If retaining currency in fully visual approaches from 10 miles or more out with 'special' speed and level restrictions such as SFO is considered 'required as part of the job', then it MUST be trained for. If pilots demonstrably cannot do this and have incidents/accidents due to lack of training or continuation training, then the airline training system should be called to account for a crash and take legal/financial responsibility for certifying a crew that cannot fly as 'required as part of the job'. If the training department can show documented, and objected to financial constraints that led them to reduce training for crews to fly as 'required as part of the job', then the accountants/finance department/CFO of the airline that issued those spending constraints should be held accountable for a crash and take legal/financial responsibility for their decision to reduce the amount of training for what is 'required as part of the job'.
This accountability trail of course does not absolve the pilot - the end result of the limited training - replying 'UNABLE' when given an approach by ATC that they are uncomfortable with.
Out of interest to all you active 'heavy' pilots, what would be your company's response if you said "I need more continuation training on manually flown visual approaches and landings"? Almost certainly a negative response - both in denying the extra training and on your career with that carrier; negative to the extent that you would not even consider admitting that you needed more training. But it should be the opposite. That is a stone that should be lifted.