Barbers, Cosmetologists against Texas bill that would do away with licenses

[dead0man]

and they are using some hilarious excuses

Lyn Doan has been a hairdresser for decades and feels the bill does not even have a chance of being passed because there would be an uproar from professionals.

“That's just impossible, I don't think that would ever go through,” she said.

<snip>

Doan, however, is urging the representative to reconsider his stance, “Would you just sit down and just let anyone cut your hair? Or, would you allow your daughters, or your wife go out and just have anybody do their hair? I don't think so. Are you just going to let anybody cook you food, and eat it, and not know if the kitchen is clean or not? I mean this is ridiculous, I've never heard of such a thing.”

guess who don't need a license to do their job in Texas....that's right, the people that cook the food don't need one, but the person that braids hair needs 1500 hours (that's right, in Texas one must pay to go to a school for 1500 hours....FIFTEEN HUNDRED HOURS!  To cut hair.  Do you know how many hours of training EMTs in Texas need?  120.  one hundred and twenty.)

[Karpatsky]

That's silly. I've never gotten terribly sick from a bad haircut, and I've had decent haircuts both from myself and my teenage sister. Getting the baseline right really isn't that hard.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Considering the noxious chemicals that can be used to dye or otherwise treat hair, I can see the need for some licensing, but even the 1000 hours required by the least onerous State, New York, seems excessive.

[Joe Republic]

I can understand barbers needing some kind of license, but cosmetologists?  Anybody can point a telescope at the night sky and track the movements of the stars etc.  It’s not rocket science!

[Sestak]

Yeah occupational licensing is (usually) ridiculous.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I can understand barbers needing some kind of license, but cosmetologists?  Anybody can point a telescope at the night sky and track the movements of the stars etc.  It’s not rocket science!

Unless you're making a joke here, in actuality cosmetology concerns makeup, hair-styling...you know, cosmetics.

[dead0man]

Considering the noxious chemicals that can be used to dye or otherwise treat hair, I can see the need for some licensing

most (all?) of which can be bought over the counter by anyone, all they have to do is read the directions on the box.  I've assisted doing it on at least 4 different heads.

[JA]

Good on Texas for pursuing abolition of ridiculous, monopolistic licensing requirements that only serve to exclude those with the least capital and resources in favor of established industry leaders and “professionals.”

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Considering the noxious chemicals that can be used to dye or otherwise treat hair, I can see the need for some licensing

most (all?) of which can be bought over the counter by anyone, all they have to do is read the directions on the box.  I've assisted doing it on at least 4 different heads.

Not everyone sticks to the over the counter stuff.  Or do you surprisingly want to restrict cosmetologists to using only government-approved mass-produced substances?

[dead0man]

Considering the noxious chemicals that can be used to dye or otherwise treat hair, I can see the need for some licensing

most (all?) of which can be bought over the counter by anyone, all they have to do is read the directions on the box.  I've assisted doing it on at least 4 different heads.

Not everyone sticks to the over the counter stuff.  Or do you surprisingly want to restrict cosmetologists to using only government-approved mass-produced substances?

what products are only available to govt approved hair professionals?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Considering the noxious chemicals that can be used to dye or otherwise treat hair, I can see the need for some licensing

most (all?) of which can be bought over the counter by anyone, all they have to do is read the directions on the box.  I've assisted doing it on at least 4 different heads.

Not everyone sticks to the over the counter stuff.  Or do you surprisingly want to restrict cosmetologists to using only government-approved mass-produced substances?

what products are only available to govt approved hair professionals?

I must not have expressed myself clearly as you usually aren't this dense.  There's a whole battery of stuff not sold in beauty supply shops that have been used by well-meaning but ill-informed people, more often to whiten skin than to do things to hair, that have the potential to do harm if used poorly or sometimes even if just used.

[DrScholl]

There are hair treatments that can cause serious chemical burns if not done right that can leave a person bald permanently and/or get infected. People doing their hair at home have made errors even following the instructions on the box. Even if you don't believe in licensing, you can't really be a professional hairdresser just by purchasing a box of dye or relaxer and reading the instructions. This is not an argument for or against licenses, I'm just making a point that it does take know how to do hair.

[dead0man]

Considering the noxious chemicals that can be used to dye or otherwise treat hair, I can see the need for some licensing

most (all?) of which can be bought over the counter by anyone, all they have to do is read the directions on the box.  I've assisted doing it on at least 4 different heads.

Not everyone sticks to the over the counter stuff.  Or do you surprisingly want to restrict cosmetologists to using only government-approved mass-produced substances?

what products are only available to govt approved hair professionals?

I must not have expressed myself clearly as you usually aren't this dense.  There's a whole battery of stuff not sold in beauty supply shops that have been used by well-meaning but ill-informed people, more often to whiten skin than to do things to hair, that have the potential to do harm if used poorly or sometimes even if just used.

I'm sorry, but I'm still not following.  How do licenses for hair professionals stop people from buying these products now?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Considering the noxious chemicals that can be used to dye or otherwise treat hair, I can see the need for some licensing

most (all?) of which can be bought over the counter by anyone, all they have to do is read the directions on the box.  I've assisted doing it on at least 4 different heads.

Not everyone sticks to the over the counter stuff.  Or do you surprisingly want to restrict cosmetologists to using only government-approved mass-produced substances?

what products are only available to govt approved hair professionals?

I must not have expressed myself clearly as you usually aren't this dense.  There's a whole battery of stuff not sold in beauty supply shops that have been used by well-meaning but ill-informed people, more often to whiten skin than to do things to hair, that have the potential to do harm if used poorly or sometimes even if just used.

I'm sorry, but I'm still not following.  How do licenses for hair professionals stop people from buying these products now?

The idea is that they learn how to achieve the desired cosmetic effects in a safe manner by using either safer methods or knowing how to use potentially dangerous ones.  Of course, safety is not all that current licenses are supposed to provide.  In theory, they help assure that they do so in a stylish manner. However, like you, I don't think keeping people from having a bad hair day needs to be a government function, which is why altho I think licensing for safety is useful, 1500 hours of training isn't needed for that.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Good on Texas for pursuing abolition of ridiculous, monopolistic licensing requirements that only serve to exclude those with the least capital and resources in favor of established industry leaders and “professionals.”

This "professionalism" is really little more than "organized selfishness" (in the words of Bill James, baseball Sabermatrician).  It's a way that those with licenses can keep the ones without licenses from working.  It also keeps Barber Schools and Cosmetology Schools (which receive billions in Federal dollars) with a reason for being in business.

I have a Substance Abuse Counseling credential from the agency that certifies substance abuse counselors in my state.  The "certification" process started decades ago as a means of certifying as counselors lots of alcoholics and addicts who were in recovery but did not have clinical degrees, to work as substance abuse counselors, based on their experience in recovery.  Some of these people weren't that good; they had unresolved issues that played out at work, but they also had unique experiences.  There was a real place for these folks in the treatment environment. 

When the treatment industry shrunk after the early 1990s (when insurance companies stopped paying for a wide range of treatment services), the counselors with advanced degrees began to rewrite the rules for certification, incrementally, but definitely.  Today, there are very few counselors working in treatment centers that are there from their experiences in recovery, alone.  While there are many "in recovery", they all have clinical degrees, and more have Masters Degrees than ever before (and the student debt that comes with it).  It's simple; the folks with Masters Degrees were able to gang up against the people that don't have one.  And they have the online universities that get millions of Federal dollars to produce folks with Masters Degrees on their side.

Is this OK?  Maybe, maybe not.  But there is a lot of monied interests behind any push toward "greater professionalism" in any field.  Look to the people who issue the credentials for those fields as the REAL beneficiaries of these trends.