Well it happened. As of yesterday, to eliminate all Cosmetology and Barber licensing is now up for a vote in the House and Senate.
This means that there will be no licensing, no schools, no regulation. The schooling and license you have now will mean nothing.
This means that anyone off the street can do hair, nails, tanning, waxing, anything.
I have no idea how this will be handled by the supply houses, because they only sell to those that are licensed. All new ball game for all manufacturers.
Here is the website that contains the full ROEC report: http://www.in.gov/pla/files/Regulated_Oc...6_2011.pdf
Of course with any proposed legislation, licensees may also contact their Legislator at http://www.in.gov/legislative/index.htm
The ROEC committee basically says that if the consumer is hurt, they can hire an attorney, if they get a bad hair cut, they can switch to another salon, buyer beware. But Government regulation is not needed. Please read the report.
As for all of the non Indiana techs on here, If one state does this, others will follow.
I cannot lobby for or against this because I work for the Governor. My advice is if you agree or disagree, contact your local representative.
I cannot contact everyone, can you please pass the word in your salons.
Diana Bonn - Indiana State Board of Cosmetology - (diana from indiana)
Has this passed, or is it still up for a vote? Please keeps us posted! I can not imagine our industry going without regulation.
The ROEC report contains some good points as licensing pertains to reciprocity from professionals moving in from another state. Also, I am confused as to what is actually being proposed for manicurist.
found on the bottom of page 19
"There are two license types that the Board would leave unchanged, assuming that the
General Assembly is determined to maintain licensure. Those two licenses are
manicurist and esthetician."
Sounds like they would keep licensing as it is for manicurist and esthetician.
it is confusing. But the ROEC commission says they want to eliminate all the licensing. The reason this is on a House Bill at the moment.
If it DOES NOT PASS and we maintain the licensing, then that is where the suggestions for changes come in as you noted. They would leave us alone. diana from indiana
Quote:This means that there will be no licensing, no schools, no regulation. The schooling and license you have now will mean nothing.
That's not what the report says to me.
What it does tell me is that it offers some very good reasons to streamline the recognition/practice process and get rid of things that no longer have standing in the current marketplace. In other words, they're proposing to get rid of some red tape. (For example, do you not think that the multiple licensing requirements for shaving is ridiculous and deserves to be eliminated?)
In addition, I note that licenses for aestheticians and manicurists remain as is.
Below is the HB. Again, I will explain. The ROEC commission suggests to eliminate the board/licensing. If the house bill does not pass, then yes, they suggest to streamline the licensing, which is a good idea.
I know. Because the president of the board and myself were the ones explaining all of this to the ROEC commission.
Regulated occupations. Provides that optometrists may prescribe, dispense, and administer controlled substances. Repeals the law governing the following professions, including their professional licensing boards and licenses: (1) Beauty culture (cosmetologists and barbers). (2) Commission on dietetic registration and licensure of dietitians. (3) Hearing aid dealers. (4) Private investigator firms. (5) Security guards. Makes conforming and technical changes.
diana from indiana
> In addition, I note that licenses for aestheticians and manicurists remain
> as is.
the state decides not to eliminate licensing for the beauty industry completely with this legislature change - INCLUDING estheticians and manicurists
Quote:Although the ROEC has recommended elimination of all license types related to the State Board of Cosmetology and Barber Examiners, there are many needed changes to the existing licenses, if the General Assembly should decide to maintain a licensing system for these professions. The following sections explain these proposed changes.
Debbie webmaster - admin
Feed Your Nail Addiction
shop smart, brand name professional products for professional results
> HB 1006
> Regulated occupations. Provides that optometrists may prescribe, dispense,
> and administer controlled substances. Repeals the law governing the following
> professions, including their professional licensing boards and licenses: (1)
> Beauty culture (cosmetologists and barbers). (2) Commission on dietetic registration
> and licensure of dietitians. (3) Hearing aid dealers. (4) Private investigator
> firms. (5) Security guards. Makes conforming and technical changes.
> diana from indiana
Why do optometrists need to prescribe/dispense controlled substances? Weird legislation.
How does a bill like this get introduced/by whom? I don't see who it benefits by getting rid of the licenses...the licensed pros get mad, the state loses $, clients get shady service...
It looks like a cost cutting measure to me. For some reason the beauty industry as always been looked at as a red headed step child....and it's pushed aside for all the more 'meaningful' jobs.
The one thing that caught my eye is the part about the complaints that are coming is mainly about unlicensed shops and individuals. We've all read about the many times that people have gone to salons, got infections, spend lots of $$'s getting treated but never turned the salon in to their state licensing facility. I know Indiana has GOT to have the same problems! All the more reason to have complaint forms available at your salon to hand out for people who come in from other salons complaining about infections and injuries. We have GOT to get these complaints on record!! Obviously, if this had been done, it might have made a bigger impact in the study.
my two cents (FWIW)...
I live in a Province where there is no licensing anymore. Personally, I would not go to a stylist who wasn't licensed. There are lots like me, but sadly, a lot of people don't know and just don't care. I was trained in school for hair and licensed. For nails, I was trained in the salon and didn't have to be licensed - therefore, I can still get my product. I am saving up to take the course anyway since I believe it's an important piece of paper to have and things are always changing!
There is no governing body that goes to each salon anymore to see who is and who isn't licensed.
Here, there are stills schools that teach the courses and certify that people have taken and passed the course - you need a minimum to pass too!
Apprenticeships are still available as well.
The licensing thing here has become a bit of a joke now which is too bad. It's costs a lot of money to take the "Provincial Exam" and since they deemed it unnecessary, why bother? (well, you and I know why!) Even out of school, people are just taking the certification from the school and that's good enough.
Most salons (I would hope) wouldn't hire someone without training/experience.
I do feel the same as most though as I paid a lot to go to school for hair, get licensed and pay $65 per year for 10+ years to maintain my licensing - all for what?
Anyway - that's how it is here, I'm not sure what the plan is for Indiana, but hopefully there will still be some sort of legislation at the salon level.
Well it is mind boggling if you think about it. There would not be any salon regulation, zero, nothing, nada, zip.
Wonder how a salon owner would hire someone? There would be no certification. How would the manufacturers sell to us? That is an interesting thought process. They would allow the public to walk in, who says one can buy the other can't. There would be nothing to show.
I have heard well they would have to be certified. Well, who would certify them, who would make them be certified, what does certifed mean?
An association would take years to start, and who would make someone join? You can't make a salon owner hire some one that belongs to an association, just not going to happen. Just mind boggling.
I know many would like to get rid of state regulation. Which is fine, but you think you have problems now. It would be a free for all!!!!!!!! LOLO diana from indiana
We would be the first state to be deregulated. mind boggling.
Quote:If the house bill does not pass, then yes, they suggest to streamline the licensing, which is a good idea.
Diana, thanks for the response - I hear you and I can see where you're coming from. However, I don't see "no licensing, nada" in the mix. Perhaps I am not seeing the passage in the report where it spells this out? What I am seeing is a concerted effort by government to cut a lot of dead wood away rather than signal anarchy within the industry.
I suppose when you are used to having something around, it becomes akin to a safety net and life without it can seem pretty scary but deregulation doesn't have to be a bad thing. A lot of countries, including my own, do not have direct regulation of their industry (ie beauty therapy, nails, massage therapy and hairdressing), self regulation can and does work. While some poorly informed people would attempt to cite that this means that there are countless poorly performing nail technicians running around Australia with a penchant for doing a shoddy job because of the lack of licensing, this is simply not the case. We manage to upkeep an excellent training and peer ranking and we do have avenues through which we can protect both ourselves and the client. Obviously to some it would mean that unless you have a State Board you don't count. Our thriving and successful industry here proves otherwise.
To be honest, I can't really see a difference in what will happen should the Bill pass as to what happens now. After all, you have companies like Young Nails selling product directly to the public now, you still have a lot of unlicensed techs and non standard salons operating in the US as well as unfettered access to professional product by the public and regulations that aren't enforced. So, I'm wondering, would there be actually any difference if the Bill should pass?
Quote:"There are two license types that the Board would leave unchanged, assuming that the General Assembly is determined to maintain licensure. Those two licenses are manicurist and esthetician."
I just thought I'd add as a postscript, Diana, as a bit of an afterthought that I am quite interested in this subject as one of our organised peer groups (Australian Professional Fingernail Assoc) is always pushing for licensing but hasn't really given a concrete reason as to why it would work in Australia and why we techs would need it given the current circumstances.
As a consequence, I tend to scratch my head over the relevance of licensing and what I consider to be an over regulation of industry.
This is why your feedback would be quite useful to me. Thanks.
I'm not scared of deregulation, this will all work out. But it will be a mess for awhile. that is what is mind boggling.
If this follows thru, we will be the only state that does not require anything, so I see those from other countries flocking to Indiana. As of now we have applications from all over the world trying to come here without education.
I see more consumers being hurt, again more lawsuits.
The schools would close, which would be sad because of the finanical situation for these owners. Then we have those in school that are getting their license now, they would leave. But they have signed a contract to pay these school loans. Now what? Have to pay thousands of dollars to a school that is not needed any longer? Law suits.
And suppliers/distributors will have to figure out what to do. I have no idea where they would go with this.
Indiana would be the first state if this passes, and model for other states to follow. So I assure you everyone is going to watch this and see what everyone does to see how they will handle it when it comes to their state.
This is what is mind boggling, how this will all work out. diana from indiana
Quote:The schools would close, which would be sad because of the finanical situation for these owners. Then we have those in school that are getting their license now, they would leave. But they have signed a contract to pay these school loans. Now what? Have to pay thousands of dollars to a school that is not needed any longer? Law suits.
Just wondering: Why do you assume the schools would close?
Surely people will still require proper training or do American techs only attend college in order to obtain their licence as opposed to obtaining the correct training?
To obtain a license to do hair, it is over 10,000 dollars. I do not see them doing this. Maybe 1 or 2 schools, but that is it.
I would see people going to private manufacturer classes and learn. And now we have the internet and you tube.
No, no one would require anything. they aren't going to pay thousands of dollars.
Just ask everyone on these forums what they think of the schools. diana from indiana
Oh I've seen what American techs write about their schools
(I was hoping there were a few good ones out there, though).
Which begs the question: if the schools in the US are so bad, how are people getting their licences?
Over here, self regulation means that you still have to do a govt accredited course if you want to be treated as a trade qualified tech. This bodes well for equipment, trade shows and insurance. Techs over here do pay thousands to do their courses in order to get this recognition.
Do you not think something similar would happen in the US should deregulation occur?
Well then I have to disagree with you when you say you are not regulated.
The below statement says it all. You ARE regulated. If this passes, zero zilch.NOTHING.
And even though many gripe about their schools, does not mean they (techs/stylists) are not qualified. They take extra classes and learn from others. diana from indiana
"Over here, self regulation means that you still have to do a govt accredited course if you want to be treated as a trade qualified tech. This bodes well for equipment, trade shows and insurance. Techs over here do pay thousands to do their courses in order to get this recognition."
Sorry, perhaps I should have rephrased or explained a little better.
Self regulation means nail techs take it upon themselves to do certain things.
For example, in Australia a govt accredited course is not lawfully required to practice nails. The man down the road can pick up a brush and start if he wanted to. However, a lot of nail technicians choose to undertake a formal course of training under the govt framework as they understand the professional benefits of doing so. Likewise a lot of suppliers (not all) support this endeavour by ensuring that only nail technicians who can produce these accredited qualifications are entitled to purchase wholesale from them.
Quote:And even though many gripe about their schools, does not mean they (techs/stylists) are not qualified. They take extra classes and learn from others.
Well ad hoc classes and learning from others mean zilch under a formal licensing system so, technically, one could say those extras are not qualifications. Which begs the question again - what is the use of a licensing system if people are going to learn from non accredited sources anyway?
Toothypegs, this statement you made is something I want to address:
Surely people will still require proper training or do American techs only attend college in order to obtain their licence as opposed to obtaining the correct training
Going to a school of higher learning, leaving with a degree and credentials after your name does NOT insure that you really do have the ability to do a job well, even tho that's what it was SUPPOSED to do. As with our public schools, the colleges teach for the test, just wanting to make sure you have the knowledge to pass it, not to make sure you can actually create or do the object of the course you paid thousands of dollars to take. So the nail schools usually emphasize procedure, sanitation, proper technique as discussed in the hand book, but a lot of times will actually neglect making sure the student can produce a sellable nail in a reasonable amount of time. So the student has spent all this money for a title, and very little ability. The same goes for other professions. Many co.'s want an applicant to have at least an Associates degree in something, some place will stipulate in what areas, others don't care what it's in, it's just that you have it. That doesn't really make sense to me but it happens. In the TX prison system, to make to Warden, you can no longer literally work your way to the top to Warden with coming up thru the ranks from a guard. Now, you MUST have a degee, or you go no higher than Lt. or Capt. One Warden has a degree in Journalism, she's never worn grey, (meaning she's never been a quard).
So, what this is telling me is it's not always about going to college to get a degree to learn more, it's about going to get those credentials after your name so you can show you've spent the money to support a college to get a degree that might actually have no bearing on the job you get.
In the nail business, I truly believe people go there to get the knowledge but unfortunately most of the time come away with barely enough knowledge to get by with and once out in the real world it's buyer beware. The cosumer doesn't know this, they don't make it their business to find out, so they accept that this person is 'trained' because they've got a degree/license, because over here we have something called truth in advertising. Too bad that there's not enough ethical people out there who believe in it, and definitely not enough people in charge of enforcing it.
Sorry, this is kinda rambling, I'll step off the box now........
Quote:So, what this is telling me is it's not always about going to college to get a degree to learn more, it's about going to get those credentials after your name so you can show you've spent the money to support a college to get a degree that might actually have no bearing on the job you get.
Coming up through the ranks for some jobs was almost a right of passage many decdes ago. The world has change and this sytem is no longer ideal to most companys. The example of the warden who has a degree in journalism only goes to show that this person has other stronger qualifications in order to be employed by the penal system in that state. What his college degree did was make him stand out above the other applicants.
Here is MI we had thousands of displaced auto workers. Many - many came from generations of auto workers. When the industry restructured - many were not qualified to do the jobs the Big Three required in order to compete in the auto market today. When I say not qualified, I mean many factory workers could not read, had no basic math skills to qualify for positions there or at other companiys.
There are millions of Americans who do not have a high school diploma, GED, let alone a college degree. The numbers for higher paying jobs
are small in comparison. The labor force is huge but the job positions are very few. Only the quaified will be considered for those positions. If a person only has work experience and no college degree to back it up, yes it is hard to except, but this is the reality of the work situation in America.
In the traditional college setting, your are getting a rounded educational background. For some careers you spend 4 years or more and for certain 2 year degree programs - we all will take the same basic general ed classes.
College does prepare you for the ever changing work place. One of the reasons most company's will select potential applicant's for positions within their company is based on their educational background. Those who have obtained a college degree are given consideration for the position.
Trade schools provide the education to people who didn't want a traditional college degree. Graduates from these schools are on both ends of the spectrum - good and bad. It's up to the person to extend their education into areas that will keep them competitive for the best paying jobs avaiable.
Back on topic - schools do have contracts with students - closing them would be detrimental to the schools bottom line since there is an obligation to teach the student until the contract has ended.
This has certainly created a buzz in the school in which I (Student) teach the Nail Technology Course. Diana has certainly hit a number of points that concern me personally as a tech, a student and an educator.
#1) As a tech, are my clients going to be able to mosey into the local Cosmoprof/Maly's and purchase their own $4.25 bottle of OPI? Goodbye retail.
#2) If there are no regulatory sanitation standards, then who is to stop people from running grape kool-aid through their pedicure thrones as disinfectant? The report read that clients would find qualified techs through word of mouth and trial and error.
This is how I see that going:
Cleo the Client: "My left leg was left scarred and disfigured from a staph infection that I caught from Salon XYZ...so I guess me and Ole Righty will try Salon ABC and hope for better things...when the wounds stop dripping!"
Frida the Friend: "Thanks girl, that was a real bullet dodger!"
Oh but at least she can pursue legal action in Civil Court so it will be alright...right?
There's a lot more at stake than living with a bad haircut. Barbers shave and Estheticians lance and extract! Holy hepatitis Batman!
#3) As a Student Instructor, if this goes through am I still required to pay for a (now) imaginary Instructor of Beauty Culture license? Hmm...Kinda like buying a bridge from a man at a flea market.
#4) As an instructor, I actually believe that a lot of students will continue to seek (at the minimum) Cosmetology training. Perhaps not with a $10,000 ticket though. Tuition fees will definately drop and some institutions will close. Guess I won't be getting that raise, huh?
This...is a potential train wreck for the industry AND for the public.
Thanks for the information about who/where to make our voices heard.
Crazy in l
ve with Cuccio!
Donna, I didn't see you on any box
I love a good conversation about issues that are pertinent to the industry. Thank you for addressing one of the points that were raised.
I can't comment on American corrections but here, Wardens manage teams and cover administration. They do not "go on the beat" as it were. That's for the officers to do and their promotions etc are in a different stream. So the very nature of the job requirement has changed in as much as 'working up the ranks' is no longer relevant to the position anymore. However, I do agree that even here I have seen that 'having a degree' somehow elevates you above someone who does have practical (real life) experience (I've seen this a lot in jobs such as youth work and child protection in particular) and that's a class thing. And I know there are those who will say "but we don't have a class system!" and that may be true in that it's not as evident as, say, that which you'd find in England (have worked there) but unfortunately it's there nonetheless. So I hear you.
I guess the crux here is the difference in education. We have a competency based system here whereby you have to demonstrate the skill before you are allowed to pass. It doesn't all boil down to one final exam. Spending ten grand for a licence - that's frightening. That truly is. Mind you, when I think of the amount of money students take for university fees I feel ill. I don't know how y'all do it.
Which brings us back to the licensing system and its relevance. If, as you say, the nail colleges are not very effective and they cost a lot, surely the elimination of licensing would mean that colleges would be forced to lower their fees, give more to the student (as the market focus would have changed - ie it's the student who can choose to attend now so it's a buyer's market) and the nail industry in the US would have get its act together and create a self regulation body that would support the courses that were relevant and practical?
To my mind, surely this would mean more empowerment for the budding nail tech in that they have more of a say as to how they are educated and they are not ripped off as they appear to be now?
Twice in the last few years, 2 people have proposed professional organizations for the USA nail industry. Both have not taken off.
No comment from me about this but it's just food for thought.
I have been doing nails for about 18 years now. I have seen many people come out of school feeling as if they need more education. I myself felt this way. I was very lucky to have found a job right away with a lady who understood the need for this. She worked with me and trained me and improved my skills by about 200%.
Even though most schools (in my opinion, judging from what I have read over the years) may not provide enough training for us to feel capable, they do provide us with AT LEAST a minimum level of education. They teach what the state has determined to be necessary for the job, both in health/safety and in techniques. It is ALWAYS our duty to expand on that education. THAT is why we take manufacturers classes, business classes, and learn from our peers.
If the regulation of this education is taken away, how are the clients going to be assured that we have AT LEAST the minimum amount of knowledge needed to perform the job safely?
This is not to say that everyone that has had a license up until now is the best person to be performing these services. Just because you have the knowledge does not mean that you practice what has been taught and are a safe technician. This is where State regulation along with word-of-mouth advertising comes into play. If you had to pick a name out of a phonebook, having never experienced a salon in the area, wouldn't you want to pick someone who has proof that they have been educated over just anybody? I would!
The other thing to remember is if there is no government over who is educated, there is also no government over what is required for safety of both our clients and ourselves. How do we determine if/when someone should be held accountable for causing problems? Wouldn't the industry become an "at your own risk" industry? If there are no regulations as to disinfection/sanitization, can we be held responsible if a client gets an infection? Should we be? Of course we should, but how do we enforce this? How does the law determine what is our fault or just a by-product/risk of having the service performed?
I personally feel that we definitely have a need to streamline/restructure the system. I know that there are a lot of regualtions that are outdated, and some even border on ridiculous in today's world. But to deregulate us is opening the doors for so many other problems both personally and at the level of government/law. Along with what I have already mentioned, there is the fact that if suppliers have to sell to anybody, the retail market can become almost non-existant for the independent professional. If we can't sell retail, our profits lower. Many rely on those profits to pay booth rent and other overhead costs. I we can't pay rent, we are out of a job.
One of the reasons this Bill is even being considered was to create more jobs. So are we creating these jobs by forcing out the people who have already received an education in the field and those that educate and supply the field? If so, then those people will need new jobs. How do we employ them?