Advantages of Licenses

[chip anderson]

What advantages do we really feel licensing will give us?
1) Get rid of them that's not as good as us?
2) Provide a method of keeping our compeditor from presenting some sort of service that we cannot?
3) Cut down on the amount of competition out there.
4) Stop mail order competions?
5) Make sure that we are all we should be?
6) Give us some sort of control over the competion?
7) Make us all equal so we won't be so cut-throat amoung our peers?
8) Make the help in the doctor's office have to comply with our rules (fat chance).
9) So we can be sure that our help will be up to stuff when we hire them?

Forget all of the above, as long as the government feels that trade and particularly lack of restraint of same is the most important issure, it ain't gonna happen. We will just get more restrictions (sponsored by the compeditive "O's" who have a lot more money and politcal clout than we will ever obtain), and suprise, the restrictions will be on us, not those we hoped to thwart.


Now I hope I said enough to get something stirred up this time.

Chip:hammer:

[Homer]

to the post just below (at this writing) which is the POF statement from Miller.

Chip, having always worked in non-licensed states (except for California 66-73) I tend to agree with you.

It would appear that there is no chance for unlicensed-state opticians to get what they dream of in a perfectly licensed world.

My guess is that most who long for licensure want some of the following things, perhaps in the following order.

1) a little respect
2) a little respect
3) a little respect
4) a little job security
5) a little more money .... OK a lot more
6) a little better benefit package
7) a little more powerful bargaining position
8) a little more respect
9) a little more respect
10)a little more respect

So before they push real hard for licensure, or awaken from the dream, they should think about:

1) Who, among my peers, do I want to be checking on my ethical practice of opticianry?

2) Who, among my peers, do I want to decide the price of staying in business (tax rates called license fees)

3) Who, among my peers, do I want to dictate what is the proper amount and type of education I should have in order to maintain my practice?

Well, my old-man's opinion is that if you didn't have respect before licensure, you won't have it afterwards.

[wmcdonald]

The key word! We all use that term, but what do we practice. The average "Optician" is a sales person or "frame stylist". Real Opticians do a lot more and a license will allow for recognition of what we do. I come from a strong licensed state, and yes, the state board does review a few things like making sure an Optician is on premises and current licensure is upheld. They hear complaints from consumers, and they act to protect the public. It is a worthwhile endeavor that would benefit all, not just limit competition. Even with licensure, it still doesn't take much to become an Optican. That state license would justify our existance a bit. I encourage all to think deeply about the issue. Soon it will be too late, if it is not already.

[BobV]

A real doctor performs surgery and a general practitioner is worthless because he/she does not.

Come on, now, wmcdonald, a license does not prove the worth of anything except that you were proficient in passing an exam. It's just like people knocking those that have taken the "recent" ABO exam...just because you passed the certification exam doesn't mean you are an "optician".

What is an optician? A lab owner told me that all his employees technically were opticians, even though they never may have touched a frame in their lives. So, does it make a difference if you are a salesperson or a "frame stylist" or lab personnel or licensed optiician? We are all "opticians", some with the goal of patient care, some with the goal of making a million bucks in this profession and some trying to combine the two.

A license gets you wallpaper, an education and hands on gets you experience. Now, go tell the GP that their 8 to 10 years in med school were for nothing because they have no desire to perform surgery..

Bob V.

[wmcdonald]

I do not mean to imply in any way that Opticians from an unlicensed state can't or aren't good at what they do. I know some truly excellent Opticians from unlicensed states. But that is the problem Opticianry faces. It is not us we need to impress. If we can wrangle our way through some legislative body to get state recognition, that means we have passed an outside review of what we do. That can be significant. It does give us more stature in the eyes of the public. Keep in mind that that GP you mention has a significant education behind him or her. It will be an issue that will never be truly settled however, because we do come from such diverse backgrounds. You are correct in the assertion that lab personnel call themselves Opticians, as do the sales staff at some chains. We need to agree on what we are first and then move forward. Then we need to train for our sphere of knowledge in formal education programs. It may be a political issue, but education is where the foundation MUST be started. It can mean far more than wallpaper. It amazes me though, most of those against it are from unlicensed states. I don't understand. In the early days the older Opticians fought education because they didn't want to appear "less than" those young guys/gals coming out. If Henry Ford thought the way we do, there would still be horses and buggys as the primary means of transportation. Come on, a state license in every state would be important for us all if it were all across the country. It may be pie-in-the-sky, but if you don't try you'll never succeed.

[Texas Ranger]

the thing is that for many, many years our state opticians assn fought for licensing, and would have had it, had we been willing to dump contact lens dispensing from our bill, we wouldn't, so we didn't get it; finally, when we did pass a bill, the chains big boys, got our good ole guv, Bill Clements, to veto the bill. the ODs, MDs and retail chains have spent zillions of $$$$ to prevent new licensing laws and to try to rescend old ones, such as in alaska. All, so that they can hire unqualified, unskilled, and underpaid labor to staff mall stores, dr's dispensaries, etc, all so that the salaries of skilled, and qualified opticians go to the doctors pockets...it's called "capture rate".. keeping the patients dollars in house, sell their company VSP, create a pipeline only they can participate in. they live by the golden rule,"those with the gold, make the rules..." promise Bill Clements to aid his re-election campaign the next year with all that retail chain money, sure he's gonna veto a bill, what's it to him? maintain the status quo, that's just politics. my wife is an RN, her attitude was that, "why do you care so much about licensing?, without it, you don't have anything to take away..." not my attitude, but she's known a few cases where a peer lost their license because they obeyed a doctor's verbal order, something went wrong, the dr. lied about giving the order, the RN's looking for a new career and defending a law suit....

[chip anderson]

I have voted for spent money on and campaigned for licensure for 35 years. I do admit that at this point in life I am getting to were I don't give a damn. And I have seen every attempt in our state thwarted by one and now two of the other "O's".

But it just occured to me that this is another "BE CAREFULL WHAT YOU WISH FOR" thing. We could very well get it and wish to God that we had not. One should always look for a negative side. Like looking for the lowest payments and then realizing how much you paid for the thing after you have made all the payments. I have seen so many licensing bills that had hidden bombshells in them, had amendments added to them that were deadly, after everyone had agreed to the bills. You have no idea how much it cost and how much sweat can be involved in killing a killer bill with amendment in the eleventh hour.

Sucking up and giving in to things that don't interest the majority can be a bad thing (some of us may make 90% of thier living on contact lenses, while most of us may make only 5% of thiers from this source) it may seem like a good thing for "the good of the majority" to leave this out of a bill "because we would never get it passed with everything we want". Then some one, maybe just a few are through making a living in thier chosen endevor "For the good of the majority right." Tell that to Suzie who has to wait tables now to feed the baby.

Look at the whole picture before you decide you want it and bend over.

Chip

[wmcdonald]

I understand Mr. Anderson. It is frustrating. I have been there for many years myself. I appreciate the efforts you have made and feel strongly that it is high time for us to be rewarded in some way for our efforts. We must develop a game plan. Probably not for us, but for those who follow. After all, what kind of legacy are we leaving behind? We need to model ourselves after pharmacists, probably. They are similar in many ways, although they may serve as more of a direct risk to patients. Nursing has some parallels as well. I am currently beginning and indepth study of what training Opticians will need in the future, and I hope you will participate. I am completing an additional PhD and my dissertation will be focused on that issue. I hope I can provide some answers to our questions. Do we need more education and training or none at all? An emphasis will be placed on new technology and my hypothesis is that Opticians need to be trained at a much higher level to actually understand the tools available to them. There has been no research to my knowledge other tham Tom Woods in NY and his study (with a number of others) on the perceptions people have regarding Opticians level of training. That I think is where we must begin to develop and re-define ourselves. Once we do that then we must move for recognition from SOME outside agency, whether it be mandatory licensing or certification (no not a 100 question multiple choice exam). These issues are important, so please don't give up. We MUST regain some semblence of organization to move forward and develop a game plan. I hope to provide some answers soon. I am developing a survey instrument that I hope Steve will place on Optiboard. I encourage you and anyone to participate. My hypothesis may be false; we may be where we need to be. But I don't think so, and I don't believe you do either. I look forward to additional discussions with you and anyone else who has an opinion on the issue.

[chip anderson]

I really believe a year or two in the lab is far better training than four or more in college. Possibly one year of theory in school and two in the lab would be the best prepartation. Of course you would miss all the parties, frats, college comradee, and hollidays, but you would be a damn good optician (at least if the lab would allow you multi-task training.

Chip

[wmcdonald]

You cannot learn the theory required to be a well rounded Optician in the manner you describe, and it will no longer serve us politically. Opticians should be doing much more than making glasses, and could if we had some educational background. We MUST move towards mandatory education. We need to increase our level of service in contact lenses, which means more training in anatomy and physiology, and clinical training in fitting. We need to learn more about low vision. I could go on and on. I am sorry there is so much disagreement on this issue, but if you study every other profession that was once trained via apprenticeship, they are now requiring education as an entry point. Someone will now say, "but we aren't everyone else". True, but I hope my study will show something to guide us for the future.

[Mark Brezvai]

Licensure is a two edged sword. To be a legitimate profession one needs to be licensed and have the acedemic credentials to back it up. Unfortunately most states did not perceive the need for stringent educational rerquirements and allowed apprenticeing when they fought for and won licensure. Because of the difficulty in getting licensure, we became complacent and abandoned any long range plans. Today we still approach licensure on a piecemeal basis, one state at a time.

In Ohio we have tried to amend our licensing bill to make it mandatory to have a two year degree before sitting for licensure. We tried to cover all the bases by receiving pledges from colleges around the state to start an optical program. Due to the cost of implementing a program from scratch, they would when the licensing bill passed. Besides the usual opposition to our amendment, the legislature wanted the programs in effect before the bill was passed. Needless to say we lost on this basis. We have not given up, we are approaching this issue each legislative session.

Licensure is not an end all proposition. We need to continually upgrade our knowledge and education if we hope to expand our scope of practice.

[Texas Ranger]

There are serious differences in "working in the lab" and a structured educational program. but a lot can be said for dedicated apprentice programs. when I was preparing to take the ABO exam in '70, you had to document three years of experience. that said, you'd likely be over 21, I was 23. my youngest son started coming into the shop after school, at 15, graduated HS at 17, sat and easily passed the ABO at 18, at 21, he's a pretty good optician, for what we do, he has no experience in surfacing or contact lenses, since we do neither. the field is pretty diverse. 35 years ago, if you worked in the lab, you likely knew how to run one machine, and the lab might be shut down if the guy next ot you was out sick. some more progressive labs learned to cross-train folks, so it wouldn't shut everything down. a lot of older opticians came out of that environment into retail; but found out that dealing directly with the doctor's patients didn't require any of those lab skills. my optician uncle told me in '69, that I needed to pick and focus on either spectacles or contact lenses, but don't ever try to do both, that they were not compatible skills. in '95, i took the OAA 100 hr, refractometry course, and it was very enlightening, filled in a lot of the blanks and helped me grow as an optician, gain respect for those who do refract all day, and better serve pts., what I do know is that if I had had the opportunity to have a "formal" education in opticianry, including contacts and refracting, I'd have done a better job for people, analyzed situations better, and been a whole lot less frustrated with eye doctors and pts. it was very helpful to spend time in the lab, surfacing and finishing, I'm a lot more considerate of folks who do that for a living. As for licensing, it would be nice to interview someone for a position, who had some standard of basic knowledge that they were accountable for through testing and continuing education. As it is, I don't believe anyone can judge the applicant in a non-licensed state, they can have 10 years of experience, and know just about zip about what we do in our shop....

[Judy Canty]

So long as we accept apprenticeship as a viable means of training and educating Opticians, no matter how well the program is designed and administered, we will remain a "trade" rather than a "profession."

[chip anderson]

Once a young man came in to a man who had a successfull business and applied for a job. After a bit of discussion the businessman said: "O.K. you're hired."

The young man said: "Great, what would you like for me to do first?"

The businessman replied: " Go in the back room and sweep it out."

The young man replied: "But I'm a college graduate!"

The businessman said: "O.K. I'll teach you how."

Chip

[Dannyboy]

The worst student in medical school... the last in his class... but once he/she graduates .. he/she is called doctor. So if you do not have the credentials you should not be called an optician. Meeting a licensing requirement does not mean you are a superoptician...but it does the following:
1. More $$
2. Protected public from the greedy b....who hire optireceptionists.
3. assures that the public has some place to complain about the "bad psudoopticians" and yes they may take the license away.

As far as the bill in in Alaska it is a shame. To bad but the cards can be turned around....if opticianry can be delegated...maybe refraction can be also delegated....., just a thought. Try a sneaky maneuver like that.



Dannyboy:shiner:

[chip anderson]

Dear Dannyboy:

Don't know how you have escaped noticeing but refraction and a lot perlimnary eye exam is already designated. Many, many doctors offices have the doctor only coming in to "check the tech's results.".

Chip

Have even heard of some doctors deligateing surgery to sales person for a new machine (sometimes even pacemaker surgery.

Chip

[Judy Canty]

Chip,

Once upon a time, your barber also pulled your teeth. What's your point?

[BobV]

The issue of whether this is a trade or a profession will never end.

I've worked trades and I've worked as a professional, virtually no difference except the professional usually stays cleaner.

Pay wise, we could say we are professional and try to get as much as we can, or we can consider ourselves tradespeople and
get journeyman wages. We are professional to our patients/customers, and are tradespeople when we handle glasses.

Why do we have to continue to try and label ourselves? Isn't just doing the job correctly enough of an honor than going through this petty **** day after day????

Bob V.

[MVEYES]

Would you go to your barber to have your teeth pulled or to a dentist?
Your barber may have better skills at dentistry then your dentist. My next door neighbor who is an engineer might be able to adjust glasses for comfort better then most opticians but that doesn't qualify him to analyze the doctors prescription and solve visual problems that are eyewear related. Labels aren't the issue with licensing, accountability in performance that has consequence is the issue. If you loose your job because the laid off engineer who adjusts glasses better than you takes your job for less money then I suppose you might feel the importance of being recognized by the people of your state as a Licensed Optician.




Jerry

[BobV]

At one time barbers were also surgeons and furniture makers were undertakers. And the point you are trying to make...?

My skills ARE appreciated by both the patients I serve and the doctors I am employed by. As I have posted in the past, I do not consider myself as an expert, even after 17 years in this field. But I like to think that I DO know what I'm doing.

I am always learning, so I keep up to date on mostly everything in this field.

I went to the doctor about a month ago with a rash...asked the doc what it was...his answer was "you have a rash." Amazing!!!
This from a person with the smarts to make it out of med school, who is licensed, and doesn't even offer to perform a test. At least I will tighten screws and evaluate what adjustments I will need to do.

So if your engineer neighbor needs a job in an unlicensed state, send him to Missouri. We'll show him how to be a competent optician and earn respect from his patients.

Bob V.

[MVEYES]

I don't doubt your skills. I know after 30 years in this business that I still have people question me about where I went to school and what was my training. You might feel secure now in what you do but some day those "professions" in your state that say you can't use a lensometer or advise a patient about a specialty tint, through legal changes in your state law will make you wander why you didn't see the light at the end of the tunnel.

I'm glad your happy with the status quo but I think you should consider all the possibilities of its consequences.



:cheers: Jerry

[wmcdonald]

It is not a question of the individual and his/her ability, it is the credibility of the profession that is the issue here. If you are satisfied, then so be it, but please look at the growth and development of Opticianry as a profession.

[MVEYES]

how we think. Those of us who have the profession as a whole in our plans for growth and advancement think outside our individual sphere. It only takes an attack on the status quo to change a mind. Strategic planning of the growth of our profession is important for all of us to get involved in for the success of our future.






:cheers: Jerry

[BobV]

It's amazing how narrow minded all of us can be when we all have a certain agenda we either want to follow or have others try to follow.

To say that those of us that are opposed to licensing have no concern for the rest of the profession is dead wrong. Why do you think I am opposed to licensing???

Since we cannot figure out who we are or what we are, how do you think licensing will do that? Ask three opticians how to adjust a frame and you will get three different answers. Same with licensing. Not all of you who want it will be in total agreement with all the rules and regulations. Be prepared for political backstabbing.

Bob V.

[wmcdonald]

Bob, you are absolutely correxct in your assertion that frame adjustment and almost every other task in the scope of the Optician may be done a number of ways. In fact, many who call themselves Opticians have little understanding of much that they do. That is a training issue and at the root of all problems we face. I have stated my opinion that licensure is at least some outside recognition, and I stand by that. I do feel that it is an important issue. I do not mean to appear narrow-minded either, completely the opposite. In encourage you to open your mind as well. An analogy- I was very active in the Jaycees. We gave copious numbers of awards to members of the organization to recognize accomplishments that impacted our community. The presentation was long and often dull, but only for those who did not receive anything. The recipients appreciated the recognition from others. Opticianry needs some outside recognition that what we do is significant and important. Now you will say that the satisfaction of the patient/customer is the most inportant reward we can receive for our services, and I agree. But if we are ever to advance beyond our spectacle peddler image then we must have more stringent standards, one of those being a license to practice, and the other a formal education in some form.