Another Great Glasses article

**Ory** · 03-08-2010, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by eyemanflying

It must be that good ole Chicago Kool-Aid. We could definitely use some of that up here. :D

No, he's right. Patients are amazingly unobservant in the exam room. It is routine to make 1/2D changes and get a very unsure response. 1/4D is downright painful most of the time. Sure there are those extremely picky people out there, but they sure don't make up 10% of the population. Where do you get that as the "national average" of remakes, because if that is so I am waaaaaay under that average.

I would be really curious to see the following scenario: Every patient who comes in and requires a redo gets a brand new pair of lenses in the exact same Rx. How many would go away because there was a minor distortion in a lens or because that patient is convinced they "always have trouble with new glasses." I really wonder how many redos are Rx related vs. some outside/secondary factor.

**Oedema** · 03-09-2010, 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by eyemanflying

It must be that good ole Chicago Kool-Aid. We could definitely use some of that up here. :D

Nah, now that I'm in BC.... Alcohol, mood altering Rx drugs, and BC bud, or some some combination thereof. Damn west coast hippies!

**eyemanflying** · 03-10-2010, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by Ory

No, he's right. Patients are amazingly unobservant in the exam room. It is routine to make 1/2D changes and get a very unsure response. 1/4D is downright painful most of the time. Sure there are those extremely picky people out there, but they sure don't make up 10% of the population. Where do you get that as the "national average" of remakes, because if that is so I am waaaaaay under that average.

I would be really curious to see the following scenario: Every patient who comes in and requires a redo gets a brand new pair of lenses in the exact same Rx. How many would go away because there was a minor distortion in a lens or because that patient is convinced they "always have trouble with new glasses." I really wonder how many redos are Rx related vs. some outside/secondary factor.

I agree and am convinced that there is usually an underlying reason that never surfaces. I remember in my ole retail days of processing a doctor's change and the customer would ask if it was ok to change the frame model at the same time and the Rx only changed 0.25D or a few degrees on the CYL! And back then I was young and inexperienced and would be scratching my head.

That national average I was referring to a few posts back includes remakes for all reasons; including doctor's changes which is probably only a small portion.

**AnotherOD** · 04-18-2010, 09:06 PM

Umm, speaking of the eyecare leadership... shouldn't there be any rules against high-ranking leaders having commercial interests in publicly traded companies like Eyelogic/Coastal etc.?

These individuals are obviously are privy to certain amounts of possibly confidential information, which can be used to advance the business interests of these companies.

**idispense** · 04-19-2010, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by AnotherOD

Umm, speaking of the eyecare leadership... shouldn't there be any rules against high-ranking leaders having commercial interests in publicly traded companies like Eyelogic/Coastal etc.?

These individuals are obviously are privy to certain amounts of possibly confidential information, which can be used to advance the business interests of these companies.

I am very surprised with optometry about this .

**optical maven** · 04-30-2010, 01:24 PM

So is the Great Glasses saga now dead? Is he here to stay and is there nothing anyone can do to stop him from breaking the law? If so, it means anyone in Ontario can examine eyes and sell eyewear. Is he paying his fines? As the opticians' Canadian and Ontario associations say: We are increasing people's choice.

**Refractingoptician.com** · 04-30-2010, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by optical maven

So is the Great Glasses saga now dead? Is he here to stay and is there nothing anyone can do to stop him from breaking the law? If so, it means anyone in Ontario can examine eyes and sell eyewear. Is he paying his fines? As the opticians' Canadian and Ontario associations say: We are increasing people's choice.

If there is someone doing something about it, it surely is not who should have been doing it all along .

**Refractingoptician.com** · 04-30-2010, 07:49 PM

Ontario Opticians Smarten Up before it is too late . In BC anyone can dispense . Don't let that happen here .

...Go to the College meetings and see for yourself . Your Future is worth it .

... There are good people working to protect opticianry, but most of you are in the wrong camp and don't even know it.

**LandLord** · 05-01-2010, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Refractingoptician.com

Ontario Opticians Smarten Up before it is too late . In BC anyone can dispense . Don't let that happen here .

...Go to the College meetings and see for yourself . Your Future is worth it .

... There are good people working to protect opticianry, but most of you are in the wrong camp and don't even know it.

Which camps are you referring to?

**Flybynight** · 05-01-2010, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by LandLord

Which camps are you referring to?

"There are good people working to protect opticianry, but most of you are in the wrong camp and don't even know it."

Would you let me know in which camp I should pitch my tent. I'm not sure where to nail in the pegs or who I should camp with. All help would be appreciated.

**Refractingoptician.com** · 05-02-2010, 11:03 AM

The first place to pitch your tent is at the College meetings so you can personally see the problem. it begins with your Registrar and the Councillors. You have to see it to believe it and just one meeting isn't enough. One will open your eyes, two meetings will confirm what you could not believe and 3 meetings will disgust you so much you will wonder who ever voted in those Councillors. It is very difficult to believe that one person is actually an employee and yet the employee is telling the bosses ( Councillors ) what to do . It is *** backwards . What is worse is that half the Councillors are wimps with no guts to fix what they must know is wrong . We must hope that MOH appoints a supervisor to straighten out these Councillors.

**Refractingoptician.com** · 05-02-2010, 11:17 AM

We have to hope that a supervisor will be appointed because so far there is not enough opticians with balls enough to show up to the College meetings to see the truth. And 15 opticians would very seriously overcrowd the place that was supposeably just renovated at a huge cost .

Councillors would not permit their own business to be run like the College is. Councillors would not put up with insubordination in their own businesses. However, running the College is not their own business nor are they spending their own money. It is your money that is running out the door like a leaky faucet turned on full .

It is because opticians do not give two hoots about their future and Councillors know that optician members will not show up to meetings, that Councillors can run everything amok. They are not afraid because they know opticians don't have the guts and fortitude to stand up for right and wrong . If opticians would show up to meetings the BergerSleezer could have been stopped a long time ago. And some firings would have occurred a long time ago.

**cleyes** · 05-02-2010, 03:56 PM

Eyelogic probably invented for MD's so they could eliminate time consuming refractions done by "highly trained" techs, thereby increasing patient load. If highly accurate with a low redo rate, I can see them running to buy... most of them hate refracting. I have seen auto refractor printouts handed to patients as a valid Rx in NY, when these machines were just glorified retinoscopes.

**NorthStar** · 05-06-2010, 08:36 PM

AG finally taking action? Seizing GG assets and jail time - should be interesting how this plays out.

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/764181

**LandLord** · 05-06-2010, 09:11 PM

doubt he will go to jail, but even if he does go for a year, it's probably worth the millions to him

**optical maven** · 05-07-2010, 01:02 PM

If the Attorney General is involved it is now serious. If they let this go unpunished it affects the whole RHPA and enforcement for any indiscretion of the act. That is, someone who scales teeth (a contolled act) without a license can point to this case as precedent if nothing is done. If there is no enforcement and subsequent consequence of the act, it is meaningless.

**idispense** · 05-07-2010, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by optical maven

If the Attorney General is involved it is now serious. If they let this go unpunished it affects the whole RHPA and enforcement for any indiscretion of the act. That is, someone who scales teeth (a contolled act) without a license can point to this case as precedent if nothing is done. If there is no enforcement and subsequent consequence of the act, it is meaningless.

Coastal Contacts is going unchallenged in Ontario & Alberta, so the act is already meaningless .

Only last year , a past President refused to take action against an internet vendor operating out of the GTA. What does that tell you ?

At best we have a two tiered system.

Joining the Society might be the only course of action . The Society has been proactive and outspoken. The other group has not even shown up at COO meetings recently .

I have some doubts about the seriousness of the AG. GG would have known that eventually the AG would get involved and yet that did not stop him from coming this far and he has not taken flight.

Coastal won in BC and did not get a reprimand or penalty. What's different here ?

**Refractingoptician.com** · 05-07-2010, 02:39 PM

If you were pushing 60 ish , and had 58 million available to pay the fine, would you self represent yourself in court against the battery of seasoned and disciplined lawyers like the AG would have at his disposal and budget? Would you risk jail versus heading for a non-extraditable country like perhaps sunny Costa Rica ?

Does this really add up ? Do you really think BB thinks he will lose ? Do you think BB is worried ?

In BC The Minister of Health over ruled a Provincial Judge at the very last moment. What is BB banking on ?

**Refractingoptician.com** · 05-07-2010, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by NorthStar

AG finally taking action? Seizing GG assets and jail time - should be interesting how this plays out.

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/764181

What assets are going to be seized ?

**AnotherOD** · 05-09-2010, 04:31 PM

Given that what GG does would be perfectly legal in BC, does that take away some of the teeth of those in Ontario who are prosecuting him?

**idispense** · 05-09-2010, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by AnotherOD

Given that what GG does would be perfectly legal in BC, does that take away some of the teeth of those in Ontario who are prosecuting him?

The answer to that depends on whether you think , GG is being prosecuted or whether you believe the opposite is true,,, GG is prosecuting them .

**idispense** · 05-09-2010, 09:32 PM

A motion to close 4 stores only and/or put those 4 stores into receivership and to possibly commit 1 person to 2 years in jail and/or commit another person to 1 year in jail is not worth 58 million dollars.

Now lets just think on this a minute . IF each of 4 stores had ( and I don't think they do) 2000 frames each then there would be 8000 frames total. Now if at wholesale, those frames were worth ( and they are not ) 25.00 each , then the entire inventory is worth a whopping $ 200,000.00 . Now all of the premises, & equipment will be leased . So the net assets at wholesale , not at liquidation prices is 200,000.00 .

Now if you could spend 2 years in jail , keep 20 out of 24 stores , not pay 58 million in exchange for old frames not worth $ 200,000.00 and stillk keep the proceeds from all your stores , not pay 400,000.00 in out standing legal bills ,,,,, then tell me again who is prosecuting whom ?

**LandLord** · 05-09-2010, 10:35 PM

Maybe if he threatens to move his company to another province, the government will announce a chance to Ontario laws.

It worked for Coastal Contacts.

**Chris Ryser** · 05-10-2010, 04:13 AM

Obviously it has gotten all of you nowhere. It was interesting to follow the legal procedures which ended up in the sand with no action despite judgements rendered.

I would assume that the glasses sold in their various stores nrver even approach the quantity delivered into Ontario by the various on line sellers who do not recognize borders or local state or provincial laws.

The 10 largest ones produce an estimated 20 to 25,000 pairs a day of which most of them are going to addresses in North America, which includes Canada. The second largest is Essilor owned by majority of their shares. So they could be a much larger threat than any of the Great Glasses ever were, so why is this subject not touched in this thread?

How long will it be until you have a branch of Frames Direct working right out of Toronto ?

**idispense** · 05-10-2010, 05:22 AM

Originally Posted by Chris Ryser

Obviously it has gotten all of you nowhere. It was interesting to follow the legal procedures which ended up in the sand with no action despite judgements rendered.

I would assume that the glasses sold in their various stores nrver even approach the quantity delivered into Ontario by the various on line sellers who do not recognize borders or local state or provincial laws.

The 10 largest ones produce an estimated 20 to 25,000 pairs a day of which most of them are going to addresses in North America, which includes Canada. The second largest is Essilor owned by majority of their shares. So they could be a much larger threat than any of the Great Glasses ever were, so why is this subject not touched in this thread?

How long will it be until you have a branch of Frames Direct working right out of Toronto ?

Conversations with various licensing bodies will bring you this answer : " The internet can not be controlled " or " What jurisdiction does the sale take place in ? Does it take place at the customer location or the place the order was shipped from ? "

It is much easier for antiquated licensing bodies to only concern themselves with the "on-paper" registrants that they think they can control .