Warby Parker attempting to change Connecticut statutes

[waynegilpin]

Received the following yesterday from the Connecticut Opticians Association:

The Connecticut Opticians Association

WARBY PARKER SEEKS STATUTORY CHANGES

Warby Parker has drafted a proposal, hoping to have it presented to the Public Health Committee of the Connecticut legislature. If passed it will change the way opticianry is practiced in Connecticut. Founded in 2010, Warby-Parker began operating exclusively as an online retailer of prescription eyewear and sunglasses. In 2013, they opened their first brick-and-mortar store. Headquartered in New York City, they currently have three physical stores in Connecticut Having “found it challenging to find licensed, qualified opticians to staff our two stores,” Warby Parker has requested changing the Connecticut optician scope of practice by, Updating Connecticut’s Dispensing Optician Statute. PROPOSAL OVERVIEW Updating Licensing Requirements • Splitting our scope of practice by separating eyewear and contact lenses. This would create a two tier license. Contact Lenses would become an optional license obtained after successful completion of an exam administered at no additional charge. • Reduce apprenticeship from 4 years to two years and allow for a combination of an 18 month apprenticeship with the completion of one year education program approved by the Board. • Licensing exams to be administered quarterly. Updating Optician Regulation • Waive education & training requirements for opticians “duly” licensed in other states • Erroneously states that apprentices are not allowed to dispense glasses, “even under the supervision of a licensed optician.” • Allow registered apprentices to dispense glasses during “customary absence [of the optician] such as sick days and vacation, etc." • In addition to the “proposed exemption for customary absences, [of the optician] stores should be allowed to remain open to try-on frames and picking up on-line orders, etc.” If this proposal finds a sponsor and is ultimately made into law, it will have a negative impact on opticianry school graduates and current license holders. If adopted, it will contradict our statutory mandate to protect public health, welfare and safety. (CGS Chpt 381; Sec 20-139) The Connecticut Opticians Association founded in 1934 and representing the majority of opticians in Connecticut, opposes the restructuring of our educational standards and scope of practice to satisfy the request of an out-of-state corporation for its own pecuniary benefits. Be assured, your COA has been, and will continue to be, diligent in following the progress of this proposal as Warby Parker seeks a sponsor.

Renew Your Membership or Join Now

Connecticut Opticians Association, Inc. Founded in 1935 The only professional association in Connecticut that supports you, no matter who you are, or where you practice. 34 Shunpike Rd. Suite 3, #165 Cromwell, CT 06416-2453 www.ctopticians.com ctopt@aol.com P: 860.416.5128 F: 860.258.0669 René "Skip" Rivard Executive Director

The Connecticut Opticians Association

WARBY PARKER SEEKS STATUTORY CHANGES

[waynegilpin]

Sorry folks. I didn't realize that all these blank areas would post. I've cleaned it up as best I can. You should have seen it before.

[mervinek]

Hmm. I wonder why they are having a difficult time finding licensed opticians to work for them.

[Tallboy]

Poor Warby, so dififcult to find good help these days.

[waynegilpin]

I receive two job ads in the mail yesterday. One from National Vision/America's Best, and the second from Cohens. Apparently there is a bit of a shortage in CT now.

[drk]

Listen, here's how it works.

1. Warby pays someone in Connecticut's general assembly or whatever with "campaign donations".
2. If you don't come up with another politician to fight their politician, you lose.

There is no other level at which this is going to be fought.

[drk]

Let me tell you a story about Luxottica in Ohio.

Luxottica wanted to soften the CL dispensing laws such that no CL license was needed to dispense CL materials. If it was 8:00 PM in the mall, and there was no CL license in the store, they couldn't dispense CLs (as they should not).

Lux, under the guise of some "Association" or whatever legal entity they created ("National optical retailers" or somesuch) got to the exact right politician in the House (and I won't go into more detail than is charitable, but I could) who made up a totally confabulated lie as a pretext:

The bill's sponser said: "I was trying to order CLs, and I was turned away...blah blah blah".

Therefore they wanted to change the law that protected consumers from having CLs dispensed by someone who didn't know a base curve from a diameter, or an Acuvue Oasys from an Acuvue 1-Day Moist.

I was happy to speak as a citizen/optometrist against the bill (although the Ohio Optometric Association stayed away as it wasn't a hill they were willing to even walk on, let alone die on, and told me I was not representing "O"ptometry) and I will say that I kicked ***, despite several embarrasingly pedestrian attempts to trip me up. In fact, one legislator came up to me afterwards and said "You were very convincing". No matter! He voted the way he was "whipped" to vote! He voted in favor.

Guess who won? It's a rigged game, people.

[mervinek]

It's a rigged game, people.

Yes, that's politics for you. It's all about who gets the bribe. Sad.

[drk]

But I gotta say, if you don't fight, you'll never win, and you'll be forever steamrolled. At least put up the resistance.

RESIST!

[drk]

Boom! Daaarrree itttt essss:



AOA Files Complaint Against NAOO For Misrepresenting Themselves

Arthur B. Epstein, OD, the Chief Medical Editor of Review of Optometry (1/25) writes that “the AOA recently announced that they had lodged a formal complaint against” the National Association of Optometrists and Opticians (NAOO) “with the IRS for misrepresenting who the organization represents.” Dr. Epstein writes “the NAOO purports to represent doctors of optometry and opticians while actually representing the interests of optometry’s large corporate commercial employers.” For instance, the NAOO has “attacked the AOA-backed bipartisan supported Contact Lens Rule Modernization Act (S. 4613) that would counter FTC regulatory overreach and finally fix the broken contact lens rule.”

[ak47]

Well done Dr. K ! Is that you in the picture above? :)

[Lelarep]

Well done Dr. K ! Is that you in the picture above? :)

Of this I have no doubt.