"Occupational licensing is shortsighted"

[Wes]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econom...income-workers

Thoughts?

[Speed]

The latest reading of the labor market in the United States from the Bureau of Labor Statistics brings to mind a veteran prize fighter trying to pull himself up from the mat after a dizzying flurry of blows. An easy way to help the U.S. labor market regain its championship form would be a broad reconsideration of occupational licensing. We, along with countless others, applaud the president for including $15 million in his recent budget to study the rationale for occupational licensing in the United States.
The scope of workers directly affected by U.S. occupational licensing laws has steadily increased over the last several decades. Today, nearly 30 percent of the workforce is required to obtain a license to work at their current place of employment. Occupational licensing laws make it illegal to work in a profession without first meeting specific requirements (such as a specific degree or passing a test).
Many studies have estimated effects of occupational licensing on earnings, with some research focusing on the effects of occupational licensing for occupations not requiring extensive education requirements (e.g., barbers, massage therapists, and radiologic technologists). Limiting entry into these occupations via occupational licensing laws is most likely to negatively affect those in the bottom half of the earnings distribution in the United States.

For one point, it looks like it inhibits Obama's redistribution plan.

[wmcdonald]

Thanks, Wes. While the methodology is somewhat flawed, I have been warning people about this for years. I am surprised this has taken as long as it has to make it to Optiboard, but it is a real issue. Licensure is important to this field, and this could hinder some states efforts. Now, I know there will be a plethora of those here who do not support licensing, and they are entitled to their opinion, but anyone who cares about Opticianry will clearly understand the significance of this study.

[Chris Ryser]

So why do occupational licensing laws exist? One common argument for occupational licensing is that the state needs to protect the consumer. Perhaps consumers receive a better quality service when opticians are required to obtain a license. To investigate this possibility further, we examined malpractice and vision insurance premiums in states with and without optician licensing. Presumably insurers would require a higher malpractice premium from opticians working in states without licensing if the quality of care being delivered was higher. We might also expect to see higher vision insurance premiums if consumers recognize higher quality vision care in states with optician licensing.

Question ..................?

There is no mentioning about on-line retail suppliers of Rx glasses and protection of consumers. I would guess that they now should be large enough to be included.

If they would be included, they would probably start a lobbying group against it. If they are classified as an optical lab would they need the licensed optician as an intermediary ? or would it be status quot ?

[wmcdonald]

Chris,
I do not see online mentioned in this study anyplace, and that is another weakness in it. Malpractice (or in many states, professional liability in our case......also not mentioned) is very inexpensive for Opticians, due to very limited litigation. This is not a good measure of overall quality in this instance. There is little work done I have been able to find to measure the validity of state licensing, despite my seeking same for years. Our leaders seem to be more interested in who will get the seats on the ABO/NCLE than they are solving the real problems we face. But the field must have no real interest in the issue of licensing if Optiboard is any measure, since there is so little discussion developing in this thread......to me one of the most significant issues we have faced in many years. This is the first of what I fear will be additional research to eliminate Opticians licensure, and to tell you and anyone reading this the hard truth, the emperor has no clothes. We have hid a long time and must improve if we are to maintain it.

These authors indicate that licensure does little but inflate salaries, and there is at best minimal protection of the public. My research, and that of the National Academy of Opticianry, indicates there is a small difference in salaries in licensed states and those who require one to practice. Average salaries in this country are 40K plus, with unlicensed states about 2500.00 below licensed states, and that has been level for several years. I have not investigated now for a couple of years, but maybe someone will have the current salary study available to add to my comments. Not nearly the huge difference stated in this study that points to minimal wages in specific cases in Texas.

But the main point these authors emphasize is quality of the eyewear. They may have a point, some in unlicensed states can make as pretty a pair of spectacles as do others in states with stiffer requirements. I have great friends in this field across the nation who point to their great craftsmanship, and they are beautiful products. I am always amazed by our friend Barry, who is also a great craftsman, and he is phenomenal, but you know what else he can do? He understands optics very well, and can really troubleshoot problems patients will face. He has the education and training and the technical ability.....the whole package missing from many others. He is not the norm, unfortunately. Empirically, my experience indicates that the typical Optician has limited ability to comprehend even basic optical principles, so correcting issues is usually, "wear it a few days, it should get better. If not come back to see me and I will check again". This has gone on too long, and if we are to remain a licensed profession, we must develop beyond this current reality to our full potential.

Another thought as I read this study....... what is not included here are the things Opticians can do in many jurisdictions that can cause direct harm, like contact lenses, which is the true reason Opticians were licensed in the initial states in the first place. You will never convince me that a better trained and educated Optician will not provide improve services to the public which will positively effect health outcomes. Are there good Opticians in unlicensed states? Absolutely. Friends in Texas are as good as any I know, but they are NOT the mainstream they are the outliers. We must "raise the bar" to meet our potential......if it is not too late.

Know that we can win this battle if everyone works together, but we will be fighting in many instances our own employers. Note that the fellow who did the study is an Economics professor with little understanding of this industry. He is also from a right-wing think tank. We can debunk much of what he said, but I wonder if there was a corporate influence in this research? Was it supported by the large corporations that also retail eyeglasses? Most of them want to see licensure go away, and I have no evidence they are behind this study, but it does makes one think. Several years ago, I had hoped we would see some real change in these corporates. WalMart sought to have all their "associates" be ABO certified, and I hope they still have that requirement. But later, in a meeting I attended with many of the corporate leadership it was clear they see us not as professionals but as labor......and they clearly stated this was the case.

We must finally put aside the licensed state-unlicensed state issue, and realize that ALL will be weaker if licensure falls in the states where it currently exists. I have droned on too much. I apologize, but I am passionate about Opticians and their future. Some get angry when I make comments that seem critical, and that is fine, but we must face the reality that exists. Someone who appreciates their license and anyone who cares about this field needs to pay attention to this study that I understand wil be published in USA Today.

[rbaker]

Chris,
I do not see online mentioned in this study anyplace, and that is another weakness in it. Malpractice (or in many states, professional liability in our case......also not mentioned) is very inexpensive for Opticians, due to very limited litigation. This is not a good measure of overall quality in this instance. There is little work done I have been able to find to measure the validity of state licensing, despite my seeking same for years. Our leaders seem to be more interested in who will get the seats on the ABO/NCLE than they are solving the real problems we face. But the field must have no real interest in the issue of licensing of Optiboard is any leasure, since there is so little discussion developing in this thread......to me one of the most significant issues we have faced in many years. This is the first of what I fear will be additional research to eliminate Opticians licensure, and to tell you and anyone reading this the hard truth, the emperor has no clothes. We have hid a long time and must improve if we are to maintain it. These authors indicate that licensure does little but inflate salaries, and there is at best minimal protection of the public. My research, and that of the National Academy of Opticianry, indicates there is a small difference in salaries in licensed states and those who require one to practice. Average salaries in this country are 40K plus, with unlicensed states about 2500.00 below licensed states, and that has been level for several years. I have not investigated now for a couple of years, but maybe someone will have the current salary study available to add to my comments. Not nearly the huge difference stated in this study that points to minimal wages in specific cases in Texas. But the main point these authors emphasize is quality of the eyewear. They may have a point, some in unlicensed states can make as pretty a pair of spectacles as others in states with stiffer requirements. I have great friends in this field across the nation who point to their great craftsmanship, and they are beautiful products. I am always amazed by our fried Barry, who is also a great craftsman, and he is phenomenal, but you know what else he can do? He understands optics very well, and can really troubleshoot problems patients will face. He has the education and training and the technical ability.....the whole package missing from many others. He is not the norm, unfortunately. Empirically, my experience indicates that the typical Optician has limited ability to comprehend even basic optical principles, so correcting issues is usually, "wear it a few days, it should get better. If not come back to see me and I will check again". This has gone on too long, and if we are to remain a licensed profession, we must develop beyond this current reality to our full potential. Another thought as I read this study....... what is not included here are the things Opticians can do in many jurisdictions that can cause direct harm, like contact lenses, which is the true reason Opticians were licensed in the initial states in the first place. You will never convince me that a better trained and educated Optician will not provide improved services to the public which will positively effect health outcomes. Are there good Opticians in unlicensed states? Absolutely. Friends in Texas are as good as any I know, but they are NOT the mainstream they ate the outliers. We must "raise the bar" to meet our potential......if it is not too late. Know that we can win this battle if everyone works together, but we will be fighting in many instances our own employers. Note that the fellow who did the study is an Economics professor with little understanding of this industry. He is also from a right-wing think tank. We can debunk much of what he said, but I wonder if there was a corporate influence in this. Was it supported by the large corporations that also retail eyeglasses? Most of them want to see licensure go away, and I have no evidence they are behind this study, but it makes one think, doesn't it? Several years ago, I had hoped we would see some real change in these corporates. WalMart south to have all their "associates" be ABO certified, and I hope they still do that, but in a meeting I attended with many of the corporate leadership, it was clear they see us not as professionals but as labor, and when I asked, they clearly said this was the case. We must finally put aside the licensed state-unlicensed state issue, and realize that ALL will be weaker if licensure falls in the states where it currently exists. I have droned on too much. I apologize, but I am passionate about Opticians and their future. Some get angry when I make comments that seem critical, and that is fine, but we must face the reality that exists. Someone who appreciates their license and anyone who cares about this field needs to pay attention to this study that I understand wil be published in USA Today.

Nearly impossible to read. Paragraphs, paragraphs, paragraphs. Please!

[wmcdonald]

Sorry.....I was on a roll.

[Judy Canty]

My grain of salt: The Mercatus Center at GMU is a facility housed by the university but funded by the Koch brothers. Very little, if anything, they do benefits "We, the people".

Follow the money...Always follow the money.

[Uncle Fester]

Note that the fellow who did the study is an Economics professor with little understanding of this industry. He is also from a right-wing think tank. We can debunk much of what he said, but I wonder if there was a corporate influence in this. Was it supported by the large corporations that also retail eyeglasses? Most of them want to see licensure go away, and I have no evidence they are behind this study, but it makes one think, doesn't it? Several years ago, I had hoped we would see some real change in these corporates. WalMart south to have all their "associates" be ABO certified, and I hope they still do that, but in a meeting I attended with many of the corporate leadership, it was clear they see us not as professionals but as labor, and when I asked, they clearly said this was the case. We must finally put aside the licensed state-unlicensed state issue, and realize that ALL will be weaker if licensure falls in the states where it currently exists.

Here is why in our current political climate licensing is shoveling sand against the tide. But now the discussion inevitably becomes political and will not last.

[idispense]

This topic goes nowhere because it's all words with no leadership, direction or solution.

I won't use the word "branding" here as it will offend, but I will say the onliners have successfully "repositioned" opticians in the publics mind. Others have positioned themselves as craftsmen.

Positioning and repositioning works.

[optical24/7]

Warren was being kind when he says the methodology of the study is "somewhat flawed". It's extremely flawed when the only criteria these hacks use is malpractice ins. rates and the cost of a VCP from state to state. As stated, rates for business ins. is low due to risk and VCP's are about the same state to state because there is no huge cost difference state to state.

The chief complaint in the article is that licensure presents a financial burden on low income people prohibiting entry into the field. This is laughable, apprenticeship is an available option even in Licenced states. And then they mention the extra costs to consumers. Also a non-issue since glasses cost about the same across the country. As Warren has pointed out, salaries are about the same from state to state, the difference has more to do with local costs of living than licensure.

Now then, how valuable is licensure to the public? Maybe not much. The reason? Because even licensed states allow opticians to work under their doctors license. Most licensed states don't require an education element to obtain said license. Some have simple licensure like pass the basic ABO exam (and in California you don't even have to maintain it, just pass it once and keep paying your dues to the state...)

Corporate optical would love to see licensure die. And, in the end, they will probably get their way. Who's going to counter their voice and money at state legislatures? Not our national organizations. They won't even sponsor a study to prove our value. The future does not look bright.

[idispense]

Not our national organizations. They won't even sponsor a study to prove our value[/I]. The future does not look bright.

Why keep joining and paying them then ?

[Uilleann]

To words: Interweb Glassesses.

[idispense]

To words: Interweb Glassesses.

The English grammar in this thread slays me. Warren is correct, first the people need to be educated. Where to start is the first problem. Spelling, grammar, punctuation, run on sentences and paragraphs. Fix those then we could move on to optics.

This thread reminds me of an episode on the tv series of WESTWING. The President of an African country is asking the USA and drug manufacturers for assistance to wipe out epidemics of HIV and AIDS in his country, but the drug manufacturers explain how the two part drugs work and must be administered on a precise time schedule. They explain that even if they gave the entire country free medicines that they believe it would have no appreciable, positive effect to contain the disease.

The African President didn't understand, until the USA politicians said : "your population can't tell time or read a watch"

[Uilleann]

The English grammar in this thread slays me. Warren is correct, first the people need to be educated. Where to start is the first problem. Spelling, grammar, punctuation, run on sentences and paragraphs. Fix those then we could move on to optics.

This thread reminds me of an episode on the tv series of WESTWING. The President of an African country is asking the USA and drug manufacturers for assistance to wipe out epidemics of HIV and AIDS in his country, but the drug manufacturers explain how the two part drugs work and must be administered on a precise time schedule. They explain that even if they gave the entire country free medicines that they believe it would have no appreciable, positive effect to contain the disease.

The African president didn't understand, until the USA politicians said : "your population can't tell time or read a watch"

I'm glad you immediately caught the massive sarcasm there.

[wmcdonald]

You know I am really passionate about these issues, and do apologize for my massive post and incorrect grammar.....but I was really fired up about the issue. I tried to correct the paragraphs and poor spelling, and hope it is helpful. But the real issue is the risk of losing licensure in the states that have it. It means something to me, and I think many others, and I believe that if it happens the field as a whole will be weaker, and it is already becoming insignificant. I realized some here......the usual characters who care nothing for their profession and only themselves, would not agree, and that is fine. But others need to be aware of this article.

[nicksims]

"My grain of salt: The Mercatus Center at GMU is a facility housed by the university but funded by the Koch brothers. Very little, if anything, they do benefits "We, the people".
Follow the money...Always follow the money."

Judy, thanks for the detail.

[Paul Smith LDO]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econom...income-workers

Thoughts?

Curious, what in the name of all that is holy does this article have to do with licensing. A license, is no different then a degree; in that it shows the employer that this individual has successfully completed school, apprenticeship, and sat before a board. What this article fails to state is what type of experience does the consumer miss out by obtaining poorly executed eyewear. It also, fails to ask the consumer what their perception is of the ECP wearing a lab coat is and would they except that individual with whom they are entrusting to produce their Rx into a set of glasses; to be credentialed or licensed.

[TEdFitz]

Just like US News & World Report was forced to adapt away from the failing business model of badly written print articles, so must we adapt some of our practices. Just as US News & World Report.com even still falters to produce (electronically, this time) any recognizable form of reliable information, so must we try and probably fail a few times to earn a respectfully given dollar. Sooner or later, this failure of a mash-up of words, cringingly called a 'periodical', will hit on a formula that works.

[Speed]

My grain of salt: The Mercatus Center at GMU is a facility housed by the university but funded by the Koch brothers. Very little, if anything, they do benefits "We, the people".

Follow the money...Always follow the money.

Wow! If the Koch Bros and Obama be on the same page, we are dire trouble.

[idispense]

[QUOTE=wmcdonald;503267]You know I am really passionate about these issues, and do apologize for my massive post and incorrect grammar.....but I was really fired up about the issue. I tried to correct the paragraphs and poor spelling, and hope it is helpful. But the real issue is the risk of losing licensure in the states that have it. It means something to me, and I think many others, and I believe that if it happens the field as a whole will be weaker, and it is already becoming insignificant. I realized some here......the usual characters who care nothing for their profession and only themselves, would not agree, and that is fine. But others need to be aware of this article.[/QUOTE



Passion means nothing if you fail to learn why you are not succeeding.

[wmcdonald]

I know well why we are not succeeding, thank you, and have clearly stated those reasons here. If you addressing me, personally, I have succeeded in raising the issue of education for those in this field for over 30 years, and folks like you will not dissuade me from that mission. You disagree with me on the issue of licensure, and that is your right, and it is a waste of time to have further discussion. But others need to know, and folks this study may be the first of others that will question the value of what you do for a living. Some here, as you can see, feel formal recognition of this field (licensure and education) is of little value. I disagree, and hope you take the time to review the article above. The flawed methodology means little to the general public, and all they see is that based on this research, licensure in this field is not necessary, and drives up costs. I just wanted to inform those here of the issue. I feel it is very important, and leave it to you to make your own decision. If we lose licensure in any state, it weakens all of us. I appreciate those who take the time to review my comments......even those who disagree.

[Wes]

The sky is falling, the sky is fall- wait, no it isn't. I have to say, I'm not really worried anymore. There will always be a demand for great opticians. If you're worried, perhaps it's time to up your game, look at other options, or both. Personally, I believe in having as many options as possible available to me. Diversification of skill sets, if you will. After all, we create opportunities for ourselves by being prepared to take advantage of circumstances as they arise.

[Wes]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/americas...but-unskilled/
Well then...

[idispense]

I know well why we are not succeeding, thank you, and have clearly stated those reasons here. If you addressing me, personally, I have succeeded in raising the issue of education for those in this field for over 30 years, and folks like you will not dissuade me from that mission. You disagree with me on the issue of licensure, and that is your right, and it is a waste of time to have further discussion. But others need to know, and folks this study may be the first of others that will question the value of what you do for a living. Some here, as you can see, feel formal recognition of this field (licensure and education) is of little value. I disagree, and hope you take the time to review the article above. The flawed methodology means little to the general public, and all they see is that based on this research, licensure in this field is not necessary, and drives up costs. I just wanted to inform those here of the issue. I feel it is very important, and leave it to you to make your own decision. If we lose licensure in any state, it weakens all of us. I appreciate those who take the time to review my comments......even those who disagree.

I agree with licensure and education. I have read many an article including these.

When there is leadership with vision and substance opticianry will advance, until then it will decline. It's my opinion the leadership won't come from within the present confines of existing opticianry.