House Bill 424 — Cosmetology-related licenses

Lindsay Atkinson 2020 House bill ratings Leave a Comment

Bill description: HB 424 would make changes to current licensure requirements for cosmetology-related licenses.

Rating: +1

Does it increase barriers to entry into the market? Examples include occupational licensure, the minimum wage, and restrictions on home businesses. Conversely, does it remove barriers to entry into the market? 

HB 424 removes certain licensure requirements for cosmetology-related licenses, including those for barbers, estheticians and electrologists. For instance, it removes the requirement for applicants to submit a passport photo with their application. It also removes the requirement that applicants be of “good moral character.”

(+1)

The bill also effectively eliminates the haircutter’s license and its associated requirements, such as having 900 hours of instruction in cutting hair. This removes an unnecessary license that is already captured in other cosmetology-related licenses.

(+1)

HB 424 also rolls all cosmetology-related instructor licenses into one. Currently, there are several different licenses in this field: barber, barber-stylist, cosmetology, esthetician, electrology and nail technician instructors.

(+1)

And the bill makes changes to allow endorsement licensure for people aged 16 ½ to 18 in addition to adults, which is not allowed in current law.

(+1)

Does it give government any new, additional, or expanded power to prohibit, restrict, or regulate activities in the free market? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce government intervention in the market? 

HB 424 allows licensed barbers, barber-stylists, cosmetologists, makeup artists, nail technicians, and the like to offer free, charitable services in an unlicensed establishment, as long as those services are offered no more than 12 days out of the year. Even with the limit on days, this bill would allow these licensed professionals to perform a charitable function they are not currently able to — offering free services outside of licensed establishments.

(+1)

HB 424 delegates the requirements for barber and barber-stylist education programs to national accrediting bodies. In current Idaho law, no barber or barber-stylist education program can be more than 100 hours. The changes made in this bill would set aside  that 100-hour limit if a national accrediting body determines that education programs should be longer. This would be a wrongful delegation of power.

(-1)

This bill says that certain facility and equipment requirements currently set in law by the Legislature should instead be set by rules determined by the unelected Idaho Barber and Cosmetology Services Licensing Board. The bill strikes the current requirements set by the Legislature for licensed retail cosmetic dealers, retail thermal styling equipment dealers, and glamour photography businesses. Thus the board would be able to set completely new requirements with little accountability.

(-1)

Currently, a student who receives cosmetology training in a school that is not approved by the board can still count that experience as apprentice time. This bill would eliminate that possibility. This change means that students who, whether willfully or accidentally, attend an unapproved educational program will be delayed in their journey to meet licensing requirements.

(-1)

The bill also mandates that apprenticeships be completed within a three-year period, or else the apprentice has to appeal to the board for an extension.

(-1)

Does it directly or indirectly create or increase any taxes, fees, or other assessments? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce any taxes, fees, or other assessments? 

HB 424 removes all upper fee limit guidance currently set by the Legislature for cosmetology-related license. Instead, it allows the Idaho Barber and Cosmetology Services Licensing Board complete discretion to set the fees.

(-1)

But the bill does give the Idaho Barber and Cosmetology Services Licensing Board the authority to decide whether it will sometimes refund fees. In the current statute, fees are explicitly nonrefundable.

(+1)