They’re not trying to take barbering skills from cosmetology licensing–they’re trying to give barbers an exemption to a law that would essentially severely limit booth rental by prohibiting landlords (rental salon owners and salon owners who rent stations within their salons) from working on their own clients as cosmetologists. In an earlier draft of this legislation, barbers received a special carve-out, so barbers would be able to continue business as usual, whereas cosmetologists who own rental salons or who rent stations within their salons would have to completely restructure their businesses (and stop taking clients themselves) to be in compliance.

Yes, that’s what I meant Cosmo can perform barbering, but barbers can’t perform cosmo. I was saying that comso should’nt have this bill going against them, and it isn’t fair. As a Cosmo Licenses I mostly perform barbering with some cosmo bacause I color men’s hair. I have my self under Cosmo License because I perform more then just barbering, because of coloring I have Cosmo License, my shop is a Cosmo License PLLC so that means if this bill pass I won’t be able to work and run as a Cosmo License in my shop, I would only be able to run my shop because I only have booth renters?

Does this mean that they are trying to take the barbering out of a comso licensenig?: “All cosmetologists are capable of barbering, but are not barbers. Barbering licenses are an entirely separate specialty license, same as manicuring and esthetics, so those who hold that specific license can be excluded separate from those who hold the “cosmetology” professional license (which is exactly what the state tried to do).”

When I was stating about cosmo are barbers as well it seems like a double standarded against cosmo when the bill is only against them?

(I’m new to getting to know the laws and trying to understand them better. Thank you for all your articels and your time to responding back.)

You’re incorrect. Cosmetologists may be empowered to perform barbering services, but that does not mean barbers are empowered to perform cosmetology. Cosmetologists complete double the hours and their licensing scope includes the profession of barbering (and manicuring, esthetics, etc.). Barbers do not have the same education and are not qualified to perform cosmetology services. That road doesn’t travel both ways. All cosmetologists are capable of barbering, but are not barbers. Barbering licenses are an entirely separate specialty license, same as manicuring and esthetics, so those who hold that specific license can be excluded separate from those who hold the “cosmetology” professional license (which is exactly what the state tried to do).

Lol, governments are great because they still use faxes. It’s adorable and helps to make objecting entertaining. I’ve updated this article to include the recent developments, links to sources, information about the hearing, and a link to the online petition.

It is confirmed! I’ve edited the article to include the new developments, links to sources, and information about the public committee meeting on Monday in Spokane.

Yep! I’ve updated the post to include the new developments and a link to the petition.

There is also a petition to sign.

Can you fact check the removal of section 2 of the bill and help us understand the impact of the change? It seems like good news those who rent their stations and their salon owners…..but can’t tell for sure. Thank you!