Eyeoverheard.com has an article about this that was posted today. http://eyeoverheard.wordpress.com/20...tlet/#more-735
Eyeoverheard.com has an article about this that was posted today. http://eyeoverheard.wordpress.com/20...tlet/#more-735
What an ignorant comment. It's the "free eye exam" which is only a refraction by untrained staff that is the problem. Also, the "College of Opticians" is not a school. Ugh!Originally Posted by eyeoverheard
He will have to pay over 38 million dollars.
From the Court of appeal :
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decis...09ONCA0019.pdf
Well, the Supreme Court say no to Bruce:
http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/A...aspx?e=1610311
Does he have it ? Can he come up with it? Will be interesting to see the story unfold.........................
Apparently he is conducting business as usual. I guess he has to work in order to pay the fines.
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/582967
The guy has sure got some balls.
The lack of brains and balls from our governing bodies and associations is far greater.
:hammer:
Awesome quote from a Spectator reporter.
That is to be expected. How about the judicial and enforcement bodies. Is this clown in contempt of court and if so why is he not residing in the local crossbar motel courtesy of the taxpayers?
That's a great question Dick! We have been asking ourselves that exact same question for about 5 years now??? Our College continues to ignore it hoping it will just magically disappear while humming with their fingers in their ears and their eyes closed.
This clown continues to blatantly defy all of the laws including tax evasion. Not only is he still operating, he continues to expand his franchises! It's true...there are suckers born every minute with money to invest!
Hey Eyemanflying
Suppose you were in a position to influence the College or even be part of the complaints resolution process. What course of action would you take that differs from the path the College of Optometrists and the College of Opticians have chosen?
Answering that would require knowing what COO's perspective , agenda & goals were . The fence sitting ,lack of action , lack of guts suggests that their view point was different from that of a disciplinary body insistent on upholding the present laws.
If you believe that their agenda was to uphold present laws then there were lots of actions that needed to be taken that were quite different from the ones that unfolded .
Last edited by Refractingoptician.com; 06-16-2009 at 01:58 AM.
Based on your response, I can only assume I've hit a chord and you're associated into the COO mix somehow.
I will gladly share my opinion...first, get yourself a glass of warm milk and a blanket.
This bedtime story is called 'Optical Politics at it's Best; Do as I Say, Not as I Do'!
First Chapter...
One day in the optical forest, there two Colleges with two boards and their main purpose was to 'PROTECT THE PUBLIC'. Over the last few years, both Colleges failed this task miserably and continue to do so.
A rocket scientist was never required here...it was simple; all we needed was an experienced, dynamic lawyer and someone from either College to blow the whistle and take immediate action. Obviously, this never happened. And you certainly can't tell me there wasn't a legal fund set aside for this type of thing.
This whole GG shamble was happening for a very long period of time before any actions or proceedings were ever initiated. Everyone just sat around, had numerous dinner meetings, continued to 'network' and travel the world looking to make new 'optical friends' and have their pictures taken. Look at how much fun we're having! Let's show our members by posting our mugs in various trade magazines and newsletters.
Second Chapter...
Then one day Goldilocks got up to refill her wine glass...low and behold there was a giant stack of complaints from the public and its' own members rolling in on GG. Oh my, what should we do?
Let's look into having Opticians refract! This is a great idea! Not only will it further worsen the relationship with the OD's while expanding our scope, we will be wagging the dog by it's tail and we know every optician will love us if we are successful with this challenge!
Now, let's develop another B.S. acronym committee and hope the government will approve refraction and then we won't have to raise the legal issue with GG anymore because it will all be legal and approved. The world will be wonderful and this will all go away. Yay!
Third Chapter...
Meanwhile back in the forest, the big bad GG wolf continued to blatantly disregard the laws, rules and regulations and performed naughty, low quality illegal eye exams. He knew nobody would ever have the courage to challenge him.
Fourth Chapter...
Is titled 'Now Let's Keep Everything to Ourselves and Not Keep Our Members Informed'.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch the GG wolf now owes the goverment $42M he doesn't have or ever will. And the Colleges still have egg on their face while the big bad wolf continues to operate all of his locations on a daily basis while laughing at everyone! (Insert sinister laugh track here)
Moral to the story...
Carry a big stick.
Don't be shy to flex your family jewels.
Timing is key and immediate action is sometimes required.
Communication and updates are extremely valuable for support.
I will leave this food for thought...
If this scenario was a non-registered illegal pharmacist advertising he will provide illegal prescriptions to the public and then fill those same Rx's with drugs, would he still be in business? I don't think so. So, why is GG still in business? There's nothing different about our scenario.
:hammer:
The End
You forgot to mention while this was all going on they started allowing opticians from BC with 6 months of school and no experience.While our young folks have to jump through all the hoops (log books, hours, fittings)
We have tried over the last two week to get in touch with the college and only get machines and no call backs. One of the suppliers of not so great glasses is now in the college.
The college once looked after the public and opticians.
NO LONGER
Last edited by Mr.Fedup; 06-16-2009 at 12:37 PM.
Nothing surprising about this . Until Opticians are willing to be like auto workers and teachers nothing is going to change .
You can all talk about "having a Voice " and " being the official Voice " but until the day comes that opticians are willing to stop work and strike and be heard then it is just going to be the same tomorrow as it was last week .
And next week there will be another GG starting up .
Teachers and auto workers and civil servants got their pensions and benefits by striking and not taking this "----" .
Stop sending in your renewal checks en mass . They could not stop 17 stores ...what would happen if 200 or 2000 opticians actually put up some resistance ?
But hey , I like getting paid in 1991 dollars for MCSS work . I like footing the legal bills for watering down the value of my license . How about you ?
Great point!!!:cheers:
By the way, welcome to Optiboard!
:cheers:
Does anyone know how long it has been since the misconduct hearing for Bergez ended ? Why has there been no decision yet or did I miss the COO decision ? Please tell me it is not 8 months .
What's the difference when the hearing ended. The guy owes 45 mill, has had his license suspended for two years, and has run an illegal operation for 7+ years. It appears the COO is incapable or unwilling to stop these stores. In fact it was the College of Optometrists that began the whole prosecution. I think part of the agenda early on was to try to sneak refraction through the back door. So you have a governing body with vested interests. It's just not the COO, but there are many instances with other groups.
The question still remains : "what was the decision and outcome of the hearing ?" Hasn't it been long enough ?
And if you want credit for optometry initiating the action , keep this in mind :
(1) optometry has not been any more successful in stopping it
(2) as the BC judge indicated , Optometry has a few CHARTER VIOLATIONS to deal with in their own backyard . So be careful when you mention "vested" interests , your governing body has a few "issues " too . Perhaps your association could initiate a clean up.
I believe I said "there are many instances with other groups". The US backed the mujahedeen in the 80's in Afghanistan and from that group came a guy named Bin Laden. Don't be so sensitive.
Optometry cannot shut down an optical store any more than they can control a pharmacy or a physician. Optometry, after consultation and then inaction with opticianry, went the only route they could: civil action. Optometry was successful in that action. Who would think that Bergez would spend probably hundreds of thousands on legal fees and appeal to the supreme court?
I'm not familiar with the BC case you mention and charter violations.
Last edited by optical maven; 06-19-2009 at 02:20 PM.
In Ontario did the College of Optometry permit an optometrist to hire an Optician ?
The Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms guarantees the FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Anything that would prevent 2 (d) would be a violation .
Last edited by Refractingoptician.com; 06-19-2009 at 05:01 PM.
I would agree that the associaton laws are ridiculous and need to be changed. In fact they are being changed and hopefully new laws will be in place soon. Of course there is still a difference of opnion as to whether the changes will make everyone happy.
In my opinion , the current laws in Ontario are a disgrace for Optometry and certainly demonstrate the worst in Charter of Freedom violations and the height of "vested interest" protectionism . How could such an otherwise "professional" organization justify hiring people off the street with absolutely no training whatsoever versus hiring someone with 2 years training and dedication ?
Today , can an optometrist hire an Optician or to be legal would the Optician have to give up his/her Opticians's license first ??
Last edited by Refractingoptician.com; 06-22-2009 at 11:22 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks