SALT LAKE CITY, UT — Senate Bill 330, which aims to overhaul the licensing requirements for barbers and cosmetologists, has moved forward after passing a vote in the Business and Labor Committee. The bill, sponsored by Senator Scott Sandall (R), proposes significant changes to the state’s professional licensing structure by introducing micro-licenses or permits, which would allow aspiring professionals to specialize in specific fields with reduced training requirements.
Currently, to obtain a full cosmetology license, individuals must undergo extensive training, such as 1,200 hours for a master esthetician license. However, under the proposed bill, those looking to focus on specific areas of the beauty industry, such as nails or eyebrows, could achieve licensure with far fewer hours. For instance, a person interested in becoming a nail technician would need only 300 hours of training, while eyebrow specialists could earn a permit with just 270 hours.
Proponents of the bill argue that it would allow more individuals to enter the workforce quickly, saving both time and money. Rhonda Halliday, a stylist, expressed her support for the measure, emphasizing the importance of making these programs more accessible. “The micro-licensing and the letting students have access to these programs without having to go through only beauty schools to get them,” Halliday said.
However, the bill has drawn significant opposition from barbers who argue that reducing their required training hours from 1,000 to just 130 would compromise the quality of the profession. Richard Hite, the owner of The Barber School in Midvale, voiced his strong opposition, insisting that the new proposal would allow individuals to obtain a permit after minimal training, undermining the skills necessary to perform high-quality barbering. “These are craftsmen. These people are highly skilled people that provide a craft that can’t be duplicated by a stupid certificate for 130 hours,” Hite remarked.
Hite further cautioned that the reduction in training could lead to inconsistent services, which would ultimately hurt business. “The public eventually is going to say, ‘Hey, I’m not getting a consistent haircut. I’m out of here. I’m going to go somewhere else,’” he said. “So, the barber is no longer able to hire people because there’s no qualified people out there in the pool to be hired.”
In response, Jeff Shumway, director of the Office of Professional Licensure Review, defended the reduced training requirements, pointing to the study of health professionals and their training standards. Shumway explained that the focus of the license is on ensuring health and safety standards are met, not on perfecting a particular skill such as a precise haircut. “It doesn’t necessarily say you’re going to get, you know, exactly the haircut you want, but it’s going to be safe. You’re not going to get sick. You’re not going to get hurt,” he said.
Dave Broderick, a local barber, added weight to the argument against reducing training hours by recounting personal experiences in which his expertise allowed him to detect health issues in clients. He described two instances where he referred clients to dermatologists, leading to the early detection of skin cancer. “That’s what experience allows us to do,” Broderick noted, emphasizing the importance of professional training that goes beyond health and safety.
While the debate continues, Senator Sandall acknowledged that the bill is not without its flaws. He revealed that he has already identified 22 proposed changes to the bill based on feedback from stakeholders. Senate Committee Chair Evan Vickers, who cast the only vote against the bill, cited the need for further revisions and pledged to help refine the bill as it continues through the legislative process.
As the bill progresses, it remains to be seen how lawmakers will address the concerns raised by barbers and other professionals in the industry, balancing the need for accessibility with the demand for high-quality services.