The end could be near

[ml43]

I am not ridiculing those that choose to get licensed. I value education, an have a BA myself. But I also understand its place. Having a degree, certification or license does not automatically make you qualified to do squat. It means you can listen well, absorb information and retain it to pass a test. if there is anyone I am ridiculing it would be the elitist that places themself above a non licensed person, mearly on the stance that they had the time and money to become licensed. There are so many people that HAVE to work. They are supporting families, or don't make enough to put themselves through school. That doesn't mean they are any less dedicated to learning, or have invested less than someone that did go to school. People need to stop assuming that just because a person learns from many years of dedicated work that they are less knowledgeable than someone who goes to school for two years. I have a four year degree. I do not automatically think I am smarter or more qualified than anyone with an AA. That is absurd.

Let's recap and summarize,

You value experience, you don't value licensure.

what if licensure required experience,

let's call that experience, apprenticeship.

what if it also required a certain knowledge base, let's call it a degree/certification.

Experience is a great thing.
But x amount of years experience doesn't really mean much anymore.
especially with the amount of unskilled work that counts as experience these days.
Sad but true.

I think I understand what you are getting at, it's like people who test well but don't understand, versus those that understand, but test poorly?


Licensure isn't perfect, nothing is, but it's what we have, and it's one of the few things stopping, or at least slowing the progress of corporate America turning this industry into the chaos that is retail :/

[Bill West]

WOW, if the restrictions are lifted in NC I want to be the first to employ 72 beautiful virgins to "sell" eyeglasses door to door in this and any other state I choose. O.K. ladies get your I-phones and your squares and get ready to fly.

[Bill West]

If we are lucky,this will be the end. Of this thread I hope.

[Tigerclaw]

I get it, people can be ridiculous and it drives me crazy every day. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose when trying to help them.

Just to be clear you're an OD, in Texas, which doesn't require optician licensing and you support compulsory licensing of opticians? Texas is very competitive and there are plenty of qualified people there that have licenses or similar qualifications. Especially in Houston or any other big city in TX. DALLAS

You may have missed it but I actually support certification over licensure. I think it is time to help delineate opticals from every other store in the malls, but we have our work cut out for us. We are not served by having such a low bar for obtaining eyewear and contacts, and this concept would be furthered by raising the bar for people in the opticals. Don't get me wrong, I know there are people off the street that in time can understand the industry better than 99% of the others, but it's a numbers game, and putting such crucial responsibilities in the hands of anyone cute enough to catch the eye of a regional manager is a travesty. Same with online sales, which should be banned, IMO.

[eeopti]

Let's recap and summarize,

You value experience, you don't value licensure.

what if licensure required experience,

let's call that experience, apprenticeship.

what if it also required a certain knowledge base, let's call it a degree/certification.

Experience is a great thing.
But x amount of years experience doesn't really mean much anymore.
especially with the amount of unskilled work that counts as experience these days.
Sad but true.

I think I understand what you are getting at, it's like people who test well but don't understand, versus those that understand, but test poorly?


Licensure isn't perfect, nothing is, but it's what we have, and it's one of the few things stopping, or at least slowing the progress of corporate America turning this industry into the chaos that is retail :/

I think we are getting closer to understanding each other, or rather I at least feel you are attempting to hear what I am trying to say. (Although, I never said I do not value licensure. I do however strongly value expierence.) I think I need a better understanding of your view point. Most people have explained the value of licensure in terms of qualifications, and I do not believe that alone qualifies anyone. I've said this before, but just to reiterate, I have a BA myself and do not see myself more qualified based on that alone. But you bring up a point that it slows corporate America from invading the industry. Can you expand on this?

[eeopti]

You may have missed it but I actually support certification over licensure. I think it is time to help delineate opticals from every other store in the malls, but we have our work cut out for us. We are not served by having such a low bar for obtaining eyewear and contacts, and this concept would be furthered by raising the bar for people in the opticals. Don't get me wrong, I know there are people off the street that in time can understand the industry better than 99% of the others, but it's a numbers game, and putting such crucial responsibilities in the hands of anyone cute enough to catch the eye of a regional manager is a travesty. Same with online sales, which should be banned, IMO.

I see value in what you are saying. However, as a woman in this industry, and a cute one in my own biased opinion, I take slight offense that there is a presumed lack of intelligence based on gender and physical appearance. This is for another thread I am sure. But it's not the first time I saw a comment like this and wanted to address it.

[ml43]

I think we are getting closer to understanding each other, or rather I at least feel you are attempting to hear what I am trying to say. (Although, I never said I do not value licensure. I do however strongly value expierence.) I think I need a better understanding of your view point. Most people have explained the value of licensure in terms of qualifications, and I do not believe that alone qualifies anyone. I've said this before, but just to reiterate, I have a BA myself and do not see myself more qualified based on that alone. But you bring up a point that it slows corporate America from invading the industry. Can you expand on this?

It was brought up earlier in the thread and many other threads.

Heres a decently short summary:
chains have found, that employing people from retail, such as Victoria secret or gap boosts sales way more than hiring a licensed optician. Why, because these people know how to sell, and don't spend foreve trying to find out what's best for the patient. They just want to make the sale.

In licensed states, they are required to hire at least one licensed optician to "supervise and train" these people.
But you still have to answer to several managers, most of which are from retail as well, that don't want to hear about Optics, they want to hear numbers.

Take away licensure, and they will turn over people way faster, and pay way less.
just like every other (public)retail corporate company, cause money talks.

[eeopti]

WOW, if the restrictions are lifted in NC I want to be the first to employ 72 beautiful virgins to "sell" eyeglasses door to door in this and any other state I choose. O.K. ladies get your I-phones and your squares and get ready to fly.

This is completely offensive. It's people with a mindset like this that perpetuates sexism and the objectification of women. Your attempts to derail an intellectual debate and conversation into something that degrades women is offensive and sad.

[eeopti]

It was brought up earlier in the thread and many other threads.

Heres a decently short summary:
chains have found, that employing people from retail, such as Victoria secret or gap boosts sales way more than hiring a licensed optician. Why, because these people know how to sell, and don't spend foreve trying to find out what's best for the patient. They just want to make the sale.

In licensed states, they are required to hire at least one licensed optician to "supervise and train" these people.
But you still have to answer to several managers, most of which are from retail as well, that don't want to hear about Optics, they want to hear numbers.

Take away licensure, and they will turn over people way faster, and pay way less.
just like every other (public)retail corporate company, cause money talks.

i get it. Then just make obtaining a license fair and equitable among those with expierence and those with formal education. Seems like we are just making it harder on those who can do the job, and do it well. Expecting a cookie cutter path unjustifiably limits the workforce. For example, be able to "test out" of formal education.

[Tigerclaw]

I see value in what you are saying. However, as a woman in this industry, and a cute one in my own biased opinion, I take slight offense that there is a presumed lack of intelligence based on gender and physical appearance. This is for another thread I am sure. But it's not the first time I saw a comment like this and wanted to address it.

No offense, but you seem easily offended. There was nothing sexist in what I said. What I was saying is a throwback to a few hours ago where we discussed the predatory nature of the hiring practice, especially in the corporate lines. Additionally, I never specified the sex of the manager or the hiree, but rather you inserted your own preconceived notions. Life is too short to go around being a box you check in a demographics field. You are a woman in the optical field. Welcome to being in the majority.

[eeopti]

No offense, but you seem easily offended. There was nothing sexist in what I said. What I was saying is a throwback to a few hours ago where we discussed the predatory nature of the hiring practice, especially in the corporate lines. Additionally, I never specified the sex of the manager or the hiree, but rather you inserted your own preconceived notions. Life is too short to go around being a box you check in a demographics field. You are a woman in the optical field. Welcome to being in the majority.

I know exactly what you were referencing, and there it was stated that it was women which was why I was addressing it here. I am not easily offended, but that is a typical male response when called out. It's juvenile, but a typical defensive tactic. As for being a woman in the optical field, clearly you mean sales or non licensed professionals. You couldn't possibly mean in positions where there is higher earning potential like licensed opticians and certainly not ODs.

But i digress, because I know this conversation will go nowhere good.

[Tigerclaw]

I know exactly what you were referencing, and there it was stated that it was women which was why I was addressing it here. I am not easily offended, but that is a typical male response when called out. It's juvenile, but a typical defensive tactic. As for being a woman in the optical field, clearly you mean sales or non licensed professionals. You couldn't possibly mean in positions where there is higher earning potential like licensed opticians and certainly not ODs.

But i digress, because I know this conversation will go nowhere good.

No, you have a chip on your shoulder, but I know some people live in that bubble, sorry if it's a sore spot. It is also obvious that you are the sexist one here. Is it a "typical male response" to point out your back-to-back posts expressing offense for no reason based on your sex? If so, then you just complimented typical males. Being offended is the juvenile, defensive tactic, so don't project your flaws on me.

As for women in the field, two-thirds of my graduating class was female. When I taught Optics, about 60% of that class was female. What will your excuses be when you can no longer claim minority status?

[eeopti]

No, you have a chip on your shoulder, but I know some people live in that bubble, sorry if it's a sore spot. It is also obvious that you are the sexist one here. Is it a "typical male response" to point out your back-to-back posts expressing offense for no reason based on your sex? If so, then you just complimented typical males. Being offended is the juvenile, defensive tactic, so don't project your flaws on me.

As for women in the field, two-thirds of my graduating class was female. When I taught Optics, about 60% of that class was female. What will your excuses be when you can no longer claim minority status?

LOL! Ok.

[Chris Ryser]

Warby didn't do anything other than point up the reediculous and protected prices that ECPs have enjoyed while selling cheap Chinese goods.

Party's over for that. And about time.

Instead of worrying about the certification of personnel, worry more about the perception of the quality and pricing of the goods you sell.

B

I just could not resist to import this post from another thread because it hits the nail directly on its head.

[wmcdonald]

Is it just me, or have you noticed that most here against this post do not identify as Opticians in the first place? Other vendor, optical retail, OD, etc. I may be the only one, but it only reinforces my desire for Opticians to again drive their own development......not those on the outside. ODs did it, and so can we.

[rbaker]

Is it just me, or have you noticed that most here against this post do not identify as Opticians in the first place? Other vendor, optical retail, OD, etc. I may be the only one, but it only reinforces my desire for Opticians to again drive their own development......not those on the outside. ODs did it, and so can we.

Well, you see, its just like this. The OD decided early on in the 1920's - 1930's to get some real education, establish an aggressive legislative agenda and most importantly were, and still are, willing to spend big bucks to buy the politicians who would "play ball." They were also successful in exerting influence on their peers in order to present a unified voice to both the public and the legislators.

Joe optician, on the other hand, did the opposite and now finds himself sucking hind teat. Now that's just my opinion and I am sticking to it.

[wmcdonald]

Your opinion is spot on, Mr. Baker, as I have said many times. I just want to see Opticians improve somehow!

[drk]

Too bad I'm not licensed in Utopia. Besides, the Rx only goes so far in the wrong hands of unqualified opticians/lab.

This is an OD's or MD's perspective. We are held to high standards. We share patients with you. We want some standards, or we've wasted the patient's time and money and delayed their treatment.

[drk]

I just could not resist to import this post from another thread because it hits the nail directly on its head.

That's a crap recap of a crap post, IMO.

[Barry Santini]

Drk
Are u saying Im crap????!

[Barry Santini]

ECPs have done a **** job distinguishing their value from the eyeglass product.
That's why Warby works

[Tigerclaw]

ECPs have done a **** job distinguishing their value from the eyeglass product.
That's why Warby works

Warby works because millenials like goofy names and buying online because they are broke and ignorant. They are no competition with me because I carry nice frames for nice people. Rolex was not harmed when velcro-strapped LCD watches came out around the 80's. Porsche was not harmed by Saturn or Yugo. Now where are they?

[idispense]

As I read this debate it totally saddens me.

[Tigerclaw]

Joe optician, on the other hand, did the opposite and now finds himself sucking hind teat. Now that's just my opinion and I am sticking to it.

I'm offended by the term "Joe optician", because it implies opticians are all men.

[eeopti]

Warby works because millenials like goofy names and buying online because they are broke and ignorant. They are no competition with me because I carry nice frames for nice people. Rolex was not harmed when velcro-strapped LCD watches came out around the 80's. Porsche was not harmed by Saturn or Yugo. Now where are they?

Wow. Just wow...