Licensing or Certification?

[jediron]

With all the rhetoric being expoused on this board about Licensing
Or to Certify I discovered a couple of definitions I thought are appropriate. Since we will never get all the states to agree on a single national license then we have to take the bull by the horn and lead the way. Another words we Opticians need to get off our backsides and form this thing ourselfs. As it says below certification is voluntary licensing is mandatory in States that license. All you in unlicensed States need to lead the way. I don't believe the OAA will cut it. I have watched it for thirty years and also a member for many of those years and nothing was accomplished. So where do we start?

Definitions Below:
Licensing is an activity carried out by a state government to regulate activities within its borders, according to the Opticians Association of America.

Certification , on the other hand, is a voluntary activity. The decision to become certified is made by the individual (although many employers now require their dispensing employees to be certified). The ABO and NCLE provide the only nationally recognized credential for Opticianry. Licensing is conducted by a state in the public interest; certification is conducted by a profession principally in the interest of its individual certificants.

[mjh]

so all of you in unlicensed states: listen to him and get the ball rolling. if you're not sure how to get started, just let us know here on optiboard and you'll learn quickly. ...If we all passed the ABO, then we can call ourselves "Board-certified opticians", just like surgeons or attorneys can be certified (voluntarily) by boards in their professions. That designation might be the way to go in identifying ourselved to the public, so they at least know we have passed a nationally recognized exam. They may not know what "ABO" is an abbreviation for, but if they hear "Board Certified optician", they might then realize that some (most?) of us have voluntarily taken that step in our careers.

[jediron]

So mjh who do you think should lead? In the Lic. States we already have the lic. we don't need a national certification. I was thinking as the body of Opticians as a whole needs certification ( One National Lic. required by all to take) and the un-lic. states should lead the way.:bbg:

[BobV]

Let's cut to the chase. This is what you SHOULD have been saying all along. To try to force someone to do something is not the right way to go.

Since myself and others oppose licensing, I can handle the idea of a national certification. This way here ALL opticians can stand up and be counted. This would probably start a new organization, replacing the OAA, with a better shot of getting more opticians involved.

National certification would mean better organization amongst opticians. It may be the end of state licensure as you know it, freeing opticians from other states to move, without worrying whether or not there is reciprocity between the states. This, I believe has been a major stumbling block for my approval of licensing. The laws were set up to "protect" you, but in effect, have hurt you because you need to sit for the various boards before you are able to "practice" your profession.

Bob V.

[mjh]

so start that organization and lets all join

[wmcdonald]

There is already a certification program, ABO/NCLE. Will another certificate be a dulpication of effort? What is the difference between your suggested certification and the existing one? Who will design it? The ABO/NCLE spent thousands to design a psychometrically appropriate test. I for one, believe it is too simplistic, but I and others, must keep in mind minimum competency. Why not work within the organizations to change the current exam structure (only slight modifications are required), and move on. I am not trying to be negative, but only to point out other ways to acomplish the goal. As to licensed states; hundreds in NC have the ABO?NCLE certifications. We are one of the nations toughest licensed states, but many choose to distinguish themselves even further through the national board. The truth is that if people are not compensated appropriately for their training and education, they will not seek it. In my state, all that matters is the license. I sometimes feel that, and being able to breath makes someone employable. All the certifications in the world will not make Walmart or Sears pay more unless we can prove their worth. Think about it!

Warren

[Cindy Hamlin]

BobV said:

Since myself and others oppose licensing, I can handle the idea of a national certification. This way here ALL opticians can stand up and be counted. This would probably start a new organization, replacing the OAA, with a better shot of getting more opticians involved.

National certification would mean better organization amongst opticians. It may be the end of state licensure as you know it, freeing opticians from other states to move, without worrying whether or not there is reciprocity between the states. This, I believe has been a major stumbling block for my approval of licensing. The laws were set up to "protect" you, but in effect, have hurt you because you need to sit for the various boards before you are able to "practice" your profession.

Bob V.

Bob,
I am wondering why you oppose licensing? I am proud to be a VA licensed optician. I am all for a national certification standard which would allow opticians to move freely among the states.

But, with National Certification, to keep strong societies and organizations there must be educational requirements (CEs). States which are licensed and have CE requirements tend to have stronger societies than the states without CE requirements.

Another thought about removing state licenses would be the inevitable loss of lifestyle. It is the license in those states that determines the need and the hourly rate. With the license removed the pay would decrease.

I am just curious about your thought process for opposing licenses.

[Judy Canty]

We already have a national certification exam, the ABO for spectacles and NCLE for contact lenses. We don't need another one. We need to educate the public that the holders of these certifications have the minimum qualifications they should trust to fit, fabricate and dispense their eyewear. State licensure and master and advanced certifications should be icing on the cake.

The ABO-NCLE has done an excellent job of educating the Optician about the value of these certifications. Perhaps it's time they began to educate the public to accept nothing less than ABO-NCLE certified Opticians.

[mjh]

...if surgeons and lawyers can be board certified, so can we! Actually, if we passed the ABO, we already are. Instead of saying we are ABOC (the public doesnt know what that means...the ABO doesn't have the same name recognition as ASE does for auto mechanics), we can refer to ourselves as "Board Certified" by the ABO. Sounds better and more in line with the other professions. And it's true.

[BobV]

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

[chip anderson]

Professional: Doing it for money
Amateur: Doing it for love.

Look up the root words in Latin and see what you want to be.

Chip

[Cindy Hamlin]

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

Bob, I agree with your comments wholeheartedly, but....

Since I am a personnel manager for an optical company and cover several licensed states I can agree and disagree with your comments.

First off, certification or licensure doesn't make you a good optician. Studying and book learning can get you both. I like what Chip said about love! You have to love doing this job and care that you do it well to be something special!

With that being said, certification will drive the hourly rate down. It just stands to reason. I have several states where you have to have a license there to open and that makes the price soar at times. Need=Price. Think of it in terms of competition. If there is no competition you can charge top dollar for your services!

I think there are extremes on both sides. I think licensure is important as it means an extra step and extra schooling. Do you have to have any schooling to sit for the ABO???? You do for licensure in most states. True parts you never use again, but it gives you a good foundation.

I would agree with your certification stand if there was manditory education. Oh, the stories I could tell......(but can't!).

[chip anderson]

Ask yourself:

Are you any better driver, fisherman, teacher, businessman, displayer of a sign, optical dispenser, saleman, lover, motorcycle rider, home builder, teacher, user of anything, by virtue of haveing a license to do so.

In our state you don't even have to paralell park to get a driver's license (it was too discriminatory) you don't show I.D. at the polling booth (it was too discriminatory) , our state inspection on cars is so sloppy you might as well be able to do it by mail. W have to have licenses for all the things mentioned in the first paragraph. What do we get out of it? We pay a fee is all. No real inspection on the quality of the user is required. We have teachers that are licensed and certified that couldn' teach anyone to put on a pair of socks. How many "opthalmic precirbers" do you know that don't have a clue about fitting toric contact lenses?

I understand all the arguments you proport to have for licenseing but really, it's just a pie-in-the-sky dream of unionization.

Chip

[jediron]

Bob V. 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.

So Bob tell me when you are going to see an un-lic. doctor for your next physical.
And Bob V. said:
Next, you are a "professional" if you are licensed. No need for a license there. Knowledge and attitude contribute to a "professional" atmosphere.

Bob V. let me know what you were smoking when you came up with these ludricous idea's. I know Peyota can do some strange
things. But to say "we do what we do thats it" Any doctor, nurse ect. can say the same thing "we do for a gunshot wound what we do and thats it" very strange thinking.:drop: