ASHLEY: Welcome to Outgrowth: A Slice of Pro Beauty with your hosts Ashley Gregory Hackett.
JAIME: And Jaime Schrabeck. During every legislative session, state lawmakers have the power to change the beauty industry, but rarely do or only make minimal changes.
ASHLEY: The newly updated bill in California working its way through the legislative process may be the most surprising and impactful yet. Let’s grow together.
ASHLEY: Well, Jaime, we have a lot to talk about in this episode and I hope everybody has got their helmets on and they’re strapped in and ready because there’s just so much information to cover.
JAIME: We’re covering this what would be seen as rather early perhaps in the process, but I think it’s never too early to pay attention to what lawmakers’ priorities are.
ASHLEY: Absolutely. Plus, this is a very proactive approach, I think. And if we can get together as an industry and decide what parts of this bill we like and what parts of this bill we’d like to amend, we can create a plan and be a bit of a more formidable force and hopefully, um, have some lawmakers listen.
JAIME: The bill that we’re discussing today is Senate Bill 803 out of California and the reason why this bill has our attention more than other bills that may get introduced is because of its origins. And that is, it’s coming to us through the sunset review process.
ASHLEY: Let’s talk about what that is because if your state board doesn’t necessarily have a sunset review process or if this isn’t something that you’re very familiar with, I think it’s important to give this bill some context and I don’t think there’s anybody more well versed in this process than you are since you’ve been following it through every step of this entire thing.
JAIME: Understanding that I don’t work for the state. I am not a legislative staffer. I am just a very, very observant industry member who keeps an eye on what’s happening in our state legislature. And normally speaking, we’d have a bill introduced by an individual lawmaker having to do with our industry, perhaps one portion of it. For example, we have a bill around exempting manicurists indefinitely from AB 5’s restrictions on renting a booth. So that’s a very narrow thing. We have another bill around expanding externship opportunities, again, a very narrow scope. But the sunset review process is like a performance review for a state agency and the state agency in this case is our state board of barbering and cosmetology which functions under business and professions. So there’s a committee, a standing committee in both the senate and the assembly for business and professions. And every so years in this case it’s been delayed, but we have our board go in front of this committee and essentially explain itself, and explain what its issues are, and how it’s trying to meet the requirements of what the legislature mandates because it’s really only because the legislature authorizes that board to exist that the board exists at all and the legislature gives the board direction. So this bill that we’re talking about, SB 803 is actually the bill that originates from this committee. It’s the bill that’s authored by the chairperson of the senate committee who is Senator Roth.
ASHLEY: And I think that’s an important distinction that you made that a state board really only exists by virtue of the legislature, the lawmakers together in their two different bodies giving the board the ability to regulate the beauty professionals in a state, or the attorneys, or the real estate agents, or whatever their purview is. And so the legislature has the ability to change what the board can handle, or what they oversee, or how they regulate, and what they regulate. And so that’s what’s at stake here with this new bill. We’ve talked about bills before on this podcast from many different states about reduction in hours, about total deregulation. And we’ve spoken about it sometimes through a bit of a partisan lens because, in essence, a lot of these bills are introduced by Republicans who think that it would mean, really getting very, very basic here, but who believe that the state should have less control over business, right? And this bill is different and I kind of want to highlight what you said for those of us who aren’t super familiar with the process, but this bill is different because it’s not just being introduced by a single lawmaker. It’s being introduced by a committee and it’s being introduced by a committee that would be regarded to have a really good idea of what the state board does and how it should work moving forward. So do you feel, Jaime, that this bill has more authority in the eyes of other lawmakers?
JAIME: Absolutely because the sunset review process isn’t just the board coming before these legislators in one or two hearings and explaining what they do. It’s a process that begins many years earlier. In fact, in this case, because this was supposed to happen for us back in 2018, this process, and it got put off for a number of reasons and more recently because of the coronavirus pandemic, but the board itself produces a very, very lengthy report, which is worth reading if you’re in California particularly because it explains the history of the board, the major changes that have happened over the years, what their pressing issues are in terms of current trends, how they’ve adapted, and what they’d like to see changed in the future. So the board actually gets to propose changes to the legislature, in essence, asking them for the permission through the legislation that comes out of this committee to move ahead with what the board’s priorities are. But of course that’s not what takes precedence. It’s always going to be the legislature’s priorities and they may not always reconcile.
ASHLEY: I think we saw throughout the past year or so that our industry isn’t always very well versed in how the board works and we saw a lot of complaints and conversations about why the board hasn’t introduced new regulations because of coronavirus, or why the board isn’t advocating for us as beauty professionals, or why the board hasn’t given us industry-specific guidelines that are more easy to follow, whatever. Insert complaint here. We’ve learned through this process, as well, that the board isn’t able to do that. They aren’t able to come together in a meeting and say, okay, here’s what the rules should be going forward for beauty professionals in our state because we can change with the times and be very fluid and agile when it comes to what the modern beauty professional is up against. However, we now see based on your really good explanation that the legislature, the lawmakers, the elected officials are the ones who really hold the key to this entire process.
JAIME: So true. And we cannot minimize the role of the legislative staffers who are assigned to the committee and they are meant to be nonpartisan. They’re working with whoever the chair is of the committee and gathering information, talking to stakeholders, trying to observe what’s happening in other states, and bringing that information to the legislators to help them formulate their opinions.
ASHLEY: One of the conversations we’ve had around deregulation on this podcast is that, unfortunately, most of the time, lawmakers don’t have a great handle on our industry and what it takes to be a part of it, especially when it comes to the practical side of things, what the actual hands-on services entail, and the safety and sanitation concerns that we have. And so through the sunset review process, I’m encouraged that the lawmakers and this committee staff get to hear directly from the board what the concerns are and what the proposed changes are. However, those don’t always get taken into account or might not make it into the final bill. Is that correct?
JAIME: What makes it into the final bill remains to be seen. What’s so interesting, Ashley, is when this bill was first introduced, it’s considered a placeholder bill because the expectation is that over the course of the sunset review process, which lasts a number of months because it has to go through a series of hearings and then the assembly, the senate both have to weigh in. That placeholder bill had very minimal language at the very beginning just clarifying the fact that we are beauty professionals and not medical professionals. That was the initial language. And just this last week, and the reason why we’re doing this podcast today on this topic, the first major revision to this bill happened. And by major, we will soon talk about the specifics, the drastic changes that were added to this bill that now really give us a sense of the direction that the legislature wants to go as regards to the beauty industry.
ASHLEY: And this sunset review process could have many different outcomes. Am I right in saying that a sunset review process could actually result in the dissolution of a board entirely? Not saying that that’s the case here, but is that something that could happen as part of a sunset review?
JAIME: That could happen. We don’t expect that to happen, but certainly, that’s why the sunset review even exists is because when the legislature authorizes a board to exist, it only gives it until a particular date, which then prompts the next sunset review. So if for example, a board were authorized to operate between now and 2025, then in 2024, a sunset review process would happen so that there would be no lapse and it would get reauthorization to continue to exist for another couple years.
ASHLEY: Okay, that makes sense. But I, I wanted to give even a little bit more context to our listeners who may, again, not be as familiar with sunset review as you are and the fact that it’s really designed to ensure that the state is being involved in the professions that needs to be involved in and is doing so in a way that is most reflective of the current landscape. Now whether the bill turns out that way or not remains to be seen, as you said. So let’s talk about why SB 803 is ruffling so many feathers, and what the biggest changes to this bill actually are, and how they could potentially affect the different disciplines.
JAIME: Before we even jump into that, I want to encourage everyone to refer back to our advocacy basics advice. And the first thing I would ask that you do after hearing this podcast is to go read the bill. I don’t expect people to form opinions or have any arguments about this until they’ve actually read it. You can take our word for it because we’re going to be referencing the bill specifically. But I do want you to go back and verify it by reading the bill. So let’s start with the one change that I think is going to garner the most attention. And that is that if this were to pass the way it’s written today, which is not likely because it’s going to change over time, but if it were to pass as it’s written today, you would not need a license to cut and style hair.
ASHLEY: That jumped out at me as well and it is part of what we discussed on our social media posts about this bill and creating awareness for it. Obviously, this is the most grabby part of it because it is one of the biggest changes, but this would essentially allow cutting, shampooing, drying, and styling hair could be done by anyone.
JAIME: This goes much further than any state has gone in deregulating.
ASHLEY: I guess my question here is why, first of all. In the sunset review process and beyond, I know that there was some conversation about a hair-only license in California, and in other states, that would separate it from cosmetology and make it just the practice of hair cutting, styling, and coloring, and then all of the peripherals that come with that, but is this the answer to the desire for a hair-only license? Or is this part of the how hard can it be? You can cut your hair at home question.
JAIME: Oh, I think it’s both because I’ve been asked already, like, is this what the board wants? And you can read what the board wants in their sunset review report. They lay out what they want. They ask for permission to have a hair-only license. Because for those unfamiliar, in California, there is no such thing as a hair-only license. There is barbering which covers shaving, cutting, coloring, and chemically straightening, or waving hair and then there’s cosmetology, which covers all of that, except for the shaving. There’s no shaving in cosmetology, but also skin and nails. So yeah, it’s, it’s kind of complicated, but there is no hair-only license. There is a skin care only, and a nails only, and then of course, electrologists, which is off to the side and the poor electrologists get forgotten all the time, but really it’s about the hair here because as always, we see that hair takes priority. It’s the part of our industry that most legislators have experience with, is getting their haircut.
ASHLEY: Now this also applies to barbering as well. And I’m just noticing that for the first time because I’ve been trying to wade through this word salad of the bill, but so cutting, shampooing and drying, and styling hair would also not require a license for a barber to do any of those things.
JAIME: And when you look at that, then the only thing that really distinguishes a barber, even when you compare a barber to a cosmetologist in terms of the hair that they can do, is that they can shave. So because a barber can color hair and a barber can curl and straighten hair using chemicals.
ASHLEY: Okay. So that’s the main distinction there. Thank you for clarifying that for me. Now, I know that there’s going to be, as there is with any deregulation conversation, people saying, so what? Why does it matter? I can, my mom can cut my hair. I’ve been cutting my hair throughout COVID and quarantine. Why should I worry about whether the person who cuts my hair is licensed or not?
JAIME: And what I think is interesting about that is because most of the other deregulation bills we’ve seen thus far have not included cutting, everything else. We call those like the blow dry bills or whatever you want to label them. But that this bill includes cutting elevates this bill to a level that really does get our attention. And as far as someone else doing it for you, all of this takes into account that none of this matters if you’re not getting compensated for it. These laws having to do with our industry only matter if you’re doing this for compensation.
ASHLEY: So worst case scenario, if this bill were to pass as written today, anyone could pick up a pair of hair shears and advertise that they are available for haircuts. Now the part that really puzzles me is how this would democratize our industry by allowing someone, anyone to do these services, but would they have to still do this under the terms of an establishment license or in a salon setting?
JAIME: Well, that’s where it gets confusing because so far the bill does not change anything about how establishments operate. And if you’re supposed to have, by law, licensed professionals working in your establishment, how does this work? We don’t know.
ASHLEY: Okay. I was wondering if I was missing something there because I know California is really the home of the conversation around mobile services, in-home services, and services outside of an establishment, and the conversation that’s been happening around the personal services permit and all of that. This to me seems to fly directly in all of that conversation because if you don’t need a license to do the services, ipso facto, why would you need a license to have an establishment where those services are performed?
JAIME: You wouldn’t. I mean, in terms of logic, if you think this through, that’s why a change like this, it may not take much space up in terms of words, but it does have a significant impact on the way that establishments operate. And then of course, any talk of doing services outside of a licensed establishment, it would change that conversation as well.
ASHLEY: So, if we were to go on record with what our position would be on this portion of the bill, what changes would you like to see made to just this paragraph?
JAIME: I’m not ready to go on record with an opinion quite yet until the…
ASHLEY: Oh, come on.
JAIME: Come on. Now I’m being serious until it’s explained how they intend to handle how this would impact the rest of the board’s regulatory authority. I want them to explain the rationale for it, which we’ve not seen yet by the way. The only analysis that’s been produced thus far, and we’re expecting more. And an analysis is presented by the committee hearing the bill. It’s an explanation of why the changes are suggested, why the proposal’s being made. We’ve only seen the analysis for the original version of this bill which had to do with the not working as a medical professional. That’s the only thing that we’ve seen so far. So we’ve yet to see the explanation.
ASHLEY: And is that expected soon or?
JAIME: I’m not sure quite when to expect it cause like I said, I’m not part of this process except for this particular board, but I would expect it to be fairly soon because there are significant questions about this and how it would impact the rest of the regulatory process for the entire industry really. And the rationale of making it easier to do this work does not necessarily comport with the whole idea of protecting consumers, especially as we’ve seen through the pandemic. Because if there were no ability to tell these individuals what to do, then how do you enforce anything really?
ASHLEY: Right. What does the accountability process look like? And do you rely on small claims or personal injury? Or, you know, I don’t know. I find it very short-sighted to remove or to add cutting to this conversation only because I wouldn’t trust anyone with sharp implements around my ears and neck without some sort of training. Going back into the larger deregulation conversation, there’s been this push for removing the state from the process and making it, uh, like a private certification, which I would be open to discussing if we had that infrastructure in place where we could just seamlessly transition into that. Do you foresee, Jaime, if this bill were to pass as written the emergence of some type of private certification?
JAIME: I see that happening, but because it would be a private organization, then there’s just a money-making opportunity there.
ASHLEY: Right, right.
JAIME: I don’t see it as having much credibility necessarily. So yeah, I, here this is, the impact would largely be felt by those who already operate as hair professionals. And it’s not so much that I don’t have an opinion, it’s that how I argue that opinion has much to do with how those who propose this argue why it’s necessary. So that’s why I’m holding my fire until I get more information about that. Because if it’s based on a misunderstanding of our industry, then that’s something that needs to be corrected so that we can go forward understanding the same set of facts.
ASHLEY: So a conversation needs to happen, I think, instead of just saying no, never not in a million years, not in my backyard. You can’t do this to us versus having a conversation, learning and seeking to understand their point of view here. And how from the report issued during the sunset review, by the current board, what the disconnect is between that report and the text in this bill.
JAIME: And what’s interesting is from the point of that report being written and the discussion that’s being had now, the board changes. The members appointed to the board have changed. So just because the membership at that point had that particular position or priority doesn’t mean that they would have it today because they’re different people, for one thing, even though the executive officer has continued to be the same person and circumstances have changed. Our, our lifestyles have changed completely since the coronavirus pandemic to this point. You know, we have not resumed our normalcy and the legislators also changed. So this person who’s in charge now of this committee was not the person who was in charge in 2018.
ASHLEY: Of course.
JAIME: There was a different person who had different priorities, and different experiences, and had observed and absorbed different information. So we’re dealing with a person who, in Senator Roth, is someone who’s not as familiar to us, like we’re just now learning more about how he views our industry through this bill. And for transparency, let’s point out that he is a Democrat, as you might expect, because this is California and they have a majority here in the legislature. And so that this is coming from the largest state in terms of licensee population and a very blue state is what’s most surprising.
ASHLEY: It’s very incongruous to me, this bill text and the typical platform from a blue state, especially when it comes to and we’ve heard directly from Kristy that the entire raison d’etre for that board is to protect public health and public safety. And so to me, this flies in the face of that, but I think more education is needed in making sure that these lawmakers and their staffs understand what could happen if this were to pass and not just deal in worst case scenarios, but really help educate and help understand that we are regulated for a reason. And the original barbering and cosmetology bill was created and passed for a reason. To me, it doesn’t seem that those reasons have changed so drastically that these amendments to the bill would be really warranted. But let’s get into some of the other big changes that are proposed because, obviously, the hair one is, is the biggest sort of shock and awe situation, but let’s talk about the other largest drastic change and that is in the reduction of hours.
JAIME: This I can actually get behind and I know we’ve discussed before that, you know, not all change is bad, and this would be an improvement as far as I’m concerned because I don’t think the time spent in beauty school is well spent. And it’s not a surprise that they’re suggesting a reduction in the hours for the cosmetology course. It’s to me, I’m thinking, well, duh. If you strip out the things that you’re saying now don’t require a license, it should be a lot lower.
ASHLEY: Right. Yeah. That’s one thing that does make sense to me in this bill is the reduction in hours because if you’re not going to be regulating haircutting, styling, et cetera, then yes, you shouldn’t have to be in a cosmetology course for 1600 hours. So they’re looking at reducing the total hours required for a cosmetology course from 1600 hours to just a thousand.
JAIME: And even there, that doesn’t make sense to me, Ashley, because there was no rationale for why 1600 in the first place. So to say, a thousand may just be to match with what other states are doing as they’re reducing hours in those states, but it still doesn’t justify the actual number. And that’s what I’m looking for, I’m actually looking for a pedagogical, you know, an educational reason why a student would need to study for a thousand hours, whether it be direct instruction, guided practice or whatever. Why you would need that much time to learn the information?
ASHLEY: Or even a breakdown of what that 1000 hours should be. I mean here in Illinois, we have a breakdown for the nail technician license of the total, and then the amount that should be theory versus practical, or technical, or however you want to put it. So if we’re going to start mandating that 1600 hours isn’t required and a thousand is a better option, then how should that thousand hours be spent? I don’t know if we want to get that granular with it, especially coming from lawmakers who have maybe at this point a cursory understanding of our industry and how it works, but you’re right. I’ve never seen a justification of why a thousand hours, or 1600 hours, or 300 hours, or whatever it might be. Is the, the golden number that turns you from a student into a master, or turns you from a lay person into a professional, I guess is probably a better analogy. What happens between our 1599 and 1600 that makes a huge difference? I’m not entirely sure there is one.
JAIME: The explanation that it’s what other states do isn’t good enough
ASHLEY: No, no.
JAIME: And I’ve written about this extensively. Ugh, yikes.
ASHLEY: That’s like going to Facebook and asking, how much do you charge for your service? Well, okay. Because you do, and you’re in a similar sized city, that’s what I’m going to do regardless of what I need to pay my expenses. So yeah, I agree with you. That’s a bit of a shrug and like an official legislated shrug, like, oh, I don’t know, a thousand.
JAIME: Well, they actually later in the bill, there is a breakdown, but I think we need to save that for another episode, Ashley, because it further demonstrates how little they understand about what it means to be a student in a beauty school and how we spend our time. It’s fascinating actually, and I wish there were more educators as legislators. There are many attorneys, but very few people who have an education background as an educator. People who are very well educated, don’t get me wrong, but people who have actually designed curriculum, I think would have a completely different take on this, but let’s move on. Speaking of curriculum, and in this case evaluation, the third drastic change would be the elimination of the practical examination.
ASHLEY: And I can get behind this as well only because I come from a state that does not have a practical exam. And what I have gleaned from conversation around the practical exam in California is that it’s more can you do this choreographed dance versus can you demonstrate mastery of these skills.
JAIME: And mastery of these skills is not what a test is meant to measure. It’s a minimal standard to protect consumers. So really the only skills you should be demonstrating, here’s a test for you. Go scrub these tools.
ASHLEY: Yes and do it correctly, and make sure that you have your order of operations, and all of that. I am very lucky to have come from a state that has reciprocity with California and so I do have my California license based on that arrangement, which is great. But a practical examination is, to me, so subjective.
I understand that there’s hard and fast standards that have been set in order to complete that. But I do think, as well, that a practical exam is just another barrier to entry in the most basic sense that if you can complete a written test that answers the questions and, and shows that you have the competence for the minimal standard, I don’t understand why you would need to demonstrate it on a model, or a mannequin, or what have you.
JAIME: It’s a logistic barrier for sure because while you can take your written exam, it’s a computer-based test, at multiple sites throughout the state, the practical exam is only administered at two locations, two facilities, because obviously you have to show up in person to do this, and you’re not required to have a model anymore. It’s demonstrated, whatever it is that you’re demonstrating, on either a mannequin head, or a dummy hand, or whatever you want to call it, depending on your particular license type. But that limitation of only being able to accommodate so many examinees at any one time really does slow down the licensure process. So that’s where the state, I think, could absolutely not only make it easier to get your license faster having completed your course, but it would also eliminate the expense and the hassle of running those facilities.
ASHLEY: I did not know that that was only available at two locations in all of California.
JAIME: Yeah. Yep. And so they can only accommodate so many people because it’s of course like any sort of standardized exam, it has to be proctored. So it’s not like you can have 300 people in the room at the same time. It’s a very low ratio of examinees to proctor. And so that’s why and it has to be scheduled in a particular way. And it’s a big deal to get your date and you know, if something were to happen and you got sick or something and you weren’t able to show up, you’d have to reschedule and that would just delay receiving your license even further.
ASHLEY: Well, it may be a cost saving measure. It does have some net positive effects. If the practical examination were to be eliminated and then the written test focused on public health and safety and demonstrating the competence there, I think that that’s something we can definitely get behind. I know that there’s going to be some grumbling from the people who had to go through that whole process, but those salons that are trying to hire and licensees who are, or students who are trying to become licensees for them to have to jump through one less hoop, I think, again, is a net positive. It helps the industry. It helps the workforce and it helps get more students into the profession faster.
JAIME: And it really didn’t do a good job of establishing what it is that the board prioritizes and the legislature as well, which is that consumer protection because what are you protecting when you’re working on a dummy?
ASHLEY: Right. Exactly.
JAIME: What are the themes I would hope that our listeners would take away from this is that every bill represents a compromise when it passes so that this initial language is in place now, I would be very surprised if this bill reads the same way by the time we get to the end of the legislative session.
ASHLEY: This is kind of the opening offer, so to speak, and then this gets amended, and things get deleted, or added, or whatever through public comment and conversation, committee meetings. Are there any other parts of this bill that we should pay attention to? Are there any things that are positive for different disciplines that we can focus on and hang our hat on and say, yes, we love this part of 803? Let’s keep it.
JAIME: Yes. I think for estheticians we can be pleased that this bill extends their scope to the entire body, which wasn’t clear in previous statute so I think that’s important for the estheticians. Also, there’s a call-out in terms of their scope of practice for tinting and perming lashes and eyebrows. And I know that’s something that they’ve sought to do because otherwise it would have been something limited to cosmetology because cosmetologists have the permission because of their training to color and use chemicals to wave or straighten hair, which is not something that estheticians are trained to do so that would allow them to do it. Now, of course, there is the caveat that as long as something is approved on the market, because if you’re using products that the FDA hasn’t approved, that becomes a problem.
ASHLEY: And estheticians have been waiting for clarification and updated language for a very long time. So this is potentially very great, which is why I think we have to focus on not throwing the baby out with the bath water here and saying, if we were to just reject this bill because it has a couple things in it that we don’t necessarily agree with or like, we may be doing what we have always done in this industry, which is give hair all the sway. And then the rest of us, manicurists, estheticians, electrologists just pick up the scraps and hope to be noticed in a positive way. So I would caution anyone who is very against this bill who hasn’t necessarily taken the time to read it, or to listen to this episode all the way, do take the time to do that so that you can get a really good understanding of how this could potentially help part of our industry. And then we just need to focus our energy and attention on getting this language amended or getting this language changed so that it is still reflective of what our industry looks like in 2021 and beyond.
JAIME: I think the assumption should be made that this bill will pass. But what it looks like, what the language will be specifically, we’ve yet to determine.
ASHLEY: We have the ability to make that happen by being an ally and working with the legislators and working with the associations in our industry to try to help them understand why.
JAIME: Yes. Make them feel good about doing the right thing.
ASHLEY: As if it was their idea to begin with.
JAIME: Oh, that could work.
ASHLEY: Understanding that this is not an all or nothing scenario. We, we can’t just reject things on their face and say, nope, that makes me feel bad a little bit so I don’t want anything to do with that, instead of understanding that, like you said before, pretty much all legislation is a compromise.
JAIME: I do want to say something about the all or nothing because the all or nothing would be, okay, there’s no more state board. And what they don’t realize, those who say that, is there may not be a state board. In other words, there may not be a committee made up of so many public members and so many industry members who advise the executive officer of the board of barbering and cosmetology. But when the board goes away, it reverts to being a bureau and a bureau isn’t held to the same standards in terms of meetings and that sort of thing, but all the laws and everything else stay in place. It’s just the executive officer and, in this case, her staff meeting those regulations and doing their work without as much public input from us.
ASHLEY: Interesting, huh. A bureau? Okay.
JAIME: A bureau and that’s, a bureau is like a level below a board in terms of the hierarchy of how the government is organized. And the overall government, of course, at the state level is broken into different departments. Our board is assigned to the department of consumer affairs which makes sense because we’re dealing with consumers. So, in other words, if the board ceases to exist, all the laws stay in place. It does not take away licensure. It doesn’t deregulate us if the board doesn’t exist anymore.
ASHLEY: Very good to know. And there are other parts of this bill that we’re not going to get into in this episode. There’s things around manicuring, things around the actual makeup of the board. There’s lots of other little bits and bobs that we will definitely discuss at a later date. But so as not to overwhelm you with all of this information at once, I think it’s good that we focused on kind of the big three of this bill and what needs our attention now first off, before we can move on to other things. But I guess Jaime, if you were listening to this and you were a beauty professional in California like you are, but you aren’t as well versed in the advocacy process, what can you do after putting your phone down from listening to this episode in order to make some type of change or have your voice be heard about this legislation?
JAIME: I want to go back to our advocacy basics and that first step being, reading the legislation, we will be linking in the show notes to that legislation. And even by the time you read this, I don’t expect it to have changed, but know that it’s not a thing that you read just once because as it moves through the process, it will be revised and you’ll be able to see the history of the revisions. And so reading it is really the first thing that needs to be done. And then we talk about, you know, finding your own elected representatives and I’m not going to review everything on our advocacy basics, but we do have five steps that are meant to guide you in the advocacy process so that you can absorb the information, formulate an opinion, and then share that opinion with your legislator.
ASHLEY: The most important thing a listener to this episode could do is to share it. There’s going to be a lot of conversation happening around this bill and unfortunately, not all of the information that will be shared about it will be good info, or correct info, or share the context of why this is happening. I think when it comes to deregulation or change in regulation, our industry has a knee-jerk reaction of, why do they keep doing this to us? And instead of understanding that this is part of a process that’s baked into the way the laws of California work, which is the sunset review process, and reviewing the fact that there is a board, and what it does, and if it’s doing things the right way, or needs to be changed moving forward. This isn’t a bill that was necessarily created with malicious intent and to harangue and harass our industry.
It was created out of a process that has happened many times and will happen many times in the future. So if you can share this episode and signal boost it so that the information can get out to everyone who needs to hear it, we would really appreciate it. But I think the industry also needs the context that’s been shared here to understand, again, that this isn’t just the legislature taking aim at the beauty industry.
JAIME: Such an excellent point, Ashley, and I think that subsequent conversations that we have about this bill will make much more sense if you listen to this episode first.
ASHLEY: Definitely. And this will be part one of many. Ah, so much conversation around government and deregulation. We have many more episodes on these topics if you want a more basic understanding of how the law works and how our industry can fight things like total deregulation. So we’ll link to previous episodes as well about advocacy and how you can get involved in the show notes too.
JAIME: Maybe step 1A is don’t panic.
ASHLEY: Yeah, don’t panic. It’s not set in stone. This hasn’t passed yet. We definitely still have some recourse.
JAIME: Thank you, Ashley. This has been a great conversation.
ASHLEY: I’ve been looking forward to having this conversation with you since the moment this dropped. And I know we’re going to be talking about it much more in the future, but I appreciate your insight and all the time that you’ve given to being a part of this process so that we can understand the minutia on our end too.
JAIME: It’s work, but it’s worthwhile.
ASHLEY: Definitely. All right. Well, if you are enjoying Outgrowth, or if this is the first episode you’ve heard and you enjoyed it, please feel free to leave us a review on Apple podcasts. And you can do that now with just one click. Visit bit.ly/outgrowthpodcast.
JAIME: As always you can follow us and comment on recent episodes on Instagram at @outgrowthpodcast.
ASHLEY: Okay, well, much more to come until next week. Be smart.
JAIME: Be safe.