How Oppressive Will Connecticut's New Nail Salon Occupational Licensing Be? Stay Tuned.
To state Rep. Jillian Gilchrest, “Raising women up” apparently means depriving them of employment opportunities.
Connecticut is the only state in the country that currently does not require minimum licensing to work in places like nail salons. That's a good thing! Or, it was.
This week, Democratic State Rep. Jillian Gilchrest (West Hartford) managed to push through legislation requiring new, costly inspections of salons and that all nail salon workers, skin care estheticians, and eyebrow technicians pay for state-mandated education and licenses in order to do their jobs.
Occupational licensing of service sector jobs deprives workers—including many minorities, women, and immigrants—from access to entry-level jobs. A review of academic literature performed by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the Treasury Department, and the Department of Labor found that licensing workers in these fields does not protect consumer health or safety. Licenses also drive up the cost of services and restrict mobility.
Nevertheless, Gilchrest claimed that the lack of licensing in Connecticut's beauty industry is a health hazard, and insisted that women are getting injured by unlicensed workers and unsafe salons. She also said that salons in Connecticut are hotbeds of human trafficking, a claim that couldn't stand up to scrutiny when she first introduced her bill back in February.
Unsurprisingly, Gilchrest's tweet celebrating the passage of HB 6742 in the House doesn't mention anything about human trafficking:
https://twitter.com/Jilchrest/status/1131691198819708928
The first part of Gilchrest's bill gives Connecticut Department of Health inspectors more specific instructions for developing sanitary standards for salons. Local health departments within the state will have the authority to inspect facilities annually and charge fees up to $250 for each inspection. The bill itself notes that this is intended to raise money and the bill's fiscal impact section projects a net revenue gain.
Gilchrest's bill will also impose new regulations and requirements for wannabe manicurists and eyebrow-threaders, but we don't know yet what they'll be. The Department of Public Health will send "scope of practice" surveys to people working in the field, and workers will then describe what they do and what they see as the minimum education and training requirements.
Connecticut will then put together a commission to write regulations for the industry. This panel will be made of up of people already in the industry as well as educators, who will stand to benefit from a law that legally requires workers to pay for their educational services. Everybody likely to be involved in writing the regulations will have some sort of incentive to erect obstacles to people currently outside the industry. Beauty schools will likely push for as many mandatory educational hours as possible, and current workers may ask to be grandfathered in. Future estheticians will pay the costs of getting these jobs, many of them with student loans. Some would-be estheticians will not be able to afford this career path at all.
Decades ago, Connecticut required manicurists to receive 500 hours of education in order to legally practice. That ended in 1980 and efforts since then to reinstate licensing have failed. (For comparison's sake: Connecticut currently requires emergency medical responders to receive 60 hours of education, and that emergency medical technicians receive 150 hours of education.)
Gilchrest failed to provide any data that nail salon customers are at greater risk of harm than customers in states where nail salon workers are licensed. Instead, we get amazing stories—like this one from Connecticut's National Public Radio affiliate—that suggest it's sexist to not demand licenses and mandate education for nail salon workers. This claim comes from women within the industry who want the state's stamp of approval for their work (and the income premium that comes from erecting a barrier to entry behind them). Note that the voices in this NPR story are people who are manicurists, not customers. They don't even talk to nail salon customers in Connecticut to get a sense of whether women feel as though they are at risk due to a lack of occupational licensing.
The bill also passed the Senate and heads to the governor's desk. Meanwhile, Gilchrest's victory tweet is getting a hefty amount of pushback from people who know what occupational licensing in the cosmetology field actually does to women in the job market. Not a few are looking askance at Gilchrest's profile claim that she's committed to "Raising women up."
The Connecticut House this week also approved a budget plan that will raise an estimated $2 billion in new tax revenue extending sales taxes to more goods and services like dry-cleaning, interior design, and parking, as well as additional taxes on prepared foods, digital downloads, short-term housing rentals, and alcohol. There will also be a 10-cent surcharge on single-use plastic bags. This surcharge is temporary because single-use plastic bags will be banned by 2021.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Seeing how oppressive CT is with other things like taxes, regulations, etc. I would expect it to be very very bad.
Time to require national level licensing of political candidates.
First, outlaw all political contributions of any amount. *
Then charge a $750 application fee for permission to announce a candidacy. To actually run, the candidate must have completed 10,000 hours of paid for political science courses and written a 200 page paper on their political philosophy. That paper must be published on a state controlled website, without any edits, and retained forever. Any candidate who campaigns on any platform not supported by that initial paper must withdraw, and is permanently barred form any future political activity beyond voting once per election.
* the reason for political contributions is supposed to be for the candidates to get their ‘message’ out. With the advent of the web, that no longer requires money. The government can provide public access to the politician’s message.
Welcome to the revolution.
I love to read McAfee’s paper under your law.
So we’d be left with nothing but open Marxists.
What an asshole.
“Raising women up.”
Wait, what?
Gilchrest is an enemy of freedom.
cute in a Keebler-elf way … but what’s w/the chick shakedown? how is any of that “raising up” der
No more than 10 clips per hairdresser, high capacity hair dryers need to be registered, no blade shorter than a 6 except for military and law enforcement…
There’s 40 years of data available. How many people have been harmed at CT nail salons in that time?
This is absurd. Utterly utterly absurd.
“How Oppressive Will Connecticut’s New Nail Salon Occupational Licensing Be? Stay Tuned.”
It will make the Gulag Archipelago look like an episode of The Andy Griffith Show.
Just pointing out this is the same psycho that proposed a 50% ammunition tax recently. It seems like she primaried the previous Dem that held that seat from crazytown.
CT is the only state the doesn’t license nail technicians & estheticians. Today, we took a step toward changing that!
The “This is how they do it in Europe” defense.
Democratic State Rep. Jillian Gilchrest wants to tax and regulate farts.
[…] apparently means depriving them of employment opportunities.” Reason‘s Scott Shackford looks at the latest expansion of occupational licensing rules for salon […]
[…] Read the entire article at Reason. […]