By: Sarah Johnson
This week we will take a closer look at two trending cosmetology bills. The first, a Washington bill relating to booth rental agreements and the second, a Texas bill abolishing the regulation of barbering and cosmetology.
Washington Senate Bill 5326
This bill, known as the salon booth rental bill, has caused quite the uproar within the cosmetology community for many different reasons. At its core, WA SB5326 aimed to change the regulations surrounding booth rental agreements by prohibiting someone with a salon/shop license to lease a station (or booth) to someone who owns and operates a separate business. The bill’s sponsor, Senator Karen Keiser, said this will equalize regulations between leasing salon owners and salons who hire their employees. Keiser said she wanted to address the issue of salon owners treating people who rent out their stations like employees but then using independent contracting (a misclassification of these workers) rules as a way to not pay benefits, health insurance, or provide state safety nets.
When speaking about the bill, Senator Keiser said “If you have two people in the same business and two sets of rules then it is really suspect. It has to be looked into. What can we do to equalize the treatment and make things fair? That’s our job.”
It is worth taking a minute to examine whether or not cosmetologists are “independent contractors”. By definition an independent contractor is a person or entity contracted to perform work for—or provide services to—another entity as a non employee. They are independent and control their own location, hours, methods, and so on.
Stylists usually work in one of the following ways: as an employee at a commission-based salon where their commission is capped (usually between 30 and 50 percent depending on experience), or they rent a booth at a salon and pay rent. Hair stylists who rent their booths from salons run their own business and simply pay for space to operate; they are separate businesses from the salon. So they are sole proprietors, not independent contractors of the salon.
The bill states current regulations “deny individuals eligibility for unemployment insurance and industrial insurance, and gives businesses that use booth renters an unfair competitive advantage.” This is invalid because booth renters usually operate as sole-proprietors of their own company, making them ineligible for unemployment insurance or industrial insurance anyway. Salons cannot “deny” renters something they do not qualify for to begin with.
A second major issue is this bill only regulates cosmetologists (who are primarily women) and does not included barbers (who are primarily men). Obviously many people within the cosmetology profession find this distinction unfair, as the two industries are set up in a similar manner. When asked about this bill, hairdresser Justin Dahlquist, told The Stranger,
“They’re trying to say that the owners of booth rental salons are somehow taking advantage of us. That’s just not accurate. The vast majority of booth renting stylists have been doing it for years and we can work wherever we want. There’s more freedom and more agency.”
After a highly attended hearing, Senator Keiser agreed to amended key parts of the bill and released this statement. First, the bill will be expanded to include barbers. Second, the provision banning booth rental to fellow cosmetologists will be removed. Third, the bill will still include portions that remove certain exemptions for cosmetology booth renters, including the exemptions from unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation and business and occupation taxes. The jury is still out if the last item is at all possible given how current state laws qualify individuals for these items.
Texas House Bill 1705
The second cosmetology bill we will look at is Texas HB1705. In order to obtain a cosmetology license in Texas, people must go through a program which takes 1,500 hours of training to finish. The licensing process is designed to teach students how to keep clients safe when it comes to cutting, dying, sanitizing and more. During their training, people are taught how to sanitize correctly, the chemistry behind mixing dyes and how to use their instruments appropriately. HB1705 sought to abolish the requirement for a license, certificate or permit to practice cosmetology or barbering within the state of Texas. Had it been implemented, Texas would have been the only state in the country to completely deregulate this industry. The bill was met with huge resistance from the cosmetology and barbering community, cited mostly due to fears relating to public safety.
The bill was proposed with the idea that deregulation of this industry would help open up more job opportunities. The bill’s sponsor, Matt Shaheen, cited many other industries with a public safety aspect (mechanics, electrologists, personal trainers, etc.) which do not require workers to obtain a license, certificate, or permit to perform their profession. He also cited the fact that EMTs are required to complete 120-150 hours of training on average (a tenth of the hours required to become a cosmetologist). Representative Shaheen intended to help remove one of many obstacles for people seeking employment and stated the market will help decide the people who are successful, so if you are good and provide a good service, it does not matter if you have a license.
The cosmetology and barbering community had a few issues with this approach. First, many people spent significant time and money obtaining their license to be able to safely provide client services. Most of the procedures people have done at a salon or barber are potentially dangerous. I, for one, would not want to get my hair dyed or my beard shaved with a razor by someone who I was not confident knew how to appropriately wield those chemicals and tools. We all expect that when we go to a salon the professionals we go to are trained and safe. Cosmetologists and barbers brought up concerns that deregulation could expose clients to chemical burns from dyes, lice, and other types of bugs or potentially threatening viruses from unsanitized tools.
After the public protest of the legislation, Representative Shaheen said discussions with constituents led him to modify the bill. He is still moving forward with legislation, but now it will direct the state to conduct a study of the specialty licenses within the field, instead of abolishing the requirements for them.
Representative Shaheen stated, “The study will determine what improvements, if any, can be made to remove obstacles to employment and reward hard work, while continuing focus on keeping Texans safe.”
Conclusion.
It is pretty great to see legislators taking the time to talk to their constituents and understand their lives, their concerns and where they are coming from. I know every time I write a Closer Looks I learn so much about whatever the topic a bill is about, so I love to feel legislators are learning from these bills too. It is especially awesome to see communities and politicians engaging in honest dialog about issues politicians may not be completely familiar with.
Cover Photo thanks to: Alwin Kroon on Unsplash
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.