the negative positions to this idea come from ownership positions.



(2.) When I started, I made what an average teacher did. Now teachers make much, much more. Why? Because of unions.


(3.) Now, although I think that teachers unions are way too powerful, I think Optical Professionals as a unified group could help us earn a decent wage .

(1.) Owners will pay what the market will allow. If you're worth it, you'll earn it. If you think you're worth it but not making it, go somewhere else. It's all your choice.

(2.) And how many schools are in fiscal receivership? How many have been taken over by their states because there's no accountability?

(3.) You earn a decent wage, and I presume it's based on your abilities.
Do you think everyone should be making the same wage just because they join a union? Why aren't they making a decent wage already? Aren't they adding value to the practice they are at? Why do they stay at a practice where they are not being paid what they're worth ? It's usually always personal choices. (The area they live, family situations, they don't have the skills, etc...)

[rdcoach5]

(1.) Owners will pay what the market will allow. If you're worth it, you'll earn it. If you think you're worth it but not making it, go somewhere else. It's all your choice.

(2.) And how many schools are in fiscal receivership? How many have been taken over by their states because there's no accountability?

(3.) You earn a decent wage, and I presume it's based on your abilities.
Do you think everyone should be making the same wage just because they join a union? Why aren't they making a decent wage already? Aren't they adding value to the practice they are at? Why do they stay at a practice where they are not being paid what they're worth ? It's usually always personal choices. (The area they live, family situations, they don't have the skills, etc...)

Do you pay each teacher in your district on their relative worth? do you pay each plumber or electrician on their relative abilities? Do you have any ability to rate them on such? You rely on their union qualifications . If they're not skilled, they never pass their journeyman's test, their state certification, whichever applies. What holds Opticians back is that there is always a huge pool of unskilled learn-on-the-job optical workers who are hired by Doctors or Opticians who don't want to pay more than minimum wage. As far as should all people in a union make the same wage? No and all teachers should not make the same either. All electicians , since we're using them as an example do NOT make the same wage, The union does set a minimum. Each company has the right to pay superior employees more.

[cocoisland58]

The union does set a minimum. Each company has the right to pay superior employees more.

Most unions set the scale at the same rate of pay for the same job performed. It doesn't matter if you hustle your butt off all day, you still make the same amount per hour as the guy who puts out the minimum effort. And just try to fire a lazy union employee.

[Andrew Weiss]

This is a really interesting thread . . .

I think it's a peculiarly US phenomenon to equate "union" with "socialist". The fact is, the US was one of very few advanced industrialized countries where unions did not take hold. Does that mean that all union members from other countries, where unions did take hold, are socialists? Does it mean that all union members here in the US are "closet" socialists?

My wife is from Australia. I'd guess most of us in the US think of Australia as a country with a similar culture to the US, especially in our emphasis on "rugged individualism". She is routinely shocked by the negative attitude that USers have toward unions, which have been so big in Australia that arbitration is written into the Australian constitution!

The whole idea of unionization was to try to equalize the playing field for workers and owners. When there's unemployed labor available, one worker doesn't have much influence or bargaining power with a big employer. It's pretty much "take it or leave it." Whether US unions have been short-sighted, rigid or corrupt is a whole other issue.

Traditionally, retail opticians haven't been in the same boat as traditionally-unionized workers. That is changing as larger employers, like LC, WalMart, CostCo, etc., are becoming major players in the retail world. Whether this will lead to unionization is anyone's guess. A union would apply better to folks who work for those companies than it would for folks like me who work for independents.

OK folks, there's my five cents (two cents with inflation :bbg:).

[Johns]

Do you pay each teacher in your district on their relative worth? do you pay each plumber or electrician on their relative abilities? Do you have any ability to rate them on such? You rely on their union qualifications .

My point exactly! Unions take away the worker's incentive to go beyond only what is necessary to collect the paycheck.

My son's teachers are not a union members.
My plumber is not a union. (He charged me $150 for a 10 minute house call last Thursday, and it was worth every penny.)
My mechanic is not a union mechanic (if there is such a thing).

Hey, anybody want to try a union brain surgeon?:hammer: "ouch"

[rdcoach5]

My point exactly! Unions take away the worker's incentive to go beyond only what is necessary to collect the paycheck.

My son's teachers are not a union members.
My plumber is not a union. (He charged me $150 for a 10 minute house call last Thursday, and it was worth every penny.)
My mechanic is not a union mechanic (if there is such a thing).

Hey, anybody want to try a union brain surgeon?:hammer: "ouch"

I live in America-Ohio. The only non-union teachers in Ohio work for the parochial schools. Even though the parochial teachers are not union, their wages have definitely benefited from the unions efforts in increasing wages. It is posible to get a non-union plumber in Ohio for moon-light jobs where the union plumber or electrician works illegally "under the table". Your auto mechanic may not be in a union but his fees are definitely influenenced by the prevailing wages.. If you think you got a deal for a $150 10 minute plumbers call, call me next time. And i hate plumbing! I was kidding -I really hate plumbing-don''t call me.

[Johns]

If you think you got a deal for a $150 10 minute plumbers call, call me next time. And i hate plumbing! I was kidding -I really hate plumbing-don''t call me.

I don't want a deal; I want vaule.

What's your number ?:cheers:

[Steve Machol]

My point exactly! Unions take away the worker's incentive to go beyond only what is necessary to collect the paycheck.

Really? So you admit then that your only incentive is monetary? If not, then why do you automatically jump to the conclusion that just because someone is a member of a Union they do not care about what they do and how well they do it?

Personally I take a lot of pride is what I do, but then again maybe that's just me. ;)

I do agree that Unions were too powerful at one time and this lead directly to their arrogance and demise. However I worked in the Electrical Workers Union (IBEW) as a 'helper' in the early 70s with my dad and I definitely saw the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Unions at that time.

In general about 1/3 or the Electrical Union workers were top-notch people, excelling at their jobs and taking pride in what they did. This was not just a job to them. It was a statement of who they were. (My Dad and both my Uncles were among this group, thankfully!)

Another 1/3 were your average workers, showing up and going to work every day but not making any extraordinary effort to excel.

Then there were the other third. These were people that milked their situation for whatever they could get and would actively try to do the minimum possible.

Now over 30 years later I can honestly say that roughly the same percentages applied in every workplace I worked at - and none of these were Union.

[Framebender]

but I have a problem with lazy union members not caring. B&L San Francisco was union when I worked there. We didn't allow no lazy people. Folks working the floor would run them off. That's just the way it was.

They did keep the suits from firing the 15 or so non English speaking Russians. That group taught me alot. They were the transition between hand crimping 25 jobs a day and being able to run a bank of edgers. And you could have eaten off any of those edgers.

I don't know what the answer is, but I believe that unification and new leadership is the place to start. I believe we have to prove our worth. I wouldn't want to be a young Optician today, yet many I know are just as eager as young puppies. They say ignorance is bliss, but these kids are sharp.

[Johns]

Then there were the other third. These were people that milked their situation for whatever they could get and would actively try to do the minimum possible.

These are the workers I was refering to. They are taking the same wages, but the most dilligent workers are doing the labor.

I worked in a union shop in the 1980s, and the waste and loss of production that I saw was unbelievable. (It was MacDill AFB, in Tampa)
The non-productive workers (one of whom was a union shop steward) would sit at their desks, watching a television, while we scrambled around the office trying to meet deadlines.

No, my only incentive is not monetary, but I would expect fair wages for a fair days work. I cannot say that I've seen the same 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 employee breakdown at places I've worked at over the last 30 years, because most places I worked at let you go if you didn't pull your weight.


I live minutes away from one of the largest (ex) union cities in the country; Youngstown, Ohio. You can drive by steel mill after steel mill that are shuttered. The 65 year old guys working at Home Depot will eagerly tell you how they knew guys that were making $50k a year (in the 1980s) sweeping just the paper. (They weren't allowed to sweep metal shavings because there were other sweepers that could do that under the contract) There were many outside factors that contributed to the steel mills closing, but having an overpaid workforce couldn't have helped any.


My Grandfather, Dad, and some of my uncles were union as well (Railroad). I have nothing against anyone that was ever in a union, nor would want to join one. Like you said, unions had their place and time.

[rdcoach5]

I actually was in a union (UAW) while employed as an optician for a health and retiree center owned by the UAW. Talk about a joke- come contract renewal time. Our union representative was the same UAW regional Rep. I mean he was the same person! He was our local rep and our boss at the same time. We would ask for a raise, he would leave the room for a few minutes and state that he had denied the request. No. I don't want anything like that union or the ones that greedily took as much as they could get at the expense of their company's and younger worker's future.I don't want a union that backs lazy or unethical people. I would like a union that does not necessarily give minimum pay but requires all in the field to hold certification or license.Lazy people exist in life union or not.

[Chris Ryser]

That is changing as larger employers, like LC, WalMart, CostCo, etc., are becoming major players in the retail world. Whether this will lead to unionization is anyone's guess. A union would apply better to folks who work for those companies than it would for folks like me who work for independents.

Walmart actually closed a couple of stores in 2005 because they got unionized. They play pretty rough.

Published on Thursday, February 10, 2005 by the Associated Press
As Union Nears Win, Wal-Mart Closes Store
by Adam Geller

NEW YORK - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. says it will close one of its Canadian stores, just as some 200 workers at the location are near winning the first-ever union contract from the world's largest retailer. Wal-Mart said it was shuttering the store in Jonquiere, Quebec, in response to unreasonable demands from union negotiators that would make it impossible for the store to sustain itself. .....................

see the whole story at : http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0210-13.htm

[nsg]

and the lab person who is also lic. by the state and abo and does dispensing? different unions for them?

[rdcoach5]

and the lab person who is also lic. by the state and abo and does dispensing? different unions for them?

Why would they be different?

[chip anderson]

AS to NSG's question. Surely we can have some sort of legislation against this. We just can't have people who know what they are doing in retail! For Shame!

[Chris Ryser]

and the lab person who is also lic. by the state and abo and does dispensing? different unions for them?

When you go to a show as for example VEE in New York you have to learn patience.

The who puts up the curtain racks to separate the booth from the next booth......can not hang up the curtain because curtains are in a different jurisdiction, thats for the curtain hanger union and not the racking union.

The guy that brings you a small parcel can not bring you a big box because that again is for another union. If you have 16 unions being in charge of an exhibition you can wait sometimes for hours to get what you need, Never trample around a unions territory or they will get very upset.

[rdcoach5]

Just because some unions have stupid rules doesn't mean we have to rule out an intelligent union that would require a minimum amount of education and certification. It's not right that the chains employ 8 opticians and only 1 is certified. If all opticians had to be certified, there would be a positive effect in all aspects of opticianry. This would lead to a more professional association instead of the great variety of opticians groups and variance in legal status in 50 different states. I really don't know why some of you think that we would follow some of the dumb mistakes of some other unions, especially now that everyone realizes those mistakes. We would try to get quality people like Mike Disanto involved. Sorry, Mike, but you're such a good speaker that you would be a natural for involvement in this. Anyway ,the negative comments I have received from this idea , come from negative reactions to those old ideas of unions. A UNION CAN BE ANYTHING WE CAN THINK UP.
Bob Taylor

[chip anderson]

Intelligent people have the personal where-with-all to get a raise, another job, or whatever they need. They don't need unions (My grandfather is rolling over in his grave for my saying this). Only the lazy, or the cajoneyless need unions.

Chip

[Mr_Mitchell]

May I respectfully ask for the umpteenth time (and no one has answered, just called me a "salesman" "fake optician" etc)...whether it's unionization or mandatory licensing, we're talking more money for opticians, so where does the money come from? Either glasses cost more or employers/owners make less money. That might be fine, I'm not saying it's not, but I am saying that it is absolutely wrong to think that hiring only "properly qualified" opticians (and thus paying them more than a "stylist") will make more money for the business. If that were true, why are the same people bashing LC for making so much money also deriding the "unqualified" opticians LC hires for theoretically preventing LC from making any money?
So, if it indeed will cost more, who pays? I'm gonna guess that no one here bashing me for being in it for the money (ie, feeling a sense of responsibility to my employer) would pay thousands for licensing, union dues, etc., and expect no more money than an untrained optician. So it ain't us who will pay.
The company? Well, I don't see any big chains looking to lower their profits.
Who does that leave? The consumer. We'll have the cheapest glasses going for 4 or 5 hundred bucks just as we have plumbers charging Trump wages to deal with the 5-pound bomb I dropped in the toilet after Thanksgiving dinner because they have to recoup their investment in licensing, union pay-offs, etc.
TECHNOLOGY HAS LESSENED OUR VALUE, not conspiracies from retailers or ignorance on the part of the public. Back when we neutralized lenses by hand an optician was worth more than he or she is now, just as many craftspeople are worth less now that computer-controlled devices operated by novices can equal or better their hand-crafted work.
I personally wish it was like the old days--I'm fascinated by optics. I also would like to put food in my daughter's belly, so guess what I'm most concerned with.
I know I'm gonna hear two arguments, as always:
One, that a more qualified optician generates repeat customers, less remakes, etc...I agree with that, but in the end it's how much money that produces and leading companies with loads of money to spend have researched it and found it's better to hire on the cheap. I personally think every dispensary needs one "wizard," but even that goes against what the market has apparently decided.
Two, I'll hear that we should want to improve not for money but because we want the word "optician" to mean something, to denote a level of skill and learning. I agree, and that's why I continue to learn. But I ain't asking that everyone else take the same path; I don't care one way or the other. My customers know I'm qualified after talking to me, and my ABO is as meaningless to them as it is to we who know how easy the ABO is.
Sorry so long-winded, but this "more money for us" theme keeps getting repeated ad infinitum, whether disguised as "more training" "more licensing" "unionization" or whatever. No one ever talks about where that money comes from.
I would ask that some of us look at the shoe-repair business, then look at the shoe-selling business. Would you advise an expert shoe repairman to get more licensing, etc...or would you tell him to sell some freakin shoes?
Happy Easter everyone, I know no one agrees with me but I really couldn't live without the knowledge and advice here on Optiboard. Cheers.

[rdcoach5]

Times have changed. Your era was the beginning of the end of the apprentice -to journeyman profession of opticianry. The great innovations such as keratoconus designs and other contact lens designs came from opticians. Now your generation is retiring and mine is close behind. The younger optical managers are led by people with 1/3 the experience in years and almost no contact lens experience. We , the opticians, used to be the major contact lens fitters. We are not now. only because of the constraints put on us by the organized optometrists organization, or UNION.The laws are skewed in their favor by making it mandatory to license opticians in opticians shops but not in Optometrist's offices or the chains. The regulations all favor optometry and chains at the expense of independent opticians. Back in the old days, you were paid what you were worth-now they don't have to pay more than minimum wage to opticians worth a lot more. Why ? because chains and independent optometry has greatly expanded, and independent opticians have suffered.

[Johns]

Either glasses cost more or employers/owners make less money. That might be fine, I'm not saying it's not, but I am saying that it is absolutely wrong to think that hiring only "properly qualified" opticians (and thus paying them more than a "stylist") will make more money for the business.



I know I'm gonna hear two arguments, as always:
One, that a more qualified optician generates repeat customers, less remakes, etc...I agree with that, but in the end it's how much money that produces and leading companies with loads of money to spend have researched it and found it's better to hire on the cheap. I personally think every dispensary needs one "wizard," but even that goes against what the market has apparently decided.



Two, I'll hear that we should want to improve not for money but because we want the word "optician" to mean something, to denote a level of skill and learning. I agree, and that's why I continue to learn. But I ain't asking that everyone else take the same path; I don't care one way or the other. My customers know I'm qualified after talking to me, and my ABO is as meaningless to them as it is to we who know how easy the ABO is.
Sorry so long-winded, but this "more money for us" theme keeps getting repeated ad infinitum, whether disguised as "more training" "more licensing" "unionization" or whatever. No one ever talks about where that money comes from.





I know no one agrees with me but I really couldn't live without the knowledge and advice here on Optiboard. Cheers.

As an owner, when I pay my people more, because they are good, I make more, not less.

I don't care about titles, names, or when it comes down to it, even licensing. If a guy walks, talk, acts, and makes money for me like good opticians can, and do, then I'm going to pay him whatever it takes to keep him/her on the job and making money for me. It's that simple.

Results equal results. I don't need a union to tell me that.

Last month we had a record month. The first thing I did on Monday is to call in the top performers that included the lab guys and receptionists, and gave raises, and in some cases, one time cash bonuses. It cost me about $7k uo front, that I could have put in my pocket, or put towards a new car for my wife (she drives a 2003 Windstar). My employees are smart people. They know that the success of my business depends on their hard work. By rewarding them, they know I appreciate their efforts. Again, why do I need a union to prompt me to reward my employees.

I do agree with some of the things you say, and I think we have the same end in mind, just different means.

[rdcoach5]

As an owner, when I pay my people more, because they are good, I make more, not less.

I don't care about titles, names, or when it comes down to it, even licensing. If a guy walks, talk, acts, and makes money for me like good opticians can, and do, then I'm going to pay him whatever it takes to keep him/her on the job and making money for me. It's that simple.

Results equal results. I don't need a union to tell me that.

Last month we had a record month. The first thing I did on Monday is to call in the top performers that included the lab guys and receptionists, and gave raises, and in some cases, one time cash bonuses. It cost me about $7k uo front, that I could have put in my pocket, or put towards a new car for my wife (she drives a 2003 Windstar). My employees are smart people. They know that the success of my business depends on their hard work. By rewarding them, they know I appreciate their efforts. Again, why do I need a union to prompt me to reward my employees.

I do agree with some of the things you say, and I think we have the same end in mind, just different means.

There would be no need for unions if all owners felt the way you do. Just compensation for work done. We have all seen the greed of certain employers who have only themselves in mind, financially

[Mr_Mitchell]

I don't care about titles, names, or when it comes down to it, even licensing. If a guy walks, talk, acts, and makes money for me like good opticians can, and do, then I'm going to pay him whatever it takes to keep him/her on the job and making money for me. It's that simple.

A big toast for that one! That's the answer. Be competent, produce, and a good employer will reward you. A bad employer won't, so quit that employer if you happen to work for one of the bad ones. Just because you're an optician doesn't mean you can't tend bar or wait tables until you find the right employer.
:cheers:

[Fezz]

As an owner, when I pay my people more, because they are good, I make more, not less.

I don't care about titles, names, or when it comes down to it, even licensing. If a guy walks, talk, acts, and makes money for me like good opticians can, and do, then I'm going to pay him whatever it takes to keep him/her on the job and making money for me. It's that simple.

Results equal results. I don't need a union to tell me that.

Last month we had a record month. The first thing I did on Monday is to call in the top performers that included the lab guys and receptionists, and gave raises, and in some cases, one time cash bonuses. It cost me about $7k uo front, that I could have put in my pocket, or put towards a new car for my wife (she drives a 2003 Windstar). My employees are smart people. They know that the success of my business depends on their hard work. By rewarding them, they know I appreciate their efforts. Again, why do I need a union to prompt me to reward my employees.

I do agree with some of the things you say, and I think we have the same end in mind, just different means.

Can you send me an application please?


;):cheers::bbg: