Opponent Testimony — James Rogers, on HB 58

Summary

Opponent testimony of James Rogers on HB 58, marked Exhibit A. The testimony lists experience as an Ohio licensed cosmetologist and cosmetology instructor, past president of the Ohio Association of Cosmetology Schools and past chairman of the Ohio Board of Cosmetology. Its reasons for opposition include that HB 58 strips safeguards of background, education and certification, and that it creates confusion about the term salon. It objects to the proposed definition of Blow-dry styling and to the removal of the practice of natural hair styling from cosmetology law, and concludes that the bill is seriously poor legislation.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

James Rogers
H.B. #58 OPPONENT TESTIMONY – EXHIBIT “A”
EXPERIENCE: Ohio Licensed Cosmetologist; Ohio Licensed Cosmetology Instructor;
Past President, Ohio Association of Cosmetology Schools; Past Chairman, Ohio Board
of Cosmetology; Past Chairman, National Accrediting Commission of Career Arts &
Sciences.

REASON #1: PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OHIO VOTERS!

Beauty services require intimate contact between client and practitioner, often in
the areas of the eyes, lips, scalp and hands . HB 58 strips three (3) vital safeguards
from unsuspecting Ohio citizens: background, education, and certification. Unlike,
for example, dog grooming, the client of an untrained and uncertified cosmetology
practitioner may suffer personal bodily harm, including disfigurement.

REASON #2: CONFUSION CREATES CHAOS A:

SALON (noun)
an establishment where a hairdresser, beautician, or couturier conducts business.
"women have their hair cut in a hair salon"


HB 58 lays the ground work for complete confusion about what comprises a “salon”,
especially among the general public that, for eons, have understood the term to
denote experience, ability and cleanliness.

REASON #3: CONFUSION CREATES CHAOS B:

The proposed definition of “Blow-dry styling” will effectively permit the unlicensed
and untrained to perform most cosmetology services other than chemicals and
haircuts. The “practice of cleaning, drying, arranging, or styling hair” is precisely
contained in the definition of what cosmetology includes! SHAMEFUL!


REASON #4: CONFUSION CREATES CHAOS C:

The removal of the “practice of natural hair styling” from cosmetology law
represents the worst form of back-handed insult. Black hair is not just darker- it is
different! The inclusion of this training as a separate course is relatively recent, the
culmination of many years of combined effort. It is honorable, it is necessary, and it
is about time!

CONCLUSION:

This is seriously poor legislation. It is poorly written, illogical, confusing, incomplete
and does nothing to help “protect the health and safety of Ohio citizens”.

Thank you for your patience in considering these comments, issued with love and
respect for a proud profession that has shared my life.

James M. Rogers
WC8M


File and source

File

2023-04-18_commerce-labor_testimony_james-rogers-opp-testimony.pdf

Size

580,016 bytes

SHA-256

53a4646ef9634b80bbf9e03fb93f552e9ef19537596de64876a22ce9ebe580a6

Our copy

2023-04-18_commerce-labor_testimony_james-rogers-opp-testimony.pdf

Original

No public link identified.