5 ms·

Hair stylists work with extremely sharp implements extremely close to major blood vessels. I'm pretty OK with them needing at least some training. And that's no

Hair stylists work with extremely sharp implements extremely close to major blood vessels. I'm pretty OK with them needing at least some training. And that's not even counting, as GP mentioned, the dangerous chemicals that come into things like hair dyes.

joezydeco 10y ago
Planet Money documented the plight of a woman in Utah that wanted to start a hair-braiding business. She needed a full cosmetology license. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episode-381-why-its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episo... A recent ruling negated the requirement: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/08/09/158498244/its-now-legal-to-braid-hair-in-utah-without-a-license http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/08/09/158498244/its-n...
- jdmichal 10y ago
  > Utah's cosmetology/barbering licensing scheme is so disconnected from the practice of African hairbraiding, much less from whatever minimal threats to public health and safety are connected to braiding, that to premise Jestina's right to earn a living by braiding hair on that scheme is wholly irrational and a violation of her constitutionally protected rights. So part of the ruling negating the requirement took into consideration that braiding had none of the associated threats to public health and safety. This sounds like things working as they should with regards to overreaching. It's a shame she had to shut down and sue, but the right call was made by the judge.
  - dexterdog 10y ago
    But it is absolute insanity that it had to get to that point. How many other people don't even bother to open shop because of this? How many shut down because it's not worth the fight?
    - jdmichal 10y ago
      The law was written too broadly. It happens, and it's certainly not insanity. One of the problems with enshrining things into law is that it locks it into its current state. I'm sure when the law was written, African hair braiding was the last thing on anyone's minds. But society changes, and unfortunately case precedent like the one demonstrated is typically how law evolves with it. (A more proactive approach by legislators would be the preferred method.)
  - danielweber 10y ago
    > This sounds like things working as they should This person happened to be able to get the Institute for Justice behind her. Most lower class people do not. They simply get squeezed out, and a la Bastiat we never see them.
tanker 10y ago
I think haircuts are a buyer beware situation. I trust the average person to give safe haircuts 100/100 times. If the hairdresser is noticeably disturbed or drugged, I'll be moving on. I can leave at any point in the process if I feel I am in danger. Out of curiosity, I searched for haircut related deaths and they were all customers killing the hairdresser because they were upset about how they looked. Based on the actual danger, I would suggest licensing someone to receive a haircut may be the more effective method of increasing haircut safety.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  You're basically arguing that incidents don't occur when pretty much everyone practicing professionally is licensed. Sounds like the desired end state to me.
  - saint_fiasco 10y ago
    I've never heard about any hairdresser related incidents in my third-world homeland either. The professional licensing leads to the same end state as a bear-repelling rock.
    - jdmichal 10y ago
      I've never heard of an actual bear attack either. But I still know that interacting with wild bears is a potentially dangerous situation. And I will certainly want that bear-repelling rock if there's a bear looking at me with murderous intent.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
pavel_lishin 10y ago
I'm not worried about sharp implements near my head, but I may be worried about a lot of chemicals in that area. I also want the person touch my hair to at least be aware of hygiene issues - no fun going in for a haircut and coming away with chemical burns and lice.
talmand 10y ago
I would like to see the stats of accidental deaths due to the mishandling of hair stylist equipment.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  Deaths? Not necessarily likely. Infections? Very much so.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    Infections, chemical burns, lice transferrals. But if you're very lucky, the chemicals will kill the lice, and you'll be too worried about your new disease to be concerned about your hair!
  - talmand 10y ago
    I was going by this statement: "Hair stylists work with extremely sharp implements extremely close to major blood vessels." Which implies something more than a knick on the skin that the injured customer then refuses to treat resulting in an infection.
    - jdmichal 10y ago
      Yes. It's certainly possible, but not necessarily likely. I wouldn't necessarily expect to find instances of it, short of Sweeney Todd. But I would expect you to be able to find instances of infections, lice, etc.
mseebach 10y ago
Just a minimum level of being aware of your surroundings would let you know if the person cutting your hair has so low control of their motorical faculties that they might accidentally stab you in the neck. As for hair dyes, as long as you can buy these things in regular stores, and people generally not getting hurt by them, why would the specific act of putting it in your hair be so dangerous that special government licencing would be required?
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  The dyes and bleaches used by hairdressers can be much stronger than what you use at home. And at home, you're only bleaching your own eyeballs; a hairdresser can affect many other people who may not be able to judge his or her ability to handle those chemicals.
  - danielweber 10y ago
    You can let someone cut hair without requiring them to learn all about those chemicals. They just need a few hours to make sure they know how to disinfect things. Let them be small until they want to dye hair. It's easy for a bunch of high-achieving people to imagine that these requirements are all great and easy to follow, but there are people in this world who are never going to finish college but still know how to cut hair or cook food or arrange flowers for other people. These people seldom have any significant lobbying voice and when they are choked out you don't see them. You just have some honest person trying to provide honest labor and being told "no" by the nobility. The people passing these licensure requirements should stop and think really hard about what it's like for a person of little means but with genuine interest to comply with them, and only make the requirements the minimum necessary to satisfy public safety.
    - pavel_lishin 10y ago
      > only make the requirements the minimum necessary to satisfy public safety. I'm okay with that. A hair stylist shouldn't need to complete a cosmetology degree, as in that NPR story. But I would very much* like for them to have taken a test that, at some point, at least asks them if they're aware that you can spread certain diseases if you're not careful about what you do.
danielweber 10y ago
Unless they are in kindergarten, it takes about 5 minutes to teach someone not to cut skin with scissors. It's easy to imagine that my kid wants to be a barber and so I could front the money for him to do whatever licensure requirements there are. But it's really hard for some poor person to hop through those same hoops, when all they are trying to do is earn an honest living by offering services for which people will give them money. A lot of "well what's the harm in requiring hairdressers to take 100 hours of classes" are things which strictly benefit the middle- and upper-class (they aren't really going to notice paying 50 cents more for a haircut), but could really put the screws to the lower-class.
- askldfhjkasfhd 10y ago
  I see your point, but I'm not sure beautician licensure requirements are a good place to point out how difficult it is for poorer people to get into. In my experience, it's a very lower-middle or lower socioeconomic status profession. The licensure requirements certainly haven't meant (in my experience) that we're limiting the field to wealthy people. It probably could be better/easier, but again, given all the chemicals that get combined, the pace at which they work, and the sharp instruments, I don't think 2.5 weeks of fulltime training is unreasonable.
jdietrich 10y ago
Hairdressers in the UK are unlicensed. Somehow, we have managed to avoid an epidemic of severed ears and burned scalps.

joezydeco 10y ago

Planet Money documented the plight of a woman in Utah that wanted to start a hair-braiding business. She needed a full cosmetology license. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episode-381-why-its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episo... A recent ruling negated the requirement: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/08/09/158498244/its-now-legal-to-braid-hair-in-utah-without-a-license http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/08/09/158498244/its-n...

jdmichal 10y ago
> Utah's cosmetology/barbering licensing scheme is so disconnected from the practice of African hairbraiding, much less from whatever minimal threats to public health and safety are connected to braiding, that to premise Jestina's right to earn a living by braiding hair on that scheme is wholly irrational and a violation of her constitutionally protected rights. So part of the ruling negating the requirement took into consideration that braiding had none of the associated threats to public health and safety. This sounds like things working as they should with regards to overreaching. It's a shame she had to shut down and sue, but the right call was made by the judge.
- dexterdog 10y ago
  But it is absolute insanity that it had to get to that point. How many other people don't even bother to open shop because of this? How many shut down because it's not worth the fight?
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    The law was written too broadly. It happens, and it's certainly not insanity. One of the problems with enshrining things into law is that it locks it into its current state. I'm sure when the law was written, African hair braiding was the last thing on anyone's minds. But society changes, and unfortunately case precedent like the one demonstrated is typically how law evolves with it. (A more proactive approach by legislators would be the preferred method.)
- danielweber 10y ago
  > This sounds like things working as they should This person happened to be able to get the Institute for Justice behind her. Most lower class people do not. They simply get squeezed out, and a la Bastiat we never see them.

tanker 10y ago

I think haircuts are a buyer beware situation. I trust the average person to give safe haircuts 100/100 times. If the hairdresser is noticeably disturbed or drugged, I'll be moving on. I can leave at any point in the process if I feel I am in danger. Out of curiosity, I searched for haircut related deaths and they were all customers killing the hairdresser because they were upset about how they looked. Based on the actual danger, I would suggest licensing someone to receive a haircut may be the more effective method of increasing haircut safety.

jdmichal 10y ago
You're basically arguing that incidents don't occur when pretty much everyone practicing professionally is licensed. Sounds like the desired end state to me.
- saint_fiasco 10y ago
  I've never heard about any hairdresser related incidents in my third-world homeland either. The professional licensing leads to the same end state as a bear-repelling rock.
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    I've never heard of an actual bear attack either. But I still know that interacting with wild bears is a potentially dangerous situation. And I will certainly want that bear-repelling rock if there's a bear looking at me with murderous intent.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

pavel_lishin 10y ago

I'm not worried about sharp implements near my head, but I may be worried about a lot of chemicals in that area. I also want the person touch my hair to at least be aware of hygiene issues - no fun going in for a haircut and coming away with chemical burns and lice.

talmand 10y ago

I would like to see the stats of accidental deaths due to the mishandling of hair stylist equipment.

jdmichal 10y ago
Deaths? Not necessarily likely. Infections? Very much so.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  Infections, chemical burns, lice transferrals. But if you're very lucky, the chemicals will kill the lice, and you'll be too worried about your new disease to be concerned about your hair!
- talmand 10y ago
  I was going by this statement: "Hair stylists work with extremely sharp implements extremely close to major blood vessels." Which implies something more than a knick on the skin that the injured customer then refuses to treat resulting in an infection.
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    Yes. It's certainly possible, but not necessarily likely. I wouldn't necessarily expect to find instances of it, short of Sweeney Todd. But I would expect you to be able to find instances of infections, lice, etc.

mseebach 10y ago

Just a minimum level of being aware of your surroundings would let you know if the person cutting your hair has so low control of their motorical faculties that they might accidentally stab you in the neck. As for hair dyes, as long as you can buy these things in regular stores, and people generally not getting hurt by them, why would the specific act of putting it in your hair be so dangerous that special government licencing would be required?

pavel_lishin 10y ago
The dyes and bleaches used by hairdressers can be much stronger than what you use at home. And at home, you're only bleaching your own eyeballs; a hairdresser can affect many other people who may not be able to judge his or her ability to handle those chemicals.
- danielweber 10y ago
  You can let someone cut hair without requiring them to learn all about those chemicals. They just need a few hours to make sure they know how to disinfect things. Let them be small until they want to dye hair. It's easy for a bunch of high-achieving people to imagine that these requirements are all great and easy to follow, but there are people in this world who are never going to finish college but still know how to cut hair or cook food or arrange flowers for other people. These people seldom have any significant lobbying voice and when they are choked out you don't see them. You just have some honest person trying to provide honest labor and being told "no" by the nobility. The people passing these licensure requirements should stop and think really hard about what it's like for a person of little means but with genuine interest to comply with them, and only make the requirements the minimum necessary to satisfy public safety.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    > only make the requirements the minimum necessary to satisfy public safety. I'm okay with that. A hair stylist shouldn't need to complete a cosmetology degree, as in that NPR story. But I would very much* like for them to have taken a test that, at some point, at least asks them if they're aware that you can spread certain diseases if you're not careful about what you do.

danielweber 10y ago

Unless they are in kindergarten, it takes about 5 minutes to teach someone not to cut skin with scissors. It's easy to imagine that my kid wants to be a barber and so I could front the money for him to do whatever licensure requirements there are. But it's really hard for some poor person to hop through those same hoops, when all they are trying to do is earn an honest living by offering services for which people will give them money. A lot of "well what's the harm in requiring hairdressers to take 100 hours of classes" are things which strictly benefit the middle- and upper-class (they aren't really going to notice paying 50 cents more for a haircut), but could really put the screws to the lower-class.

askldfhjkasfhd 10y ago
I see your point, but I'm not sure beautician licensure requirements are a good place to point out how difficult it is for poorer people to get into. In my experience, it's a very lower-middle or lower socioeconomic status profession. The licensure requirements certainly haven't meant (in my experience) that we're limiting the field to wealthy people. It probably could be better/easier, but again, given all the chemicals that get combined, the pace at which they work, and the sharp instruments, I don't think 2.5 weeks of fulltime training is unreasonable.

jdietrich 10y ago

Hairdressers in the UK are unlicensed. Somehow, we have managed to avoid an epidemic of severed ears and burned scalps.