Connecticut Finally Puts an End to the Horror of Unlicensed Eyelash Technicians
[guest post by JVW]
If you were wondering whether progressive government would ever run out of things to regulate:
I am beyond pleased that Connecticut will join the rest of the country in licensing eyelash technicians, estheticians (July 2020), and nail technicians (Jan 2021). #GettingThingsDone #2019Session pic.twitter.com/aKGQEcTFcV
— Jillian Gilchrest (@Jilchrest) June 5, 2019
Jillian Gilchrest is a first term state representative, Democrat (as you might have guessed), whose district is in West Hartford, which appears to be a pretty tony suburb in a city stricken with poverty and crime. Thank Heaven that Rep. Gilchrest is bravely taking on the scourge of Nutmeg State criminals who prey upon the eyelashes and fingernails of unsuspecting victims. Her district, like the city and state in general, is overwhelmingly Democrat (Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump in West Hartford by a 3:1 ratio), so the voters there get whom they deserve.
But it sure is interesting watching progressive white women put poor minorities out of work.
– JVW
My recollection is that the city of Los Angeles tried the same idea of licensing nail salon workers a number of years ago, but it turned out that a friend or family member of the councilmember pushing the bill operated a bunch of nail salons and was promoting the measure as a way of knocking out her competition. If I recall correctly, the bill failed once this became known.
JVW (54fd0b) — 6/7/2019 @ 3:39 pmright up there with unsanitized telephones (ht restaurant at the end of the universe)
narciso (d1f714) — 6/7/2019 @ 3:45 pmI have no doubt* that Rep Gilchrist is the victim of a fraudulent eyelash technician who used eyelash dye containing glutens without telling her.
————
Kevin M (21ca15) — 6/7/2019 @ 3:53 pm* indicates speculation
I think when politicians focus on things like eyelashes, and adding more layers of bureaucracy which in turn makes it more difficult for working people to do their job, it just reveals that they are incapable of tackling the bigger, more challenging problems (poverty and crime) in their communities. But they know they have to do something, so why not choose an easy target. At least by hassling with these smaller matters and produce more obstacles for workers, they can justify (to themselves) their existence in the *public service. Look what I just did!
* I use the term “public service” very loosely. Obviously.
Dana (779465) — 6/7/2019 @ 3:53 pmright up there with unsanitized telephones
Alright! YOU tell me what color the eyelashes ought to be!
Kevin M (21ca15) — 6/7/2019 @ 3:54 pmDana–
The L.A. City Council is an advanced case of this. Not content to regulate straws and coffee stirrers, they actively attack pressing problems by making them worse.
In the face of maddening traffic with hour-long 5-mile commutes, one councilman spent millions of taxpayer dollars reducing lanes on a major thoroughfare near his home, and installing bike lanes and barriers to protect them. Coincidentally, he’s an avid bike rider.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 6/7/2019 @ 4:00 pmI like the notion that Rep. Gilcrest “fought” for this bill. It must have been tough going up against the powerful and well-organized anti-eyelash licensing lobby, what with the millions of dollars they probably have at their disposal and the dominant hold they have on the media and entertainment industries. She’s a regular Erin Brockovich, that one.
JVW (54fd0b) — 6/7/2019 @ 4:06 pm“But it sure is interesting watching progressive white women put poor minorities out of work.”
– JVW
Maybe they should hire one of those unlicensed lawyers to take up their case.
Munroe (d9efa6) — 6/7/2019 @ 4:17 pmI prefer they waste time on deciding if a hotdog is a sandwich.
mg (8cbc69) — 6/7/2019 @ 4:37 pm“Ma’am, please step aside from the salon chair. We have it on good authority that you’re using an unlicensed pair of tweezers. Papers, please.”
Paul Montagu (208c44) — 6/7/2019 @ 4:44 pmAccording to this article:
1) The bill’s co-sponsor was a Republican
2) “Connecticut is currently the only state in the nation to not have this requirement in place.”
(Gilchrest hints at the latter in her tweet: “… join the rest of the nation …”)
It appears, in this case, that all the red states have already regulated this practice, and liberal Connecticut was the last to do so…
Dave (1bb933) — 6/7/2019 @ 4:45 pmThe economics book I recently finished reading mentioned that the great state of Illinois licenses manicurists, but not electricians.
Dave (1bb933) — 6/7/2019 @ 4:47 pmDave,
I believe they are conflating this with “cosmetology” licenses. Meanwhile, they are deregulating hair-braiders. Probably a conservation law at work.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 6/7/2019 @ 4:50 pmSavannah, GA’s law requiring tour guides to be licensed was recently tossed out on first amendment grounds.
https://ij.org/press-release/savannah-judge-holds-tour-guide-license-unconstitutional/
Kevin M (21ca15) — 6/7/2019 @ 4:51 pmI don’t get it. Painting nails and practicing law are as different as skill levels could be.
Oh wait… the bloggers are lawyers here. Got it.
Dustin (6d7686) — 6/7/2019 @ 5:01 pmSo this week we’ve learned in posts that eyelash technicians are getting licensed in Connecticut and plumbers will be unlicensed in Texas. Good grooming vs. good grief; brings to mind that old New Yorker cartoon with a couple in a car zipping by a highway billboard reading: ‘Now Entering Connecticut. Dress Nicely.’
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/7/2019 @ 5:07 pmIf Trump doesn’t know the difference between a lawyer and a manicurist, why should his superfans?
nk (dbc370) — 6/7/2019 @ 6:21 pmIt appears, in this case, that all the red states have already regulated this practice, and liberal Connecticut was the last to do so…
As my mother would say, Dave: if all the other states jumped off of a bridge would Connecticut want to as well?
JVW (54fd0b) — 6/7/2019 @ 6:38 pmCompare Patel v. Texas Dep’t of Licensing & Regulation, 469 S.W.3d 69, 95 (Tex. 2015)(Willett, J.), which held that the “provisions of the Texas Occupations Code and Commission rules promulgated pursuant to that Code requiring the individual [eyebrow] Threaders to undergo at least 750 hours of training in order to obtain a state license before practicing commercial threading violate the Texas Constitution,” relying on the “‘due course of law of the land’ [provision contained] in Article I, § 19 of the Texas Constitution.” The author of the majority opinion, then-Justice Don Willett (now a Trump appointee to the Fifth Circuit), concurred separately with his own majority opinion, boldly asserting that “Threaders with no license are less menacing than government with unlimited license.”
I like this result, but I’m frankly uncomfortable with the reasoning: Justice Willett was basically using the same “substantive due process” theory — an oxymoron — that leftie judges have used now for decades to strike down things like statutes regulating abortion or gay marriage.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/7/2019 @ 7:00 pmOops. Sorry, Justice Willett didn’t write the majority opinion in Patel; that was Justice Phil Johnson did. Justice Willett’s concurrence got lots of attention, though, even outside Texas.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/7/2019 @ 7:04 pmI cannot — I CANNOT — be the only person who looked at Rep. Gilchrest’s photo and thought immediately that she is the last person who should be regulating the beauty services industry.
To put it more bluntly, she could use the services of some licensed beauty professionals.
Or even some unlicensed ones.
Demosthenes (7fae81) — 6/7/2019 @ 7:11 pmThere was Cleopatra!
There was Empress Wu!
There was Queen Elizabeth I!
There was Catherine the Great!
And now there’s Jillian Gilchrest!
As History pauses to rewrite itself!
nk (dbc370) — 6/7/2019 @ 7:12 pmDemosthenes, the cosmetics manager in the store at which I work looks like she cuts her own hair and never uses cosmetics.
Kishnevi (8c41bd) — 6/7/2019 @ 7:14 pm“If Trump doesn’t know the difference between a lawyer and a manicurist, why should his superfans?”
nk (dbc370) — 6/7/2019 @ 6:21 pm
A lawyer can give you a fungal infection only figuratively.
Munroe (7306d9) — 6/7/2019 @ 7:16 pmA lawyer can give you a fungal infection only figuratively.
Depends on how well you know the lawyer.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 6/7/2019 @ 8:04 pmUndocumented immigrant? No problem. Undocumented nail technician? Oh, the horror, the horror!
norcal (ce7ce7) — 6/8/2019 @ 12:05 amNo doubt – the lawyer broke the law and stole your money.
mg (8cbc69) — 6/8/2019 @ 2:22 amThese places are notorious for exploitation including sex trafficking.
JRH (52aed3) — 6/8/2019 @ 4:15 amPolitics is showbusiness for ugly people.
Gryph (08c844) — 6/8/2019 @ 6:20 amShe’s a frump and she doesn’t want to compete with women who don’t want to be frumps. It’s as plain as
nk (dbc370) — 6/8/2019 @ 6:54 amthe nose onher unprepossessing face.Hmmm…I guess an industry is not “legitimate” unless regulated by the government. Seems to be a core belief among statists, even benevolent ones.
tmm (3d89bc) — 6/8/2019 @ 9:29 am31. Rent seeking was a core strategy of Trump’s business strategy at the turn of the decade going into the 1980s.
Gryph (08c844) — 6/8/2019 @ 9:50 amSex trafficking: cause célèbre amongst conservatives until it’s discovered the President has ties to sex traffickers then it’s “can you believe this overregulation?”
JRH (52aed3) — 6/8/2019 @ 9:50 am“Trafficking in health and beauty salons occurs more often than many would think. Nail salons are becoming the new ‘it’ front for trafficking — where normal business is conducted at the front of the store while women are being forced into modern slavery in the back.”
http://freeforlifeintl.org/human-trafficking-defined/trafficking-spotlight-health-beauty-salons/
Free for life is a Christian ministry dedicated to eradicating human trafficking.
JRH (52aed3) — 6/8/2019 @ 10:49 amI’m not a fan of government regulations, but there are legitimate reasons to regulate nail salons–there are plenty of occasions where people have caught bad infections from unsterilized equipment.
Rochf (877dba) — 6/8/2019 @ 6:17 pmIf, however, they’re already inspected by the health dept., then there’s no need for more regulations.
Reason, which i consider to be unreliable, claims the $250 inspections will be a revenue generator, but I agree inspections serve a legit interest. Enormous education costs do not. Frankly, I bet a lot of the best nail stylists (or whatever they are called) needed no training and learned this when they were kids, and this kind of business should be a natural small business with minimal start-up costs.
Turns out this was the congresslady’s argument, until it was shown her claims about the trafficking were BS. I agree with you that human trafficking is a very serious issue, but it’s also one that lends itself to lying on the internet to hysterically exaggerate the issue. It’s something that’s really bad, that we can’t see, so the government has to do something.
Licenses probably wouldn’t help that much. If you’re willing to trade in sex slaves, a nail painting license violation is not a huge issue. And I am amused you think this has something to do with trump. Do you think he checks the license on his barber?
Dustin (6d7686) — 6/8/2019 @ 6:28 pmCan you point to something that shows her claims are BS? Not doubting you, just curious. I think sex-work should be legalized, and yes, regulated. It would protect the workers and the customers. But since it’s not the case, it’s a situation that’s ripe for exploitation. It’s interesting that you don’t think regulation is a deterrent to illegal activity. I do and apparently so does this vice cop, quoted in the huffpo piece above:
“We regulate massage in this town at a municipal level. The police department used to handle those duties, now the health department does it. We work together with them to do inspections. So it doesn’t take long for the crooks to figure out that the City doesn’t directly regulate cosmetology. That’s a pretty simple transition for a lot of these places to make. They usually tend to do it on a smaller scale than the traditional massage parlors. And they are finding how to use the ‘ordinariness’ of nail salons to their advantage.”
And again CT is the only one of 49 states not to regulate these places.
The connections I made between Trump and sex-trafficking: Cindy Yang, former massage parlor magnate, donor, and Mar A Lago guest. Also Jeffrey epstein, trafficker and abuser of girls aged 13-16 and another Mar a lago guest. One of his victims worked at Mar a lago. Trump’s Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, who was Miami’s top federal prosecutor at the time, made sure Epstein got a sweet plea deal.
JRH (52aed3) — 6/9/2019 @ 3:33 amYeah, there’s a reason Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago.
Ingot9455 (68bf96) — 6/10/2019 @ 1:08 pm