Just another lesson from your old Uncle D :-)

[Darris Chambless]

Hello to all especially Steve,

First let me say that I'm not trying to be overly negative here, only realistic. The truth hurts sometimes and I'm sorry if feeling get hurt because of what I'm about to write, but I'm sure you will get over it since we're all adults here.

Chad and I were talking about Steve's subject of the future of opticianry and because of Chads misunderstanding of what Steve meant (he's a little slow sometimes :-) touched on a very valid point which we talked over at length (he has his moments :-)

"The Future of Opticianry In A Nutshell"

Written by Darris Chambless a.k.a. "All around good guy."

In the beginning people with a working knowledge of lenses were required to tend to the visual needs of those that had visual acuity problems. These people were revered for their skills and ability to take care of so many people with an accuracy that is still unmatched. As time went on these people became more important to those in need of their services and thus the Optician was born.

The public became dependant upon the optician, so much so that more was demanded of their knowledge and refracting took place in the opticians office. Why? Because he could do it more efficiently and accurately than the doctors of the time AND had a better understanding of the principles of optics. Thus the Optometrist was born.

The Optometrists became so busy doing what they did that they had no time to tend to the mundane aspects of the optical end of the industry. Again the independent Optician became a staple for every office and was as highly trained as they ever were. The Optometrist became a doctor and the Optician was once again the craftsman and incharge of the end result of the Optometrists work.

Here's where it starts to get good. As Optometry became more sought after as a profession the market for OD's became flooded. In order to maintain diversity Optometry had to look for new venues with which to stay ahead of it all. The first step was lobbying to be included in the insurance groups, one of the most costly mistakes they made that they will never admit too. When this started increasing patient flow but decreasing the bottom line they started to worry about the future of Optometry.

The second thing Optometrists did was to put in their own optical. First they tried to hire the independents to come run their optical and it was rather lucrative for both. But then greed set in and many OD's felt that instead of sharing profits, they could take over the optical, train anybody to do what the current opticians were doing (after all they are doctors and smarter than the average bear and could train a monkey to do what the opticians were doing ;-) By doing this they could hire someone for minimum wage and keep the lions share of the profits from the optical. When met with some resistance to this by the Opticians the Optometry Boards in many states made it illegal for Opticians and Optometrist to co-own an optical therefore either taking the OD out of the office or visversa. So the independents were out on their own once again, but still doing well.

In comes the big corporations and they say to themselves "I wonder why there is so much fervor going on in the optical industry? Why do OD's want to run an optical and why do independent opticians fair as well as they do without a doctor?" So they looked into it. They saw the profits and had to get in on it. In many states anyone could don a lab coat and call themselves an optician and handle the patients eyewear needs. This helped the corporate bottom line since they would train these individuals (or not) and could pay them very little. In states where licensing is required they found loopholes and ways in which to work with the bare minimum requirements and still keep the bottom line appealing.

Once all this happened the necessity for trained, knowledgeable opticians diminished. Why? The bottom line.

Here's what I mean and the point that Chad brought up. I'm in business for myself, but if I were to have to shut this office down at anytime I would more than likely never be in the optical business again unless I became a doctor. I know you're asking yourselves and crying out in anguish "WHY WOULD YOU LEAVE THE INDUSTRY?!? YOU'RE SUCH A WONDERFUL OPTICIAN AND WE NEED YOU!!! IN FACT WE CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT YOU!!!" I know, but please try to calm yourselves and try not to shed a tear for me. I will always be around if only in spirit :-)

With all that I know, with all that I can do I would cost too much to employ. I would be too costly to the bottom line. If I were to be hired in the optical industry, with what they would pay me I can tell you right now that all I would do would be frame styling and dispensing and nothing more. Since they won't pay for my additional talents they won't get them. I would do the job they paid me for and nothing more.

So to make a long story long and drawn out; if you are knowledgeable, educated and talented in opticianry you are over qualified in todays market. You could easily be passed over for someone with no experience that just needs a job and won't cost as much to hire and can easily be "molded" into the kind of mind numbed drone...er...I mean professional associate, team player that the "Company" so desires ;-)

So how to fix it? Well, you can try to get state or national associations to do the political work in legislation for you, but that's not very effective. Look at what Environmental Associations did for California. You can demand that you be paid what you're worth and never be hired again. Or you can accept what they give you and treat it as a job and not your life.

The future of Opticianry? If it's what you like to do then do it, but it's not your life. If you are one of those that thinks it is your life then you need therapy ;-) Do what pays the bills and leave the rest of it at the office. The only thing that's important is what goes on after you punch the clock at the end of the day.

Take care and know that everything I've said here is 100% true. Sorry.

Darris C.

[Specs]

I too work for myself and couldn't agree more with your well taken point. I think the only Opticians that get paid what we are worth are those that are self employed and have a fairly successful practice going. As far as leaving it at the door at 5:00pm,I don't know about that. One of the downfalls of having your own business is just that, I don't know any owner that can totally turn it off at 5.

[This message has been edited by specs13 (edited 03-30-2001).]

[Darris Chambless]

Hello Specs,

If you or any other independent had gone through what I've had to go through in my optical career, trust me, you would know how to leave it at the office. I take care of work at work and it doesn't leave the office with me. Perhaps I suffer from split personalities, but that's a good thing :-)

To shore up part of my point, I'm not advocating that everyone run out and open up their own shop if they want to get paid what they're worth, because it ain't easy and it ain't glamorous. I went without a paycheck for the first three years we were in business and am the major bread winner in our family. So if anyone wants to go for that glamorous lifestyle, live on Mac & Cheese and has the drive to succeed I say go for it :-)

And people wonder why I don't take any guff off of anyone. My skins gotten pretty thick over the years ;-)

Take care,

Darris "The laugh in the face of death life of independent opticianry" C.

[Texas Ranger]

Darris, I'm really proud that you're making it, and glad to know there are still people that can empathize with our area of the profession. Al.

[BobV]

Darris, THE WISE ONE, long time no hear...

I don't envy you...mac and cheese...God, I would die !!! Hopefully you had some pb and j to counter the taste.

I believe you hit the nail on the head. The last employer I had tried to force the job to go home with whomever worked there. I guess that's why his employee turnover is high.

I take on a job and can be a great employee. Try to overwork me for the wages I get, my system starts to shut down. An employer will get no respect from me if they expect more than 100%. I've tried to give the proverbial 110%, but they want 120%. (I love hitting the % key) The pay has to reflect the work I'm doing, and vice-versa. Pay me well, you get well, pay me average, you get average, etc.

Some people won't like me saying that, but, too bad. Been in the work force too long to allow someone to crap on me again.

Bob V.

[chip anderson]

I think this is on the same subject. I run a small but successfull independent optical dispensary.. I make spectacles, artificial eyes and fit custom contact lenses. I have worked aproximately 80-100 hrs a week since 1958. I am 58 years old, diabetic and need to slow down. I would be thrilled to hire a young lad 20-35 years old, train him and slowly give him the business. I don't even see anyone interested in the job.

No one seems to want to work any more. Young people seem to want a 40 hr., lots of salary now with little responsibilty. Don't know what has changed since I was young. I see my son's friends saying they want a job, I tell them (they are not interested in something as conservative as my business)they can go to home depot and get $ 11.00 an hour. The go to Be-Bop Records or McAlister's (a sandwich shop) for $5.00 hr. so that they can visit with thier friends.

Any thoughts?

Chip

[Clive Noble]

Originally posted by chip anderson:
I have worked aproximately 80-100 hrs a week since 1958. I am 58 years old, diabetic and need to slow down.
Chip

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chip! I could have written that, except I'm 60 yrs old and the doc has now told me to slow down! However, I thought I was pushing it at 70 hours a week.

However did you manage 100 hours a week?
You must be worse than me in delegating.

Slow down man, it's really not worth it.

All best, Clive

[Thumper]

Your history is a little distorted.
Optometry enhanced it's education first, increased it's professionalism second, increased it's scope of practice act third, and then actively pursued managed care programs in the end.

[Alan W]

Thumper
You got it right.
Darris. You know how much much I love an respect you, but I'm going to respectfully disagree. Please allow me a moment to explain.
I, too, had a very succesful business and lost a lot of economic ground to some Persian landlords in Encino, Calif. (bought centers and replaced locals with family in small businesses) It was at a time when ophthalmology was just starting to dispense, the gas crunch, and discount opticals were starting up big time. So, its hard to attribute many things to the decline of opticianry's success.
One hour service was the motive for the big change in the early 80's. Moving the lab out of the sweat shop and into a bright shiny store was resented. The "leap frog" production method, bringing down the barriers of training, narrowing the range of prescription service to accomodate speed and volume, and maintaining or increasing profit margins as compensation for improved service to the 12% market segment, increasing product selection and mix were the goals of EyeLab, the original Eye Masters, and Lenscrafters. There was also an expanded resource of people to work there as a secondary benefit. Good or bad it happened and caused a painful dent in the professional landscape. Managed care is the great (but far less desireable) leveller that has forced the streamliners and major retailers to change their MO to price. The independent will rise again. The retailers are faced with expansion to maintain volume and whatever other ways they can do lower costs. It's a no win for them. Luxottica is no dummy. Their system is self fulfilling. Hate them if we must. We are looking at a window of opportunity here. One in which we can gain economic hold by not so much controlling the quality of labor, but by making quality labor the only one available. That would be by a self initialized movement to upgrade the knowledge (and resulting power)base. The key is to do it with speed and expansion. Exactly as the retailers did. NOt just sit on our bootys and talk about it, but get every corner of specialization under the certification umbrella as quickly as possible. It will mean we all have to become a team. I have great fears over that happening. It has always been our downfall. We don't act like a team. We don't stand united.
1, Create or approve incredibly strong and fast quality training to certify individuals for job positions that will be most needed and desired by employers and do it outside of the walls of the employer. That includes all employers such as... optometrists, retailer optical, independent, ophthalmologists, clinics, hospitals, etc.
2, Market certified specialists as a community if not as individuals, (cosmetic/sales, technical, medical, managerial)to the public and convince the public to trust Board Certified Specialist individuals only regardless of where they work or own. Do not buy glasses from a person who does not have . . . so on and so forth on the wall. If you do not see a Board Certificate on the wall for the person who you are buying glasses from you may have no recourse if there is a problem. I CANNOT UNDERSTATE THE NEED FOR THIS FUNCTION AS A PRIMARY FUNCTION.
3, Prove to governmnet that we are capable of designing and controlling our own destiny and that for the protection of the public interest, it should officially legalize such a program and make it illegal for any one less to serve the public.

Had we done that, it would have been impossible for Lenscrafters to hire a MacDonalds shift leader for lab without legal certification, etc. etc. etc.. (That exclusivity can place a premium dollar value on the individual that surpasses "cheap" labor and OJT only). Typically, the public tends to recognize, respect and pay more for "Board Certified" individuals, and especially Board Certified Specialty".

Our mistake is that we have ben acting like NERO since the early 30's.
NERO? Yes NERO. While NERO played the violin Rome burned. While we looked down and played with PD rulers and handstones someone created an automatic lab guy (patternless edger), and put it in the hands of a MacDonalds shift leader. Now we look up and say: "Hey . . what's going on here. You can't do that. That's not fair!"
In 1985 Dean Butler (creator of Lenscrafters) was invited to speak in front of the California Laboratory Association Convention. He was invited to be ambushed. Hated, for sure. He tried to explain that Lenscrafters was not built on the foundation of current optical labor thinking, but the combined thinking of Procter and Gamble and retail mentality. He offered to share that with them for free. They kicked him out of the convention. Who won that battle? That was a stupid move. But, time is teaching P & G and retail thinking to labs. That's the only thing left. Most are failing at trying.

Last comment. In no situation in our professional history have we been succesful in gaining position by creating laws to advance. It doesn't work that way. But somehow somebody has convinced us we need to change the laws. We soend our money doing that. Laws change for 2 reason: Public protection andf political advantage to the politician.
Rather, and as we are now feeling the pain from not doing: We need to go to the marketplace where it affects the pocket of the consumer AND the EMPLOYER/PROVIDER. Lasik is marketed, optical is marketed, managed care is marketed. Everything is marketed. And, politicians either jump on the band wagon or try to stop the wagon after its moving. I'd rather be a moving target than a stationery one. Thanks for the lesson, Mr. NERO!

[Darris Chambless]

Hello to all,

First to Mr. BobV; I'm going to be in Marysville May 17th through the 21st maybe earlier, but that will depend on the wife, so we need to hook up sometime. I'll get a few more particulars though. Hopefully our schedules will coincide :-)

Second, to Thumper."Your history is a little distorted. Optometry enhanced it's education first, increased it's professionalism second, increased it's scope of practice act third, and then actively pursued managed care programs in the end." So in other words they became Optometrists and went after inclusion into insurance? Isn't that what I said? :-) Although I'm not sure what your response has to do with my post or anything else for that matter, thanks for the history (but the point is moot ;-) Let's stay the course shall we? :-)

Third, to my dear friend Alan. I can't say I disagree with anything you've said but I will respectfully have to repeat what I've written to Thumper (a.k.a. pmw) It's good information but I think you missed the point.

The point (as simple as I tried to make it) was that (regardless of the order it occurred in) because of the way things are now in this industry people like Al, Bob Rihl, Harry, Pete and myself as well as many others on this board are overqualified. Let me explain. We all have positions in this industry at present, but because of the shifts in the industry being overqualified means we are virtually unhireable. Why? The bottom line. We have more to offer than almost any company can afford to pay for because of the limits on their bottom line. For what a company would have to pay for one of us they can hire four or five untrained workers at minimum wage and stay open later hours. The industry runs on quantity not quality in this day and time.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing nor am I saying that opticianry didn't cause it's own demise but I can't call it a good thing either. It's just how it is and change is inevitable.

So in a nutshell, the more training one gets in todays industry the bigger a liability one becomes to the current trends in this industry. Think of this scenario, a few years ago my brother was trying to get on with a local company working in the mail room (he was looking for something that wasn't as high pressure as what he had been doing) He felt it would be a good change and the pay was pretty good. He applied and was granted an interview where he was told he was overqualified for the position and they thanked him for coming in. My brother has a degree in Psychology, has been an instructor for Dale Carnegie and has managerial experience, so that first rejection was the first of several for the same reason. He could find something that he thought he would enjoy doing and couldn't get hired because he knew too much. So goes the way of the optical industry

Industry wants the untrained and or untrainable so that they can pay them nothing and hopefully train enough of them (minimally) to keep things going for our disposable society. They want people who will never question them, do whatever they want them to do unconditionally and always be content working for whatever they get.

Did Opticianry "fiddle while it burned?" Perhaps but for the most part I think that opticians had the intellectual view that society wouldn't go for getting medical goods from the untrained just as Ophthalmology has looked upon Optometry with regard to surgical procedure and the general public. One need only look as far as Oklahoma for the first example of this ;-) Opticians had more faith in the intellect of the general public, but were wrong in their assessment of the situation. People wanted fast, cheap and good. What they got was only the first two but since "two out of three ain't bad" was the mind set it went over like a balloon.

Oh well, almost everyone on this board is overqualified for this industry as it stands now. I'm doing fine in my own business but I'm going to go into medicine so that I can be overqualified for that industry as well :-)

TTFN

Darris "The Realist/literalist" C.

[Thumper]

Darris,

I assure you that industry is looking for talent in a most desparate way. Plus, they will be willing to pay for it.
Have you really tried to find other work or is it that you know deep down that you would not be willing to listen to or even try other peoples' ideas or suggestions before degrading them?
Industry not only looks for talent but also looks for employees who will work together to enhance the overall structure.
Are you capable of working with other people?
What is wrong with corporations increasing productivity? You probably enjoy a very good life as a result of increased productivity in numerous industries that have increased efficiency to allow larger groups of consumers access to these products.
If health care also is feeling pressure in this area, then so be it.
Adapt, try new approaches, forge alliances, but stop complaining and get on with a productive business approach.

[Alan W]

Thumper
Excellent viewpoint. As I stated in a posting many months ago, the evolution of an individuals career is based on four levels:

1, Technical
2. People
3, Conceptual
3, Financial

Being well trained and having no place to use it in exchange for a higher paycheck doesn't mean one is overqualified. What it means is that in order to be useful at more sophisticated levels one has to ad to the technical accomplishment, useful people skills which can lead to managerial positions where the technical skills can find a better home. Engineers experience the same thing. But, ultimately, the creative needs of business and industry can only be fulfilled by technically capable people who are willing to move outside the matrix of mundane daily applications of the skills and then to the financial management of a company that needs it all. You can't be a scholar in optics, sit in the backroom of an optical shop, and expect big bucks. But, you can get the big bucks as a scholar who acquires the other skills and attributes.
The public didn't dictate what it wanted. The public agreed with what the marketers of cheap said. The marketers did the talking. Not the public. Similarly, and as I spelled out in the three point action plan in another forum, we have to market ourselves, not our product. And, we need professional support to do it. We have no marketing skills. Any one who wears an opticians hat who thinks he has marketing skills is kidding himself. That's the conceptual part I was talking about. But, we need to fund ourselves to pay for it. I addressed that also.
Thumper, you hit the nail on the head. I wish your points could be driven home with more power. That's our inherent problem.
Darris. By the time you finish residency in ophthalmology, times will have changed a lot and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if you would have to accept a paycheck working for some other MD/business tycoon. It's happening as we speak. The grass ain't greener.

[Darris Chambless]

Hello Thumper and Alan,

Thumper, I've come to the conclusion that I need to start another thread to explain (in detail) the actual workings of industry in general. From there I will take you on a trip through the reality that is the optical industry (emphasis on "Optical") After that I will take you on a long, arduous trip through my psyche so that you may further understand the internal workings of the mind of a madman :-)

Actually I figured out (not that it will make much difference) why this conversation is going in the direction it's going in. I'm afraid that you and Alan have taken my original post out of context and read many things into it that aren't there. Or as I like to say "There is no there, there."

So let's simplify this down to the bare bones. Optical industry: wants talented, well trained and educated personnel at a discount price. Public: wants talented, well trained and educated people working on their eyewear but hasn't a clue if the "optician" (guy or girl in the white lab coat) waiting on them is such a person. National associations: want talented, well trained and educated people in the profession in order to garner them the recognition that they deserve (but have no clue how to do it) and collect their yearly membership fees :-)

With regard to Optometry, it merely opened up the door for the larger corporations to get a piece of the optical pie. I was not saying that all this was Optometry's fault rather that Optometry gave corporations the magic key to access the industry. Corporations have positioned themselves well enough in the market that even Optometry is becoming more dependant on them for office space to work out of after graduating. In many cases it's the only option some new doctors have. Note that nowhere in this have I said that this is a bad thing nor a good thing.

In your last response to me you wrote "You probably enjoy a very good life as a result of increased productivity in numerous industries that have increased efficiency to allow larger groups of consumers access to these products." I would like to look a little closer at the content of this but especially at one word in particular. That word would be "efficiency." How efficient is it to make a product as inexpensively as is possible to give larger groups of consumers access to them only to have them malfunction, break, or have to be remade? I'm the kind of guy that will go out and spend the extra money on an item or build it myself so that I don't have to worry about it to begin with. That's my definition of efficiency, not just that it's readily available "At an everyday low price." Quantity doesn't equal efficiency, quality does IMHO and has held true thus far.

Alan my friend, as I've said before I won't disagree with a thing you've said because it's all true, but it doesn't pertain to what I was saying. Opticianry isn't doomed or even on the outs it's just being watered down. Please don't take this the wrong way since it's meant more as an illustration than anything but from your perspective your analogies are the way of the future for Opticianry and the future of industry. From my perspective you're thinking is that of a "lackey." Why? Because of the differences in the positions we hold, the offices in which we do our work and the directions we set for ourselves. In other words your perspective is functional for your needs and mine is functional for mine. We're both right.

I do have to tag you just a little here, but I promise it won't hurt...much :-) You said "Darris. By the time you finish residency in ophthalmology, times will have changed a lot and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if you would have to accept a paycheck working for some other MD/business tycoon. It's happening as we speak. The grass ain't greener." You're again correct without dispute and this has actually been happening for quite some time. But if Ophthalmology will be brought to this level then what makes you or anyone else think that they can advance Opticianry's presence and professionalism in the market place? When an MD is turned into no more than an employee of a corporation and made to accept less than what they are worth, why would an Optician be considered anything other than a frame salesperson or be given more respect or money? OD's are getting surgical privileges, dogs and cats will be living together, IT WILL BE TOTAL ANARCHY!!! :-) It isn't a pretty sight ;-)

I've got it! In the immortal words of my banjo teacher Mr. Doke Snead from his song "Casting Pearls Before Swine." "Casting pearls before swine. Showering laurels on a welfare line. All the cripples will be dancers and the blind can lead the way. You'll get exactly what you want without trying. It's a golden day." That's where the industry world is going. Twist it. Bend it. Break it. And then wonder why it doesn't work. By that point it's too late.

I'm not complaining about the industry as Thumper has suggested, I'm merely making an observation. If anyone wants proof one need only look as far as the people on this board for the answers. One can speculate or one can know for sure. It's all up to you.

Take care,

Darris "Always cordial." C.

PS. Thumper, I forgot to answer your question; "Have you really tried to find other work or is it that you know deep down that you would not be willing to listen to or even try other peoples' ideas or suggestions before degrading them?" Yes, and the opticals that I applied at (prior to going into business for myself) were all afraid to even make me an offer because they didn't want to "offend" me. They would have to offer me less than what I was worth (their words not mine) and felt that it was just better not to even offer and hire someone with no experience and knowledge for minimum wage (which they regretted later)

I like Alan's ideas. I read them and take them to heart the majority of the time and have never degraded him that I'm aware of ;-) I even think I could work very well with him. I even think I could work well with just about everyone on this board; just about everyone ;-)

[EyeCon]

Thank you all for all the responses that I'd been reading on this post!...I wont say whether I disagree or agree with any of the points of view here...but I do understand what each of you may feel...I also understand that we ( Optiboarders ) have an enourmous amount of talent...I'll wager that all areas of business developement are well represented by the experiences we all have and share. Can you imagine, for even a minute!...what kind of power we would have and the impact we would have if we all got together and formed our own conglomerate...We would give the best of them competition...Let's call it OptiCorp!!!

[Thumper]

Darris
Apparently the entire world industrial/technological revolution was in vain as it tried to increase productivity and efficiency to enhance our lifestyles.
I guess we should have all remained craftsman making our own shoes, clothes, cars, etc.

Alan,
I really appreciate and understand your posts.
It is very difficult to make that leap from technical expert to management expert.
I really value those people who make the leap and are good at it.

I look forward to your "out of the box" thinking.

[bblack]

In order to recoup profits optometrists had to facilitate the demise of opticians. They had managed care take over their market share and they had to survive some how. The first thing to look at when you are losing money is payroll. If your patient is driven to you by vision plans, they are a somewhat captive audience and it is not as profitable or necessary to have great opticians. You do not need the best optician to educate and inform your patient /customer about their VSP benefits.
In years past the ophthalmologist was the opticians friend. They would send us the customers we needed. That has changed, ophthalmologists are also involved in dispensing they want their piece of the retail pie. The gatekeeper for the optical business is the optometrist. The ophthalmologist and the optician are dependent on the optometrist for their business. The OD does not make enough money on an eye exam or contacts so they need to sell spectacles.
In Ohio we have licensing but if you are an optometrist you do not need a licensed optician or optometrist on premises to dispense (What's up with that?). So why would you want to pay for a license. Unless you truly believed a quality optical person would enhance your bottom line. The optician is the odd man out.
I believe the role of an optician has to change and we need to be business people as well as professionals. We need to understand the bottom line of the business we are involved in. Our role in the future will be more of a business manager as well as a skilled optical professional. Then we will be worth the salary that we desire.
I believe that the optician does his part of the eye care process better than the OD or MD. The optician takes the theory of the doctor and turns it into the reality of comfortable, artistically designed and functionally superior eyewear. We impact people's lives in a profound and meaningful way. This service is currently lost in price and speed. This may be an irreversible path and we may be in the Smithsonian in years to come.


God Bless Free Enterprise

Bill

[Darris Chambless]

Hello all,

First to my dearest Thumper, the best you and I can ever do is agree to disagree, but I will always state my case based on what I know.

In the last office I worked in the two doctors that I worked for would not hire anyone for the lab with experience. Why? Because they didn't want anyone coming in with preconceived ideas about how a lab should run and start changing things. They didn't want to have to untrain and retrain them to fit their "mold" because it would be too time consuming and costly. So what did they do when the lab got too busy for me to handle by myself? They hired the first person with no optical knowledge or experience whatsoever and I had to train them which took more time from my already overloaded schedule. But hey, they saved money by not hiring an experienced optician by golly ;-) In fact when they were looking to hire someone to help me they had several good applicants that they past over. When I asked why they didn't hire any of them they said "We need to find someone that's 'hungry' and simply needs the work."

Unfortunately since you feel that I only think "inside the box" it's difficult to convey real life experiences to you and make you understand what's being said. Since I would have to assume you've not experienced any of this that's understandable and believe you me I'm not faulting you for it at all as I wouldn't wish the experience on anyone. It's never fun wondering if you'll have or be able to find work in your field tomorrow or the next day.

I think your grasp of what's going on the the industry may be a little skewed due to the current position you have in it. Perhaps in your office things are as you say they are, but unfortunately you're office would be an exception and not the rule as it stands today. Basic economics will prove the points I've tried to make. If you don't make enough money to pay a qualified optician what they're worth but you need someone with the education, experience and talent what are you going to do? You will try to hire one for less money or you will hire someone off the street for less money in hopes that you can train them and make them a viable asset to your practice. Because of the increasing number of insurances and vision plans the amount of return on your UC fees is decreasing so the afore mentioned scenario is very common in that the money just isn't there. Maybe you're making money hand over fist and can pay ex salaries but that would still put you in minority status.

All of my information comes from personal experience as well as experiences of others that have shared them and studying and understanding this industry and its trends for business survival purposes. I didn't just think up these scenarios and regurgitate them onto this board. I've been there and done that and didn't have fun doing it. Hopefully some people can get something out of what I say that they can use to stave off the perils ahead in the industry, so to speak ;-)

For what it's worth, if your office is doing great I hope you keep it up and make millions. I'm not telling you or anyone else what they have to do or believe in order to make it in this business but it's just as much a reality as your scenario is for you. Also I'm not disputing your's or Alan's scenario from your perspective positions I'm only saying they aren't the norm although it would be great if they were.

Finally, in response to:

"Darris
Apparently the entire world industrial/technological revolution was in vain as it tried to increase productivity and efficiency to enhance our lifestyles.
I guess we should have all remained craftsman making our own shoes, clothes, cars, etc."

Nope, it wasn't in vain at all. What happened is that too many people allowed technology to take over for their talents and abilities and thus became slaves to technology itself (talk about not being able to think "outside the box" ;-) As too the remark about "we should have all remained craftsmen" Why do you think that true craftsmen get paid so much for their abilities and services? Because they are now and always have been a very valuable asset to us all. We need them.

Darris C.

[Judy Canty]

Thank you, Darris. I couldn't have said it better myself.
I'll always remember the night some of my first-year Opticianry students came into class looking like they'd been shot at and missed. It seems that the computer in their superoptical lab was down and they spent the day trying to cope with the loss of their technological advantages. Now they understand why we learn to use a pattern edger AND how to bevel a lens on a handstone as well.

[Darris Chambless]

Hi Judy,

I thought you had disowned me ;-) Alan may have (but I hope not) and I know Thumper did a long time ago :-)

Thanks for responding. It's good to hear from you as always. I hope all is going well.

Technology, although a wonderful thing, should be used as a tool and not a lifestyle. Too many people run their entire lives with technology and when it doesn't work they can't function. Case in point the remote control for the TV set. I know several people that if the remote doesn't work they won't watch TV (not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but still) If the remote won't work they won't get up off the couch and turn the TV on or manually flip the channels they will sit there in disgust and just not watch it.

I've got a friend that has a Palm Pilot and he keeps everything on it. If he ever lost it or if something happened to it and it wouldn't work I seriously don't know what he would do. He is so dependant on this little machine that he has to have it to tell him what he needs to do. It's really scary and so many people look at it as such an improvement. I tend to disagree with that and say if you can't figure out a way to get something done without technological advancements then you're screwed, you just won't know it until its too late :-)

For me, I'll learn all that I can about technology and use it to its fullest, but I will always hang on to the tried and true methods of fending for myself and doing it "the old fashioned way". At least we'll have a backup plan :-) I pity the rest.

Darris "If I don't got it but need it, I can build it." C.

[Joann Raytar]

Darris:

Thank you for this topic. You put into writing what I have been trying to sort out in my own thoughts recently. I left the chain I worked for about a month ago. People asked me why I was leaving and most assumed my reasons had to be due to the same things they complain about on a daily basis. In reality, I didn't leave because of all the petty issues. Every workplace that employs more than one person has little issues; that's a fact of life.

The only reason for leaving I could come up with is that I had "outgrown" the company. The company is on its own mission to take the market share and do it in the most cost effective manner and it will continue down that road. It just wasn't mentally fulfilling to me any more. I liked all of the challenges that we used to face when we had manual equipment. I enjoy running three-piece mountings, glass, high powers and I do a sweet roll and polish. If you presented any of the before mentioned items to most of my co-workers, they would just look at you like a deer-in-headlights. I have moved on to place that puts me in a far better position for my brain. It is still not exactly what I am looking for but it is closer. I have been facing the fact that I may have to leave optics, or at least retail optics, to find my something that will please my brain.

Thumper:
Industry is not looking for the most talented people. They are looking for people who can push a start button without blowing up the building. They are looking for people with enough personality presence to meet average dollar sales goals, then they will pay. If they were looking for talented people then they would not attempt to completely "retrain" them in optical related tasks upon hiring.

[Alan W]

When I was in Minnesota part of the "required reading" was to take courses in paradigm development, presented by Dr. Joel Barker PhD.
My statements are a reflection of those studies. In fact, it was those studies that had influence on what I did, especially with Lenscrafters. I would love to encourage all of you to study paradigm development. It takes you in and out of the box. It's the way we see things. When I argue a position, it's based on what I foresee along the lines of a change in paradigm of our profession, which is a response to what I've seen in the arguments in this thread. If everyone studied paradigm development, we could have a constructive developmental dicussion that would shed light on our profession as it could be, not the way it is. Now, I am confident that 80% of my ideas asre "lofty", which is an essentialt of paradigm development. What's missing are the other ingredients I am missing, that need to come from you (my colleagues). Arguing your position by justifying the status quo, or rationalizing the behavior of the existing community doesn't cut the mustard. That feeds the status quo. And, I lay my argument to rest at this point. But, I hope some of you will go to the library, check out Joel Barkers book, see his movie called "The Business of Paradigms"
Forgive me Darris, Jo, Thumper, et al. That's the trainer in me. I can't help it. That is my profession and passion. And, I hope you all will step out and test the waters of the theory of paradigm development, perhaps better than I have. Once you have, you will see what can be by seeing things in a different way. Two cars were travelling on a winding mountain road in opposite directions. Around one bend, the driver swerved and almost hit the other car head on. The driver of the swerving car, driving in a drunken like manner yelled out to the conservative driver "pig", as though it was the guys fault. The conservative driver, insulted, continued around the bend a little shook from the insult, and then, without a chance to correct, hit a pig! Amazing how we see things.

[Joann Raytar]

Alan:

I was always a Dr. Demming person myself.

"We have learned to live in a world of mistakes and defective products as if they were necessary to life."

http://caes.mit.edu/deming/ootc-preface.html
http://caes.mit.edu/deming/tne-preface.html
http://caes.mit.edu/deming/14-points.html
http://caes.mit.edu/deming/dspk.html

[This message has been edited by Jo (edited 04-05-2001).]

[Alan W]

Jo

Bingo!

[Alan W]

Jo
Thanks for the excellent resources.
Below is the NASA Library where a lot of paradigm development is under study.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/ppm/ppm50.htm