Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

psychicpilot t1_j9xt03e wrote

Reply to comment by phdoofus in For marginal occupations licensed by U.S. states, the welfare costs of licensing exceeds the benefits, as workers have to expend resources to obtain the license and consumers pay higher prices. [The study looks at professions that require license in some states but not others]. by smurfyjenkins

But your hairdresser?

1

dcheesi t1_j9y2axh wrote

There's a significant safety & liability concern there. Hairdressers routinely apply potentially toxic and/or caustic chemicals directly to people's hair and scalp. Not to mention sharp cutting tools and very hot implements (curling irons, etc.). All in close proximity to, or even direct contact with, a person's face and neck.

24

unicornbomb t1_j9ynn5y wrote

There’s also a huge potential for blood borne pathogen spread due to the use of straight razors, waxing, etc that requires appropriate training in technique, single use implements, blood spill procedure and sanitation.

Along with the potential to spread things like lice if the stylist isn’t trained on what to look for and appropriately cleaning and sterilizing tools.

16

stanolshefski t1_j9yep1o wrote

That’s a fair argument for streamlining the required training.

It’s been a while since I read the studies, but in every state that licenses barbers and cosmetologists, the safety aspects of training typically took up between 5-15% of the required training.

Instead of 1000-2000 hours of training at a typical cost of $15k-20k, you could probably do it in a few weeks for a couple hundred dollars.

Many states required you to spend more time being trained on how to market your trade than they required for safety.

9

psychicpilot t1_j9y2ffn wrote

Some states want hundreds of hours and dollars for this- give me a break. Same with interior decorators.

0

whatweshouldcallyou t1_j9yjeml wrote

If this created a serious issue that licensing solves then surely we should find a discernible difference in cases of injuries sustained in salons in states that do not require licensing vs. those that do, right?

Because I doubt there are.

−7

unicornbomb t1_j9ynqjq wrote

Every state in the US requires licensing for hairstylists and barbers.

6

Sea-Intention6698 t1_ja09jtx wrote

Yet the UK doesn’t. Surely people are getting lice and ears cut off because of this wild wild approach to cutting hair.

0

unicornbomb t1_ja0p80u wrote

UK has the NVQ system, and you aren’t going to be hired without first doing an apprenticeship or having nvq level 2 in hairdressing.

1

Athene_cunicularia23 t1_ja088f9 wrote

I remember my mom studying for her cosmetology licensing exam when I was a kid. Lots of questions pertained to safe dilution and mixture of the various chemicals hairdressers regularly use. Others had to do with hygiene and sanitation of implements like razors. Seems pretty important to me.

4