The end could be near

[Jarhead Daddy]

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?

This is a great post, Tigerclaw. It highlights your disdain for the common "ignorant" man (which goes along with your "John Q. Public is a moron" comment, your patronization of libertarians, etc.). But it also demonstrates why we should not be afraid of competition from upstarts and large corporations. Just as Saturn and Yugo went broke and Porche survived, great opticians and optometrists thrive in an environment of Costo, Warby, and EyeMasters.

It turns out that John Q. Public is not a moron after all. No, he can't perform a slit lamp examination on himself, and he probably has no idea what an OC height is. But he tends to know care and quality when he sees it. Good companies know this, and they know that they must give quality in order to receive John Q. Public's business. Great optometrists and opticians are not driven by the state board. They are driven by a need to compete for John Q. Public's discerning requirements for excellence.

Regulators can ensure a clumsy base line of knowledge and compliance. But only the free market can drive expanding knowledge, innovation, and care.

[ml43]

Why ? How would going public explain what they accomplished before going public ?

more info is better than less when making any study.
Unless someone who works for their accounting department is willing to risk their job, what you are asking for is decently difficult.

I recently discovered they have been suing other online optical startups.
http://classicspecs.tumblr.com/post/...o-warby-parker

[Tigerclaw]

This is a great post, Tigerclaw. It highlights your disdain for the common "ignorant" man (which goes along with your "John Q. Public is a moron" comment, your patronization of libertarians, etc.). But it also demonstrates why we should not be afraid of competition from upstarts and large corporations. Just as Saturn and Yugo went broke and Porche survived, great opticians and optometrists thrive in an environment of Costo, Warby, and EyeMasters.

It turns out that John Q. Public is not a moron after all. No, he can't perform a slit lamp examination on himself, and he probably has no idea what an OC height is. But he tends to know care and quality when he sees it. Good companies know this, and they know that they must give quality in order to receive John Q. Public's business. Great optometrists and opticians are not driven by the state board. They are driven by a need to compete for John Q. Public's discerning requirements for excellence.

Regulators can ensure a clumsy base line of knowledge and compliance. But only the free market can drive expanding knowledge, innovation, and care.

If there is one thing I know, it's people. I have debated enough "libertarians", the easily offended members of various groups, and just plain ignorant folk (not that these groups are mutually exclusive - quite to the contrary) to glean patterns. I am a student of human behavior. A good doctor has to be able to pick up on subtleties, and these honed skills do not limit themselves to the exam room. If you want to know why I have such "disdain", it's because when people begin to be simplified into mathematical equations with only slight and predictable variations, i.e. when they allow themselves to become a product of their environment, it doesn't establish them as leaders, but rather followers, and this is why I don't expect great things from them, at least not in the realm of the behavior patterns being observed. This is not to diminish them as a whole, but in the relevant matter at the time. This is no different from not giving the best math student a trophy in track, or not choosing your mate based on their ability to name all the Beatles' songs. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and while your strength may not be politics, you may be a good frame stylist or have a good knack for adjustments that I don't have.

And there is a big difference in expecting the public to avoid the predators that are held somewhat at bay by regulations and waiting for it to find its way to the wiser choices... eventually. I mean, we still have McDonald's, processed foods, and libertarianism.

[Chris Ryser]

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?

How many people out of 100 wear a Rolex watch...........probably not one.

Warby works because their idea is new and even more interesting to the masses is, that they are less expensive, can be ordered on line and are delivered by UPS in a few days.

You carry nice frames for nice people, but you do not mention that you are a better quality optician than the WarbyParkers and charge more for it..

[Tigerclaw]

How many people out of 100 wear a Rolex watch...........probably not one.

Warby works because their idea is new and even more interesting to the masses is, that they are less expensive, can be ordered on line and are delivered by UPS in a few days.

You carry nice frames for nice people, but you do not mention that you are a better quality optician than the WarbyParkers and charge more for it..

The point is Ruth's Chris or even Olive Garden doesn't need to worry if Burger King opens up next door, and I am not an optician. I am not going to bash my head against the wall try to out-cheap somebody to rein in people foolish enough to go online for eye wear.

The number of people who don't want to be cheap/look cheap and go around with the "drugstore" look is far higher than 1%.

[drk]

The "drugstore look". That's good.

[wmcdonald]

maybe you should have stuck around. Women and children first.

In our day, Bill, you served in the leadership, and new blood followed. The vast majority were members of the association. If I remember correctly, you were always one of the loud voices in the back of the room complaining about the work the leadership was doing, until I asked you to join the board. You did, and became president a few years later. I am proud of all we were able to accomplish. If you remember, I have been a loud voice for many years seeking change, and you are spot on. I should have remained. But now we are in harms way. The NCOA is taking a strong, positive stance, but also need to own up to the fact that they had a major hand in the mess. I am doing my part to help the process in ways only a few know.

[wmcdonald]

I don't think classifying someone as a millennial is unfair. It's a generation demographic. I also see the value in making generalizations about demographic characteristics from a marketing perspective. But it should be done with tact.
You bring up valid points about the job market they face, and the obstacles they face with higher education. I'm a little confused though, don't you support licensure and the education requirements to achieve it? What you outlined has been one of my points exactly on not requiring education as a prerequisite for obtaining a license. The job market is weak. Tuition is high. Why block someone from progressing in their career because they can't afford to go to school?

They are NOT learning the material. I will be happy to challenge you to take a basic test in optics, and lets see how much you really know. Affordability is not a valid argument. Grants and loans are abundant, and folks can now go online. What you are saying, really, is that anyone can do this very simple work, and so no investment in money, time or energy should be required. Apprenticeship is no more than cheap labor, and my research has proven it, as has the work of others.......which you obviously have not read. We are dumbing ourselves down with each generation because of folks like you.

[wmcdonald]

1 licensed optician isn't necessarily better than 1 unlicensed optician, but 1,000 licensed opticians will always be better than 1,000 unlicensed opticians.

I am pleased to hear you report that, and I hope the next time a licensing bill comes around in Texas you will be vocal. Some years back, your association in Texas worked really hard to defeat it and were successful. It did pass both houses of the legislature, but the Governor at the time refused to sign it. Licensure is not evil......and in many states it is not even a rigorous process. It simply shows a person has meet minimum standards to practice. It has always been interesting to me that most of those who have it want to keep it, while those who do not dispute its validity. Could that be fear of not being able to pass a basic licensing exam?

[eeopti]

Licensure is not evil......and in many states it is not even a rigorous process. It simply shows a person has meet minimum standards to practice. It has always been interesting to me that most of those who have it want to keep it, while those who do not dispute its validity. Could that be fear of not being able to pass a basic licensing exam?

Yes in most states it is not a rigorous process, however, in my State it is. I do not fear being able to pass a basic exam proving my knowledge, or indicating that I still have learning to do. What I am not ok with is requiring two years of school and only providing 3 schools within the entire state to get the degree. Then requiring a practical exam offered one time a year in one location in the entire state on top of the ABO.

You mentioned that there are online schools available...not in my state.
You mentioned that there are grants and finical help available to pay for tuition....what about having to move to one of the three locations where the course is offered? Who will pay the moving expenses? What about being able to pay rent? If I move, I will need to find another job.

If we were talking about a basic licensing exam that would be one thing, but clearly you do not know what is required in NY, or you just don't care. IF you had read my previous posts you would know that I am not completely against licensing. I am against unjustifiably making it harder for people with experience to progress within their career. If it was just a test, fine. That would be something I could stand behind. Your experience should enable you to get licensed by passing the test. And if it doesn't then you need to educate yourself to do so.

All I am saying is as you move forward waving your rally flag to increase licensure in all States, think about the current requirements. Look at the bigger picture. Your goal is to progress the optician position, not stifle it. There is more that needs to be done with the license requirements than just enacting them.

[Tigerclaw]

I am pleased to hear you report that, and I hope the next time a licensing bill comes around in Texas you will be vocal. Some years back, your association in Texas worked really hard to defeat it and were successful. It did pass both houses of the legislature, but the Governor at the time refused to sign it. Licensure is not evil......and in many states it is not even a rigorous process. It simply shows a person has meet minimum standards to practice. It has always been interesting to me that most of those who have it want to keep it, while those who do not dispute its validity. Could that be fear of not being able to pass a basic licensing exam?

Actually I prefer certification for opticians. I was speaking to the flawed reasoning that licensure doesn't have an overall increase in the quality just because SOME unlicensed opticians are better than SOME licensed ones. Would also be nice to have a real means to punish those ____heads who sell glasses or contacts on expired or soon-to-be-expired prescriptions just to keep their numbers high.
Overall the whole field needs a bit of an image overhaul. It is shameful to see a large segment of the industry under the control of people from outside the field, and to see us in malls and retail stores blending in as though Tiffany got assigned to the cash register, Kevin gets the shopping carts. David is doing stock, and Patty was assigned to optical. Add to that the sadistic glee some people here seem to see when the hand that feeds them is bitten by the online retailers. There needs to be some unity on this matter, and at least for us, the AOA seems to be too busy playing with Obamacare and "Global Warming" to be bothered with anything else.

[eeopti]

What you are saying, really, is that anyone can do this very simple work, and so no investment in money, time or energy should be required. Apprenticeship is no more than cheap labor, and my research has proven it, as has the work of others.......which you obviously have not read. We are dumbing ourselves down with each generation because of folks like you.

I am not saying that at all. I am saying that people HAVE put time and energy into investing in their career and people like you are unreasonably hindering them from progressing within their careers because you automatically assume they cannot pass a test. Beyond all of that, you automatically assume that states that require licensure have the same requirements. You are only looking at one side: make all states require opticians to have a license. What about the other side where States are requiring numerous hoops to jump through? To say I am the reason "we are dumbing ourselves down" is absurd. I am asking you to look at the total picture and not dumb yourself down by having such a narrow focus. There is a larger issue here and we shouldn't go barreling forward full speed without taking pause to fully understand the consequences. That would be dumb.

[wmcdonald]

If you knew my background and experiences, you would know that I am well aware of all of the requirements in every state, and taught for several years in NY. Nationally accredited (COA) online education is available to you and is not bounded by state lines, but you have to look. J Sargent Reynolds is an accredited institution, and unless things have changed in the last couple of years, it is accepted in every licensed jurisdiction because of it COA accreditation. You can also apprentice in NY. The examination process in NY is now the ABO/NCLE, and the practical, which many in the state complain about being so basic......and I can tell you it is certainly not as rigorous as it used to be. You must go to the practical site to take the exam, but a trip like that is a small investment. Sorry it could not be in your living room. There are people there who can assist you, if you reach out to them. You may be surprised at what you do not know, and it will only make you better. Let me know if you need specific information, and I will be happy to provide it. But for heavens sake, you need to know what you are talking about and stop all the complaining, and make what you seem to want to be your profession better.......not dumb it down. I would be willing to bet that once you went through the education and training required in NY, you would be one of the strongest advocates for it!

[wmcdonald]

Actually I prefer certification for opticians. I was speaking to the flawed reasoning that licensure doesn't have an overall increase in the quality just because SOME unlicensed opticians are better than SOME licensed ones. Would also be nice to have a real means to punish those ____heads who sell glasses or contacts on expired or soon-to-be-expired prescriptions just to keep their numbers high.
Overall the whole field needs a bit of an image overhaul. It is shameful to see a large segment of the industry under the control of people from outside the field, and to see us in malls and retail stores blending in as though Tiffany got assigned to the cash register, Kevin gets the shopping carts. David is doing stock, and Patty was assigned to optical. Add to that the sadistic glee some people here seem to see when the hand that feeds them is bitten by the online retailers. There needs to be some unity on this matter, and at least for us, the AOA seems to be too busy playing with Obamacare and "Global Warming" to be bothered with anything else.

Certification is voluntary, so will never hold a candle to licensure. How would you like it if they took away OD licensure, and made this unpopular board certification the standard?

[Tigerclaw]

Certification is voluntary, so will never hold a candle to licensure. How would you like it if they took away OD licensure, and made this unpopular board certification the standard?

I wouldn't like it, but I would deal with it. Maybe on paper licensure is vastly superior, but in my experience, the bigger gap is between "certified"and "uncertified" in the world of eye care.

[wmcdonald]

I am not saying that at all. I am saying that people HAVE put time and energy into investing in their career and people like you are unreasonably hindering them from progressing within their careers because you automatically assume they cannot pass a test. Beyond all of that, you automatically assume that states that require licensure have the same requirements. You are only looking at one side: make all states require opticians to have a license. What about the other side where States are requiring numerous hoops to jump through? To say I am the reason "we are dumbing ourselves down" is absurd. I am asking you to look at the total picture and not dumb yourself down by having such a narrow focus. There is a larger issue here and we shouldn't go barreling forward full speed without taking pause to fully understand the consequences. That would be dumb.

Again, you have no idea. One of my battles, and it was mentioned in this thread, is that Opticians have no common standard......which is the reason for these constant disagreements over this issue. That is a major stumbling block, but the "numerous hoops" you mention are not that significant. In NY, the ABO/NCLE and a practical exam are required. If that is excessive, I am sorry, but from conversations with most in NY it is minimal.

You also mention experience. Doing something 1000 times, and doing it incorrectly is experience, but not reliable and valid experience. You need to learn some baseline material, in my opinion and many who agree with me, before you call yourself an Optician.

[wmcdonald]

I wouldn't like it, but I would deal with it. Maybe on paper licensure is vastly superior, but in my experience, the bigger gap is between "certified"and "uncertified" in the world of eye care.

I'm sure that is correct......you are in Texas, where there is no licensure for Opticians. And I will deal with it if we lost our license, but will not like it. A study that will soon be released will address the value of certification in performance. I can't wait to see it.

[eeopti]

If you knew my background and experiences, you would know that I am well aware of all of the requirements in every state, and taught for several years in NY. Nationally accredited (COA) online education is available to you and is not bounded by state lines, but you have to look. J Sargent Reynolds is an accredited institution, and unless things have changed in the last couple of years, it is accepted in every licensed jurisdiction because of it COA accreditation. You can also apprentice in NY. The examination process in NY is now the ABO/NCLE, and the practical, which many in the state complain about being so basic......and I can tell you it is certainly not as rigorous as it used to be. You must go to the practical site to take the exam, but a trip like that is a small investment. Sorry it could not be in your living room. There are people there who can assist you, if you reach out to them. You may be surprised at what you do not know, and it will only make you better. Let me know if you need specific information, and I will be happy to provide it. But for heavens sake, you need to know what you are talking about and stop all the complaining, and make what you seem to want to be your profession better.......not dumb it down. I would be willing to bet that once you went through the education and training required in NY, you would be one of the strongest advocates for it!

Maybe I am looking in the wrong location...on the COA's website under New York there are the three schools listed that must be attended in person. J Sargent Reynolds program can be done online (but states that it is accredited in the State of Virginia, so I am already hesitant that NY would accept this degree) EXCEPT for labs. So I would have to go to Virginia for labs?

[eeopti]

Again, you have no idea. One of my battles, and it was mentioned in this thread, is that Opticians have no common standard......which is the reason for these constant disagreements over this issue. That is a major stumbling block, but the "numerous hoops" you mention are not that significant. In NY, the ABO/NCLE and a practical exam are required. If that is excessive, I am sorry, but from conversations with most in NY it is minimal.

You also mention experience. Doing something 1000 times, and doing it incorrectly is experience, but not reliable and valid experience. You need to learn some baseline material, in my opinion and many who agree with me, before you call yourself an Optician.

Again, if it were just the testing then you and I would be agreeing. Do not downplay the requirements in NY. Yes, doing something 1000 times and doing it wrong does not make your experience reliable. And on the flip side passing a few tests and having a degree doesn't mean you will deliver in real life. There are plenty of people who are great at school and test taking, but practical application...not so much. However, I am a proponent of education and see it's value when valid. I have a BA myself, and my biggest take away from college is learning how to learn, not so much the material covered itself.

I do not think those in support of licensure are doing a great job convincing people who are on the fence, or need to understand its value. Saying things like "we are dumbing ourselves down" or "you can't call yourself an optician unless you have a license" is just creating a larger gap between supports, non supports, and people on the fence. You cannot shove your way into agreeance, which is what I have seen so far on this thread.

[optical24/7]

I've been following this thread and just don't get some of you. ( Oh, I do, but don't understand your logic.)

Why I think Licensure is important; What would/will you do when presented with a hemianopic patient? Do you know what that is? How about a diplopic patient with compound prism in need of trial Fresnel prism? Would you put the vertical in one eye and the horizontal on the other using 2 separate Fresnels? If you were well trained, you would know to compound the prismatic amount into the resultant prism AND exactly what meridian (axis) to apply it, only on one lens, and the non-dominate eye at that.

I want my Aunt Sally to be able to go into any optical in the city she lives in and have at least one competent Optician there to help her. How is she supposed to know whom in the city can help her with her particular needs? Referral? Trial and error? A toss of the dice? Licensure ensures that there is at least a given minimum of ophthalmic knowledge of the Optician. As stated earlier, " 1 licensed optician isn't necessarily better than 1 unlicensed optician, but 1,000 licensed opticians will always be better than 1,000 unlicensed opticians."


If we continue to lessen entry requirements, what will happen to those patients with low/difficult vision? Where will the trained and skilled Opticians come from? If you had a relative with some of these problems but lived too far away to help them personally, wouldn't you feel comfort knowing that someone demonstratively trained in optics was helping them? Suppose they lived next door and had serious eye issues, how do you really know if you can even help them as adequately as someone trained? (Remember, you don't know what you don't know..)

Opticians can also find themselves on the front line of serious eye care needs. Case in point; last year I was conversing with a client after a simple adjustment. He mentioned to me that the day before and that morning he was seeing "lightning" every once in a while. I told him he needed to go up and see the OMD right away. " I'm too busy, maybe later..." He said.

I insisted, and escorted him up to the doctors office. Turns out he had a partial detachment and the doc told him if he hadn't come up right then, it probably would have been a complete detachment before the day was over. How many newly hired opticians, with little or no training would have caught those classic signs and insisted the patient see a doctor immediately? This is just one of many examples why Opticians need training. The only way to ensure this training is with licensure.

As to the OP. You complain about becoming licensed in NY. You wish to open your own optical. You can do that today without having a license. Just hire a Licensed Optician! You could benefit from their employment by using them as your proxy. You don't need to go to school, just go through the NAO's Career Progression Program. You won't have to step foot in a classroom.

As far as your comment about low pay; The average salary for Opticians in most places is on par with public school teachers. Also, in NY, you need schooling to cut hair whether in a NY school or reciprocity from a state who's licensure requirement is similar. Heck, you need a license in most states to be a dog groomer. Do you feel the role of an Optician is less than that?

Lastly, why would anybody that believes in this profession wish to dumb it down? Entry is already easier than anything else remotely medically oriented. Every state that requires licensure allows apprenticeship. Every state that requires licensure allows one to work under another's license (LDO, OD or MD). Who the heck is being held back from entry? Do you think you should be able to open an Optical with no demonstrated competencies? I sure hope Aunt Sally doesn't stumble into your shop "by chance".

Note to the OP; Do not take the last comment personally, I was generalizing.

[Barry Santini]

What you are describing I think, optical24/7, is a Optical *specialist.* Someone who a "routine" individual would "refer out" to.

That way, not everyone needs or pays for specialist when they dont require it...just like other medical professions.

B

[wmcdonald]

ONLINE........not in NY. It does not HAVE to be in NY. It is COA accredited, and accepted in NY. You woud do hands-on work with a local preceptor......in your office.

[Tigerclaw]

What you are describing I think, optical24/7, is a Optical *specialist.* Someone who a "routine" individual would "refer out" to.

That way, not everyone needs or pays for specialist when they dont require it...just like other medical professions.

B

Heck, let's just put everything in vending machines and let the patients just see a real person if they are going blind in one or both eyes. Maybe we can put proparacaine and even opioids in there and just "educate" people to do the right thing, you know, since making money and regulating things is bad...

[optical24/7]

What you are describing I think, optical24/7, is a Optical *specialist.* Someone who a "routine" individual would "refer out" to.

That way, not everyone needs or pays for specialist when they dont require it...just like other medical professions.

B

Where are these "specialist's" going to come from? Without required schooling all optical schools would close their doors. Now, where does that leave opticianry? Fend for yourself outcomes. You know better than anyone that you will only learn what your particular mentor(s) teaches you through apprenticeship. How many opticians have you met that had 20 years experience with one years worth of knowledge? Meaning they haven't learned much after their 1st year. There is great need for more knowledgeable Opticians out there, not less. The -.50's of the world don't need you or I. But there are a ton of patients that do. Even in huge Houston, with what I can argue has the highest concentration of ABOC Opticians in a non-licensed state, there are only a handful I would trust to send a low vision patient to.

As for paying for specialists, I'm sure you, me and plenty of other competent Opticians here charge similar fees for those that need specialized care as we do those that just need routine care. (It's just that their treatment/materials may have a higher cost.)

I'll ask you, with some of the scenario's I outlined above in post #170, who would you like to handle your Aunt Sally's treatment?

[jcasowder]

I actually have a lot of experience in retail dispensing and come from a family of opticians who feel the same way. In fact, my sister works for an optometrists and has 15 years experience dispensing in a non licensed state but currently works in a licensed state. She doesn't have the time to go through the educational program required to become licensed but wants to open an optical retail store and can't due to the license requirements. It seems like the only person bennifiting here is the optometrist.
I understand most of my work comes from optometrists, but think of the possibilities if opticians were more freely allowed to be owners within their own trade! I do not feel like I'm talking bad about anyone. Honestly, I don't. I'm simply acknowledging a discrepancy in licensing requirements among skilled trades (mechanics for example), and the effects it has on employment opportunities. I haven't even touched on the bennifits for consumers. However, I do see how this could be hard to swallow for someone who has gone through formal training or for an optometrist who has the potential of losing profit.

I worked in MD, MO, and IL. None of which were license states. I moved to NC in 2006, and after changing from one optometrist office to another, I started the training. I took my test in March 2014 (missed 2 parts in October 2013 and had to retake), and am now officially licensed. So, I understand the perspective you're coming from. BUT, I also know that what would be considered an optician in a non-regulated state was a complete joke. Don't get me wrong, there were a number of good opticians in the unregulated states, but the quality of work and caliber of good people in the field was drastically lower.

An OD that does not encourage their optician to be licensed is NOT someone to work for. They look to keep you under their thumb and dependent on them. I should know, as my former place of employment in NC treated me like that. My current boss paid for my test, encouraged me and worked with me on practicals, and pays for my continuing education. She wants me to succeed in the field. When I was in the training program, I worked full time with a family and a husband that was deployed most of the time (leaving me to act as a single parent), while I was still active in the church, military spouse support group, and other organizations. It can be done, if you have the drive and dedication. The licensing does have discrepancies, but what is considered wrong or inconsistent varies among opticians. No program is perfect, but being licensed helps to keep a higher caliber of optician servicing the public.

Patients can tell when they're dealing with someone that knows what they are doing, and will keep going to someone they trust implicitly. I keep a very open and honest dialogue with our patients, and offer to have another optician with a competitor to verify any information or to answer questions. Patients want honesty, but also feel reassured that they are in good hands seeing a license on the wall.

Car dealerships still require ASE certified mechanics to work on cars. At least the good ones do. And dental technicians HAVE to be licensed to clean teeth. We make glasses for people to DRIVE. Licensing and regulation of some kind is pretty important for something like that, if you think about it.