BobV said:
Cindy, as in previous posts, my main reason for opposing licensure is that it is a purely political entity that serves no one but the licensing board and the state. Also, opticianry in one state is no different than in any other state. We do what we do and that's it.
Now, from all the other posts concerning this topic, it seems that one reason for licensing is to prove competency. If you have taken the ABO, with it's "minimum" competency worth, then you have proven yourself.
Next, you are a "professional" if you are licensed. No need for a license there. Knowledge and attitude contribute to a "professional" atmosphere.
Third, both you and Warren have stated this in this thread, lack of proper compensation from an employer. I don't know what any of you make salary wise, nor do I need to know. None of my business. But you make what you can by self promotion, knowledge of the position, years of experience. Needless to say, if you don't have any of the previous, don't expect the big bucks to come rolling in. If the state sets the pay scale when licensed, then it amounts to nothing more than your yearly fees being no more than union dues.
Do any of you think most physicians earn a six figure salary right out of their residencies? If you do, think again. Most don't.they may start at a high five figure and work up with experience.
Back to the third. If it's only a money issue for favoring licensure, then count me out. A company will pay what they believe you are worth. You have to PROVE yourself to them that you can earn for them and then the increases will follow.
Cindy, I hope that answered your question. I'm trying to be as honest and forthright as I can on this subject.
Thank you.
Bob Vartanian
Bookmarks