Maggie, you really need to let us know how you really feel!!!!! LOLO
I agree and disagree with some of your statements. I imagine if
licensing went away, then we would have groups of stylists and techs
lobbying their government to get licensing. Lordy Be, we will never
be happy!!!! As usual, you get your point across and love to read
what your opinion is on issues!!!!!!!!!!!! diana from indiana
At 04:38 PM 10/21/2010, you wrote:
FINALLY! A moment to respond to this.
Let me begin by also addressing some of the responses already put
forth. I'm really surprised at how many of us feel that our licenses
are worth diddley squat and at how many feel that total
de-regulation would ultimately result in a complete deterioration of
the industry.
I believe my responses to the individual points will cover my own
opinions and predictions just fine:
--- On Wed, 10/13/10, Debbie Doerrlamm <[email protected]> wrote:
Several things have come past my face recently that's got me
thinking.. and I thought since we are such a diverse group I would
pass it in your face and see what sticks to the wall..
As we are all well aware, all but 1 US state requires licensing for
nail techs.. almost every other country has zero requirements by law
to hang out a sign. Over the years one state or another has tried
to kill our licensing requirements - none successfully, while other
state have INCREASED required hours. I know many of us would love to
see a federally sound program, but that is never going to happen -
our constitution is set up so that each state MUST set its own laws.
There also was a recent thread on the forums, a tech was concerned
about making a purchase in an online site that did not ask for a license.
I know also many of you have very strong feelings about this topic..
lets try to not start ant flame wars here :)
How would your job and or life be different if licensing was not
required or required if it is not now?
[Maggie] I don't think it would be significantly different. I'm not
even sure I'd notice a change. In the beginning, perhaps, there
would be an increased number of people hanging out their shingles,
but I am confident it would take very little time for them to seek
more secure employment elsewhere as they realize that making a
living doing nails is ACTUALLY WORK and that there's more to being
successful in this business than being able to paint a flower or mix
glitter into your powder.
-----------------
Consumer's have the ability to file claims with the state because of
licensing, what would they do if there was no requirements for
licensing? Who would the consumer go to to complain? Who would over
see sanitation, health issues?
[Maggie] Maybe if the consumers weren't walking around in a stupor
caused from the false sense of security our licenses give them--
tricking them into thinking that Big Brother is watching out for
them-- then MAYBE they'd ACTUALLY take action when they encounter
damage in a salon! Maybe they'd SUE for damages.
Lawsuits have always been an option for wronged consumers. But no
one even complains to State Board because "she was really nice..."
and "I don't want to get her in any trouble."
LADY! The incompetent oaf just gave you an infection that required
hundreds of dollars in medical bills and now your thumb nail will
NEVER grow back! You gotta be KIDDING me!
I think it would be acceptable for salons to be overseen by local
health departments and regulated the same way tattoo shops are now.
Having to pursue actual damages via the court system would also weed
out the complaints of "well I didn't like that salon" from genuine
concerns where actual damage has been sustained. And I believe most
salons and salon personel are more afraid of being sued than of
being cited by State Board. Maybe, if consumers had to play hardball
to right salon wrongs-- salons would take themselves more seriously.
(which, btw, also would affect how many people would be willing to
hang out a shingle and give nails a try if licensing went away.)
----------------
How would you learn perform services properly if there was no
accredited schools though the state or government?
[Maggie] First off, "accredited" means zip. It's a designation that
has more to do with schools qualifying for government funding and
being able to offer financial aid-- it has NOTHING to do with the
quality of education offerred.
Some people would grab a kit of product, do their own nails, and
decide they rock at it and just print some cheap business cards.
Some people would realize they REALLY want to be GOOD at doing nails
and they would seek out a mentor, subscribe to trade magazines,
attend tradeshows where they would make contacts and attend classes,
get online and immerse themselves in industry networking forums--
you know THE SAME THINGS that we already have to do in order to
learn how to perform services properly. Only it wouldn't require
wasting time and money jumping through hoops for a license that
doesn't guarantee professional skill or consumer protection.
-----------
Would you stay in the industry if there was no licensing?
[Maggie] DAMN STRAIGHT!
----------
Would you pay more for your license if you thought your state was
going to cut licensing?
[Maggie] HELL NO!
----------
Would you actively petition your state if they were considering
dropping licensing requirements?
[Maggie] Yup. But I'd be petitioning to HELP THEM deregulate.
Government meddling in the industry is a waste of tax payers' money.
It's a joke. The government has no business regulating an industry
they know nothing of. It's obvious that licensing and State Board
"regulation" ISN'T able to adequately protect consumers from
incompetence/negligence/fraud in the industry-- so why do they keep
wasting money on a failed program?
Consumers think that our licenses mean that we A. received adequate
training during our schooling. That the schools TEACH us not just
what services exist but that our training requires a minimum level
of competence before we are allowed to take our licensing exam--
HAH! In 350 hours of "training" I had an instructor who didn't know
anything about nails other than what she read out of the text book.
She didn't let us practice acrylic because the smell bothered her.
We never learned enhancement services other than acrylic, and pink
and white application was unheard of.
I received credit for my 5 hours of required training in chemistry
for sitting through a video on hair coloring.
Adding hours to the curriculum doesn't improve the quality of the
course-- it just pads the pockets of the school.
We don't need longer courses, we need BETTER courses. Here in
California we could START that process by allowing NAIL TECHS to
TEACH the nail course. At the very least, schools need to hire nail
course instructors who have actual, real-life salon experience DOING NAILS.
Our schools are HUGE pothole in the road to a successful carreer.
(Yes, I realize there are good schools that do it right, but that
has more to do with the integrity of the individual institutions and
instructors than with the various state requirements for schools.)
-----------------
Do you think the industry can be self-regulated?
[Maggie] Depends on how you define "regulation." I think there are
already laws in place that allow consumers to protect themselves
from dishonest and incompetent businesses. Whether it's salons,
retail, or car dealerships. I don't think we need redundant protections.
I think the consumers will regulat the salon industry just fine on their own.
We already have, what? A 95% dropout rate within 5 years? That
number might go even higher if we deregulate, more people trying it
out and leaving.
I will repeat: Licensing HASN'T kept the incompetent and dishonest
out of the business. It HASN'T provided the consumer with a
reasonable gaurantee of safety, or even given them a satisfactory
venue for their complaints.
Licensing requirement hasn't even prevented unlicesnsed activity.
All it has done, is given the public a false sense of security. They
believe that our licenses mean that we KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING which
is so obviously not the case. We've all seen people get their
licenses that have no business touching living clients yet!
The public thinks that because we're a regulated industry that we
get inspected regularly. They think that regulation catches the
really unsafe stuff, keeps the public safe. So when they see the
same buffer used on multiple clients, when they walk out of a salon
with 4 of their fingers bleeding, when someone removes their
acrylics by prying them off with nippers or a tip-- when the public
sees these things as "the norm" for getting their nails done, they
think that it's OK! They think the inspectors have been coming
around every year (actually, several people I've talked to have told
me they think we get inspected monthly!) and that the inspectors let
these things go because it's OK.
If the illussion of a government safety net was removed, the public
would learn to be pickier about the salon choices they make. They'd
learn what "buyer beware" really means.
I see that with tattoo parlors now-- everyone knows they aren't
licensed, and everyone places a lot of importance on how clean their
shop is and how sanitary their tattoo artist's procedures are.
I'd like to see consumers educate themselves about their nail
services too, but they don't think they have to because they think
our licenses keeps them safe.
One More Point:
Someone mentioned in their response that lawsuits are expensive and
many people can't afford an attorney-- but the legal industry has
already created one niche in the case of accident settlements-- many
many attorneys take cases based on contigency now. I think the legal
industry would step up to fill a similar niche for suits relating to
salon cases.
And an increased risk of actually getting sued if you screw up might
result in more nail techs paying attention to what they're doing AND
actually forking out the money for some business insurance.
Maggie Franklin:
Owner & Artist, <http://artofnailz.info/>The Art of Nailz, Visalia CA
"Visionary rebel dreamer; obviously way ahead of my time."
<http://blogs.nailsmag.com/maggie/>Maggie Rants [and rav...@nails Magazine
<http://www.facebook.com/onykophile>Facebook
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "NailTech" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nailtech?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"NailTech" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nailtech?hl=en.
