Protect the educational standards of the beauty industry

LESS EDUCATION IS NOT THE ANSWER

ABOUT THE BILLS

House Bill 399 and Senate Bill 245 seek to significantly reduce the number of clock hours required for licensure as a cosmetologist/barber from 1,500/1,800 hours to 1000 hours. Currently a newly licensed cosmetologist/barber in the State of Ohio can seek licensure in 30 states without the need of investing in any additional education. If HB-399/SB-245 becomes law, that same newly licensed cosmetologist/barber would lose reciprocity with most of the country.

The proponents of this bill claim that the current licensure requirements are overburdensome and that lowering hour requirements will lead to less debt. No one will argue that less debt is a bad thing, however HB-399/SB-245 doesn’t make cosmetology or barbering education any cheaper, it simply removes half of the education. Buying a car for 50% off seems like a great deal until you realize that the car you bought is missing half of its parts.

Support the beauty industry and beauty professionals by making sure that education and licensure standards are not lowered in order for a few large companies to make a few more bucks. Protect my profession.

Please sign the both petitions for House Bill 399 and Senate Bill 245.

HOUSE BILL PETITION

NAME*
First Last
PHONE*
EMAIL*
ADDRESS*
Street Address Address Line 2 City State ZIP Code
EMAIL SUBJECT*
LETTER TO LAWMAKERS
Dear Representative, Legislation introduced by the Ohio Salon Association to “address overly burdensome cosmetology and barbering licensing law” is an attack on professional licensure in the cosmetology and barbering industry and on anyone who chooses to seek advanced licensure. While this legislation is couched as economically favorable for cosmetologists and barbers, it is actually an effort by a non-profit corporation that is a front for big salon business to control the market for cosmetologists and barbers. I. Argument 1: Public safety <ul> <li>Less education results in less experience and expertise, thereby creating greater risk of harm to individuals for improper performance of services.</li> <li>According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of personal appearance jobs (Salon and Spa Industry) is projected to increase 15 percent between 2010 and 2020, slightly above the rate of growth of total U.S. employment (14 percent) during the same period. <ul> <li>As a result, education is extremely important and public safety measures are equally taught and learned in theory as they are taught and learned through practical implementation and experience while overseen by instructors.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> II. Argument 2: Harm to small businesses <ul> <li>A less educated workforce will result in cosmetologists and barbers who will be ill-equipped to move straight in to entrepreneurship and independent contracting which is currently growing rapidly under current regulation and law</li> <li>While large salons have the capacity and infrastructure to engage in on the job training, small businesses do not have the infrastructure, time, or luxury to engage in these services.</li> <li>Entry into work force of less trained people could mean a variety of scenarios that are harmful to small businesses: <ul> <li>New graduates choose to go to larger salons with aggressive non-compete contracts to obtain on the job training. <ul> <li>Monopolization/concentration of all new graduates in larger salons. <ul> <li>No candidates for small, family owned businesses that make up a large portion of the salon market.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> <li>New graduates enter salons without sufficient training levels, thereby making them less likely to succeed on their own.</li> <li>Small businesses forced to divert resources away from other economic growth to engage in on the job training.</li> </ul> </li> <li>Businesses of less than 20 employees (like a salon) make up 89.6 percent of employers in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012) <ul> <li>Harm to small businesses = harm to a large employment sector.</li> <li>Per the Professional Beauty Association, the salon and spa industry out-performed the overall private sector during the recession.</li> </ul> </li> <li>Per 2012 data from the Professional Beauty Association, roughly 1.1 million professionals work in personal appearance occupations in the United States, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Individuals in these occupations have a much higher rate of self-employment, as compared to the overall workforce.</li> <li>Where self-employed, obtaining on the job training is much more difficult, thereby increasing risk of public safety concerns.</li> </ul> III. Argument 3: Harm to women owned businesses <ul> <li>61% of the salons and spas are owned by women and 98% of these business are single unit establishments</li> </ul> Counter-arguments I. The Ohio Salon Association advances that the legislation enables new graduates to enter the beauty industry with less debt and the ability to repay student loans. <ul> <li>Argument is unsupported by data regarding student debt for new graduates.</li> <li>Student debt is a large problem nationally, not limited to the cosmetology industry.</li> <li>Reduction in hours does not mean reduction in student loan debt because out of pocket costs would increase for students who rely on financial aid.</li> </ul>
Consent*
I agree to the privacy policy.*
Protect My Profession will not give or sell your personal information to any third party. Protect My Profession agrees to use signatures responsibly and legally. This may involve contacting you via email or text message with HB-399 news. You also grant permission for Protect My Profession to forward petition signatures to Ohio lawmakers, so they may also view signature details. Protect My Profession agres not to republish petition signatures on any other website or public media forum.
Comments
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

840 Signatures

SENATE BILL PETITION

NAME*
First Last
PHONE*
EMAIL*
ADDRESS*
Street Address Address Line 2 City State ZIP Code
EMAIL SUBJECT*
LETTER TO LAWMAKERS
Dear Senator, Legislation introduced by the Ohio Salon Association to “address overly burdensome cosmetology and barbering licensing law” is an attack on professional licensure in the cosmetology and barbering industry and on anyone who chooses to seek advanced licensure. While this legislation is couched as economically favorable for cosmetologists and barbers, it is actually an effort by a non-profit corporation that is a front for big salon business to control the market for cosmetologists and barbers. I. Argument 1: Public safety <ul> <li>Less education results in less experience and expertise, thereby creating greater risk of harm to individuals for improper performance of services.</li> <li>According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of personal appearance jobs (Salon and Spa Industry) is projected to increase 15 percent between 2010 and 2020, slightly above the rate of growth of total U.S. employment (14 percent) during the same period. <ul> <li>As a result, education is extremely important and public safety measures are equally taught and learned in theory as they are taught and learned through practical implementation and experience while overseen by instructors.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> II. Argument 2: Harm to small businesses <ul> <li>A less educated workforce will result in cosmetologists and barbers who will be ill-equipped to move straight in to entrepreneurship and independent contracting which is currently growing rapidly under current regulation and law</li> <li>While large salons have the capacity and infrastructure to engage in on the job training, small businesses do not have the infrastructure, time, or luxury to engage in these services.</li> <li>Entry into work force of less trained people could mean a variety of scenarios that are harmful to small businesses: <ul> <li>New graduates choose to go to larger salons with aggressive non-compete contracts to obtain on the job training. <ul> <li>Monopolization/concentration of all new graduates in larger salons. <ul> <li>No candidates for small, family owned businesses that make up a large portion of the salon market.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> <li>New graduates enter salons without sufficient training levels, thereby making them less likely to succeed on their own.</li> <li>Small businesses forced to divert resources away from other economic growth to engage in on the job training.</li> </ul> </li> <li>Businesses of less than 20 employees (like a salon) make up 89.6 percent of employers in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012) <ul> <li>Harm to small businesses = harm to a large employment sector.</li> <li>Per the Professional Beauty Association, the salon and spa industry out-performed the overall private sector during the recession.</li> </ul> </li> <li>Per 2012 data from the Professional Beauty Association, roughly 1.1 million professionals work in personal appearance occupations in the United States, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Individuals in these occupations have a much higher rate of self-employment, as compared to the overall workforce.</li> <li>Where self-employed, obtaining on the job training is much more difficult, thereby increasing risk of public safety concerns.</li> </ul> III. Argument 3: Harm to women owned businesses <ul> <li>61% of the salons and spas are owned by women and 98% of these business are single unit establishments</li> </ul> Counter-arguments I. The Ohio Salon Association advances that the legislation enables new graduates to enter the beauty industry with less debt and the ability to repay student loans. <ul> <li>Argument is unsupported by data regarding student debt for new graduates.</li> <li>Student debt is a large problem nationally, not limited to the cosmetology industry.</li> <li>Reduction in hours does not mean reduction in student loan debt because out of pocket costs would increase for students who rely on financial aid.</li> </ul>
Consent*
I agree to the privacy policy.*
Protect My Profession will not give or sell your personal information to any third party. Protect My Profession agrees to use signatures responsibly and legally. This may involve contacting you via email or text message with SB-245 news. You also grant permission for Protect My Profession to forward petition signatures to Ohio lawmakers, so they may also view signature details. Protect My Profession agres not to republish petition signatures on any other website or public media forum.
Name
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

97 Signatures

THE PROBLEM WITH APPRENTICESHIPS

WHAT THE BILLS PROPOSE

House Bill 399 and Senate Bill 245 create an entire apprenticeship program with no standards, no curriculum, no proof of education, no experience needed or standards for instructors to actually be qualified to teach. This apprenticeship program seeks to replace proven educational techniques and processes with apprenticeships that lack consistency and accountability.

Current education standards produce graduates empowered to start their own businesses. In fact, in 2018, 75% of barbers and 44% of hairdressers, hairstylists, and cosmetologists were self-employed.¹

¹Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Barbers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists, on the Internet at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/personal-care-and-service/barbers-hairstylists-and-cosmetologists.htm (visited November 08, 2019).

THE CASE AGAINST APPRENTICESHIPS

NO STANDARDS FOR CURRICULUM

HB-399/SB-245 do not spell out what an Apprentice learns, how many different techniques, any information about the rigor and quality of the program and no information whatsoever.

NO STANDARDS FOR EDUCATORS

HB-399/SB-245 require no training whatsoever in instruction techniques, curriculum preparation, and education.

A RECORD OF FAILURE

Ohio experimented with barbering apprenticeship, results so poor that the program was discontinued for inconsistent instruction, lack of diverse skillset, failure to understand infection control, and public safety procedures due to very poorly trained professionals.

NO STANDARDS FOR EXPERIENCE

Under HB 399/SB-245, an Apprentice can be cleaning the shop or salon all day long and not be trained in any technique.

NO ACCOUNTABILITY

Unlike schools, apprenticeships offer no reporting of hours.

INAPT COMPARISON

Proponents of HB-399/SB-245 would have you believe that because apprenticeship programs such as the programs run by labor unions for professions like construction work that they will work for beauty professionals. However those programs are multi-million-dollar rigorous programs with strong content, trained instructors, years of training, rigorous classroom instruction, and last longer than Ohio’s cosmetology and barber standards for education.

SALONS CONTROL HOW MUCH YOU LEARN

Apprentices only learn what one person or one limited branch of the profession teach them. Some of the salons will only teach so much so as to keep licensees working for them and not branch out on their own. The less you know, the less likely you are to compete against this model. It is a recipe for low wages, inconsistent education, lack of professionalism.

LIMITED SKILLSET

If you are apprenticed at a chain salon that features 15-minute haircuts and only 6 styles of haircuts, what future do you have in the industry? You are doomed to low wage, low satisfaction careers with the obvious high drop out rates due to these factors.

CREATES EMPLOYEES, NOT ENTREPRENEURS

Apprenticeships do not provide for a well-rounded professional who can go out and start their own business. It will stifle a vibrant industry and the creativity that drives the industry.

THE CASE FOR CURRENT RULES

PROVEN CURRICULUM

Current education rules offer rigorous, well-rounded, proven education that produces productive and talented professionals using evidence-based, nationally accredited curriculum.

TIME-TESTED INSTRUCTION

Tests mirror the curriculum of time-tested textbooks and instruction approved by the board.

A RECORD OF SUCCESS

High first-time passage rates prove that the curriculum works to produce a talented workforce that is prepared to own their own business, provide competent and extraordinary services in a safe and highly-skilled manner.

SAVE RECIPROCITY

RECIPROCITY PETITION

NAME*
First Last
PHONE*
EMAIL*
ADDRESS*
Street Address Address Line 2 City State ZIP Code
LETTER TO LAWMAKERS
Dear Lawmaker: Thank you In advance for your time as you review this compelling information. Unfortunately, in reducing Barbering and Cosmetology to 1000 hours we would find we have succeeded in eliminating Ohioans’ reciprocity with all contiguous states, including Pennsylvania. I am certain that as a legislator you would not stand behind handcuffing Ohioans to Ohio- especially if it were to prevent Ohioans from obtaining a second job if they live on the bordering lines, or, forcing the hands of a prospective students to choose schooling at an institution over the river or bridge instead of Ohio, for instance. Please note, it is my understanding entry in to Ohio can become even more simple with administrative rule change from the board. Additionally, HB 399 seeks to eliminate optional advanced education that results in licensure; This optional education is geared for those who simply choose to obtain licensure that advances their skill sets. The benefit of this licensure is that it gives us a marketable edge, increases our skill sets but also increases our reciprocity even more. For instance: advanced licenses are especially beneficial for those who live on the border of West Virginia and would like to be able to work there, as well. A simple option to choose education that gives immediate entry into a bordering state seems like a good thing that we’d not want to get rid of. Again, id like to highlight that advanced licensure is optional. Optional education in a female dominated industry that results in licensure doesn’t seem like an appropriate thing to eliminate. Female business owners felt very strongly about this topic in past general assemblies and felt removing optional education that lead to licensure is simply unjustifiable and indefensible. On another note: The bill introduces a concept called intermediate training to replace advanced licenses; because this training does not lead to state recognize licensure it would not be recognized in surrounding states. You can see this in the document provided. Therefore, it does not secure any kind of reciprocity. In addition, the intermediate training Not a term known in the cosmetology industry. Last general assembly, in substitute House Bill 189 we were unable to find the value in the intermediate concept. We struggled in understanding why we would want replace optional advanced licensure with something other states have never heard of.
Consent*
I agree to the privacy policy.*
Protect My Profession will not give or sell your personal information to any third party. Protect My Profession agrees to use signatures responsibly and legally. This may involve contacting you via email or text message with HB-399 news. You also grant permission for Protect My Profession to forward petition signatures to Ohio lawmakers, so they may also view signature details. Protect My Profession agres not to republish petition signatures on any other website or public media forum.
Email
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

342 Signatures

WHAT IS RECIPROCITY?

Please sign the petition to save License Reciprocity.

BORDERING STATE RECIPROCITY RULES

INDIANA

Barbering – 1,500 hours
Cosmetology – 1,500 hours

Nail Technician – 450 hours
Esthetician – 700 hours

RECIPROCITY RULES

For Cosmetology and Barbering, the state or country you hold a license in must require at least 1500 hours of education or one (1) year of licensed practice is equal to one hundred (100) hours of education to an applicant who has completed a minimum of one thousand (1000) hours of education. The jurisdiction must also require at least 70% passing on the written and practical exams.

For Esthetics, the state or country you hold a license in must require at least 700 hours of education. If not, One (1) year of licensed practice may substitute for one hundred (100) hours of education to an applicant who has completed a minimum of 400 hours of education.

What it means: It would take 5 years of work experience to transfer a license to Indiana, with only 1000 hours of education.

If an applicant comes from a jurisdiction that issues a cosmetologist, barbering or esthetics license but does not meet Indiana’s minimum reciprocity requirements, they may transfer their hours from their original out-of-state school to a beauty culture school in Indiana. The applicant would need to graduate from the Indiana approved beauty culture school and then apply by examination. Beauty culture schools may accept hours from an out-of-state school, but are not required by the board to do so.

The number of hours reflects the applicant’s state’s minimum education requirement rather than the actual number of hours that were obtained. If the applicant completed extra hours above and beyond the state’s minimum requirement, the extra hours would not apply

What it means: Out-of-state hours are not required by the board to be accepted. The ability of a school to offer additional training in Roegner’s bill, would not enable those hours to transfer, as they would not be certified by the state.

KENTUCKY

Barbering – 1,500 hours
Cosmetology – 1,500 hours

Nail Technician – 450 hours
Esthetician – 750 hours

RECIPROCITY RULES

If the applicant’s hours obtained out-of state are equivalent to Kentucky’s hourly requirement then the applicant will apply as an Out-of-State Exam applicant.

If the applicant does not have enough hours to match Kentucky’s hourly requirement the applicant must complete remaining hours required for that license in a school of cosmetology in Kentucky before applying for the licensing exam.

What it means: Kentucky will only accept the amount of hours the state you are transferring from requires for licensing. (Example: Florida requires 1250 hours to be licensed as a cosmetologist – that is the maximum amount of hours that we will accept from that state). So, no optional education as per Roegner’s bill.

Any person who holds an out-of-state license and gained licensure by a nationally certified examination may apply for licensure without completing the NIC examination in Kentucky. Approved transfers will not be required to complete an examination for licensure in the state of Kentucky.

Any person who holds an out-of-state license that did not complete a nationally certified examination to obtain licensure in the transferring state will be required to successfully complete the NIC examination, theory and practical, before licensure will be granted in Kentucky.

Barber reciprocity: Section 1. (1) Any person who is at least eighteen (18) years of age and of good moral character and temperate habits, who has a current license or certificate of registration as a practicing barber of another state or other board recognizing authority, which has substantially the same requirements for licensing or registering barbers as are required of KRS Chapter 317 and 201 KAR Chapter 14,shall, upon payment of the fee required by 201 KAR 14:180,be granted permission to take an examination to determine his fitness to receive a license to practice barbering.

Section 2. If an applicant is coming from a state or other board recognizing authority without substantially the same requirements, the applicant shall have been a registered barber and worked for three (3) years, in accordance with KRS 317.450(1)(e).(KBB:Lic:Non-Res-1; 1 Ky.R. 725; Am. 1224; eff. 5-14-1975; 10 Ky.R. 893; eff. 2-1-1984; 40 Ky.R. 1861; 2414; eff. 6-6-2014.)

WEST VIRGINIA

Barbering – 1,200 hours
Cosmetology – 1,800 hours
Nail Technician – 400 hours

Esthetician – 600 hours
Hair Stylist – 1,000 hours

RECIPROCITY RULES

Training must equal or exceed the requirements for a West Virginia license. The West Virginia Board will accept actual licensed work experience in lieu of part of the required training. Work experience is awarded at 25 hours per month of salon work, or 300 hours per year. Total work experience that may be accepted cannot exceed 50% of the required hours, and must have been acquired within the previous five years.

What it means: It would require 2 years and 8 months of work experience in Ohio to transfer a 1000 clock hour license to WV.

PENNSYLVANIA

Barbering – 1,250 hours
Cosmetology – 1,250 hours

Nail Technician – 200 hours
Esthetician – 300 hours

RECIPROCITY RULES

The Pennsylvania Board of Cosmetology and the Pennsylvania Board of Barber Examiners requires all candidates to submit an official Criminal History Record Information check with their applications for licensure examinations, reactivation, and reciprocity.

Applicants will need to supply an official Criminal History Record Information check from the State Police or other state agency for every state in which the candidate has resided during the past five years. The reports must be dated within ninety (90) days of the date of the application.

Reciprocity agreements are subject to change, so please contact the board to review the requirements: www.dos.state.pa.us/cosmet.

What it means: If you hold a current license in a state where Pennsylvania DOES NOT have an understanding of reciprocity you are required to take and pass the combined theory/procedural skill computer based exam. Please complete and submit a cosmetology application and review the instructions.

MICHIGAN

Barbering – 1,800 hours
Cosmetology – 1,500 hours

Nail Technician – 400 hours
Esthetician – 400 hours

RECIPROCITY RULES

Sec. 1211.

(1) Upon submission of an application to the department, an individual licensed to perform cosmetology services under the laws of another state shall, without examination, be granted a license to practice the services for which that individual was previously licensed if the applicant is not less than 17 years of age, is of good moral character, and the requirements for registration or licensure in the particular state were substantially equal to the requirements then in force in this state.

(2) Years or months of experience may be substituted for hours of training in a ratio of 100 hours of training credited for each 6 months of experience. An individual applying for licensure having qualifications acquired outside of the United States shall provide proof of training or experience, or both. The department may determine whether or not an applicant is qualified to be licensed without examination.

What it means: Under the proposed changes, two and a half years of work in a salon would be necessary to transfer an Ohio cosmetology license to Michigan.

SIGN HOURS PETITIONSIGN HOURS PETITION

SIGN RECIPROCITY PETITIONSIGN RECIPROCITY PETITION