Senator Phil Jensen (R-33/Rapid City) is joining the Governor in his effort to make it easier to enter certain professions.
Governor Daugaard has proposed two bills to reduce the training requirements for cosmetologists. Senator Jensen jumps on the beauty bandwagon and offers Senate Bill 108 to exclude folks who offer nothing but hair cleansing or shampooing from the cosmetology licensure requirements. (I haven’t paid someone to cut my hair for years, so tell me—are there really people who make money by simply washing other people’s hair?)
Senator Jensen gets serious with Senate Bill 107, which would repeal the whole state law chapter on barbering, allowing anyone to barb (?!?) in South Dakota without a license.
Under current law (SDCL 36-14-1), barbering includes the following services:
- Shaving or trimming the beard or cutting the hair;
- Giving facial and scalp massages or treatment with oils, creams, lotions, or other preparations either by hand or mechanical appliances;
- Singeing, shampooing, or dyeing the hair or applying hair tonics;
- Applying cosmetic preparations, antiseptics, powders, oils, clays, or lotions to the scalp, face, neck, or upper part of the body [SDCL 36-14-1].
Cosmetology, which Jensen leaves subject to licensing requirements, involves the following practices, distinct from barbering
- Hair care by styling, wrapping, arranging, braiding, twisting, weaving, extending, fusing, dressing, curling, waving, permanent waving, singeing, cleansing, shampooing, cutting, bleaching, setting, coloring, straightening, relaxing, fitting, massaging, or similar work upon the hair, scalp, wigs, or hairpieces of a person;
- Nail technology;
- Esthetics; or
- Removal of superfluous hair by nonpermanent means [SDCL 36-15-2].
Both barbering and cosmetology include “cutting” of hair. But as long as you’re not styling, Senator Jensen wants you to be able to work with hair without any state interference.
SB 107 would get rid of a raft of barber and barbershop fees:
| Barber license application fee | $100 |
| Barber license fee | $50 |
| Barber license renewal fee | $75 |
| Barbershop inspection fee | $125 |
| Barbershop license application fee | $50 + $10 per chair |
| Barbershop license renewal | $50 + $10 per chair |
| Duplicate (replacement) license | no charge |
| Lapsed license renewal (less than three years) | $75 + $12 per year of lapse + restoration fee $15 |
| Transfer of License | $150 |
SB 107 would also repeal annual inspections of barbershops and the educational requirement of at least nine months/1,500 hours of barber-school training.
As of the most recent report available, October 2017, South Dakota had 163 licensed barbers. My casual search of the cosmetology database finds 5,679 licensed South Dakota cosmetologists.
Moving from beauty to communication, Senate Bill 109 would repeal the licensing requirements for sign language interpreters. Right now, interpreters for the deaf who want to charge for their services have to register with the state and pay a fee of $50 to $75, depending on their certification. I count 101 licensed interpreters for the deaf on the state’s registry.
So how would you know that the razor used has been sterilized as done in common practice. Of course roypublicans like Jensen and his irk, have no love for health issues but the rest of us should.https://www.barber-license.com/barber-license-requirements/ There is more to being a barber than having your Aunt Tillie come over once a month, on a Saturday, to lower your ears and gossip with your mom.
If this is all these bums have to do, why to they need pay raises?
Seriously, why should someone be required to be licensed by the state to charge money to cut hair?
In the same vein, I can’t see why the state needs to license someone to interpret for deaf people. Licensed or not, a sign interpreter of spoken words is not liable to cause a great deal of damage if (s)he misinterprets or intentionally gives the wrong interpretation. And licensing is not liable to cure an intentional misinterpretation.
How do you KNOW the razor has been sterilized anywhere?
And I am not fond of being on Phil Jensen’s side in ANYTHING.
How would I know indeed? I don’t have a clue that the guy flippin my burger even bothered to wash his hands after dropping a deuce, but I do know one thing, someone is responsible for that and could loose their licence to do business if those rules are not done. Or how do I know that the food is properly cooled or heated before preparation. Someone is responsible to make sure that he does. He is inspected and tested for that.
In the barbers case, they are dealing with more things than just a scissors, the dude can handle chemical’s that I pointed out in the link above. I get it, you are not for a tax on anything. Just want to make sure we have defense along with water and sewage disposal. Got it. How about this then, we not only stop with the health and safety regulations of inspections, we combine these two and get rid of all public health considerations https://tonesingleton.club/en/gazette/lifestyle/barber-shops-and-tattoo-parlors-a-match-made-in-heaven
When you spell “chemicals” “chemical’s,” it lets me know you don’t know anything.
That’s it Kurt..er Bob.. That’s all ya got. A typo. Mr. Evans does that grammar stuff too when he has nothing more. Now, what could those chemical”s be? Let us take a look…here are some reference points for both men and women https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4260452/ Kind of a long read, so let me help you, there are some that are dangerous.
Here is something that just pertains to men and their haircuts, beard trimming and that dye that some cats use to fool themselves into the belief that they are still on the hunt. https://beautyce.com/what-do-you-learn-in-barber-school/ Yes, I think that there should be examinations along with public health training for barbers.
It’s not a typo. It’s ignorance.
The dude that can handle that chemical’s effect is a dude who can ingest a lot of chemicals, but the real question is if all of the chemicals’ burning sensations are really felt by Mr. Jensen or if he simply guzzles the brain eating goo like it’s brown pudding.
When even grudz can handle the intricacies of apostrophes, it’s evidence of the absence of gnosticism on the part of others who can’t.
Mr. Jensen also does not consider Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C, bad mojo both. https://bottomlineinc.com/life/hair/hepatitis-the-infection-you-could-get-at-a-nail-salon-or-barber-shop
Maybe inspections would not find all the problems, but even if they found one, it may save the taxpayers several thousands of dollars on liver transplants and the like. Mr. Jensen has no idea what a public health problem he could be creating.
Stick with Mr. Jensen Bob, you fit one another like peas and carrots.
Kale and chard
Hepatitis? Holy cow!
Nonetheless, if Jensen gets SB 107 passed, I offer my trimmers for service. Come over to my backyard, and I’ll give you a buzz for $5… $10 if you want anything more than stubble left.
On Senate Bill 109, if you need to have a licence as an interpreter then it would make sense that you must be bonded for legal work for the deaf. Bonds cost money as they are kind of like errors and omissions, but maybe in a different way. That way you could enter into a contract or represent them in court. That would be the only reason for that kind of licence that would seem to make sense. What say you Bob?
Fine, get bonded.
I would guess that there are many unlicensed folks who interpret by sign for the deaf.
As a haircut aficionado and a big admirer of swell haircuts, Mr. H’s offer intrigues me. Those of you who live closer to Mr. H should take him up on that and have pictures taken and he can write a blogging about it. Flaunt his lack of a license over the legislatures. Be the rebel he strives to be.
There are a lot of folks that can sign, I know that because I had a deaf aunt. One thing is for certain, if you represent a deaf person in a court of law or any kind of financial matter, you better be covered. We know for a fact that trump and his cabal, of which Mr. Jensen is a card carrying member, want to weaken and rid the country of the ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act. What Senate Bill 109 would do would be that weakening with a direct attack https://www.accreditedlanguage.com/2016/08/17/when-is-sign-language-interpreting-required-by-law/
Senate Bill 109 needs to have a licensed interpreter for the protection and well being of our deaf taxpaying citizens.
Bob, plenty of folks do help out deaf folks by signing without a license… but under current law, they can’t charge for that help.
Grudz, I’m only offering my services if the state lifts the license requirements. I don’t want to give Marty Jackley the chance to boost his campaign by putting my in the slammer for illegal barbering.
Jerry, connect dots for me: how would ending licenses weaken the ADA? Would it just be the problem of deaf individuals receiving poorer service from unlicensed interpreters?
Are some of the barber regulations leftovers from the days when the profession was Barber-Surgeon, and they did medically-related things such as pull teeth in addition to cutting hair? If so, would it make sense to update some of them? I honestly don’t know. I don’t have a problem with professionals being licensed (especially when they handle sharp implements as part of their trade), but if there are outdated regulations that could be cleaned up, maybe that’s not a bad thing.
Chris, I’m not a barber, but the barber curriculum law, for instance, was enacted in 1939 and amended in 1968 and requires these subjects: “scientific fundamentals for barbering, hygiene, bacteriology as applied to barbering, structure of the head, face and neck, elementary chemistry relating to sterilization and antiseptics, diseases of the skin and hair, massaging and manipulating the muscles of the upper body, haircutting, shaving, and arranging, dressing, coloring, bleaching, and tinting the hair.” No tooth-pulling there!
Re: SB 107, asked my daughter what is really going on with the sign language interpreter license changes. A co-worker of hers has a son who is deaf and requires these services. What the change would do is remove the requirement to have a bachelors degree in signing to be a sign language interpreter and allow anyone with any four year degree to be an interpreter for the deaf! Sounds utterly ridiculous! Signing is a lot more difficult than what people think! I learned some when I cared for individuals with developmental disabilities who also were deaf. Also took a couple of classes in signing in college but have forgotten much of it because I haven’t had to use it in years! It is not signed English but is actually considered an actual language in it’s own right. Hence the use of the term interpreter. Guessing Mr. Jensen has no knowledge of the subject!
Right now, there is legislation to go to the heart and soul of the ADA act that has been implemented for the last 27 years. The roypublicans like Jensen, have long been against this law.
“The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 established a series of measures to prohibit instances of discrimination because of a person’s disability. The ADA requires that the communication needs of hard of hearing and deaf persons are met, and this frequently demands the use of an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter.” https://www.accreditedlanguage.com/2016/08/17/when-is-sign-language-interpreting-required-by-law/
“One extremely important area covered by the ADA is the medical field, where sign language interpreting services are often required. Hospitals, for instance, must provide an appropriate means of communication to any patients, family members or hospital visitors who may be hearing impaired. This is applicable in all hospital areas, from the emergency room to the gift shop.
In some cases, the ADA specifies that an effective form of communication may consist simply of a written note, but if a conversation is more complicated — such as explaining a patient’s symptoms or a medical procedure — a qualified ASL interpreter may be necessary.
The ADA extends beyond medical settings and also covers areas like the legal, education, law enforcement and employment systems.
If a company is interviewing a deaf individual, for instance, they are required to provide sign language interpreting. Similarly, hard of hearing defendants in a legal proceeding must be provided with an interpreter.”
So what does all of this mean? It means that by diluting the ADA in the test tube’s of state government, the precedent could then be applied at the federal level. State legislators now have the power to direct their abuse of power onto the federal level with case law in place to justify it for the nation. Each chipping away of protection under the ADA makes it more vulnerable to elimination. Jensen is just doing his ALEC bidding for his check. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/disability/news/2017/09/22/439464/quiet-attack-ada-making-way-congress/
Licensure of interpreters is critical and this bill does nothing but demean deaf people. Interpreters are required to have enhanced levels to interpret in legal and medical settings. An illequiped interpreter could cause a misdiagnosis with their doctor or poor legal representation in court. A completely asinine bill in which the Governor, who has two deaf parents, is sure to veto.
Brian, good point. I’ll be very interested to see what the Governor has to say.
Jerry, good connection to the corporate agenda to weaken the cost of complying with ADA.