How to file a complaint with OSHA if you are a Salon Employee or Booth Renter!

You know that industry we are in “The so-called professional beauty industry”, were everything is swept under the rug, and deception is rampant. Well if you are a salon employee or a booth renter and you feel you are working around chemicals that make you feel sick. They may be hazardous.
A salon owner has the responsibility to have proper ventilation in the salon and the proper posting of all MSDS Sheets provided from the manufacturer of the products you use for your salon services. If you are unsure just go to your salon owner and ask for the proper information.
Nine times out of ten they don’t have it and wouldn’t give you the time of the day to produce it for you. Your health is important and to be working around a atmosphere where you may have close to 10-20 employees or booth renters then salon products may vary depending on the interests of all the employees.
Take it upon yourself to find out if the products you are using are hazardous to you or your client. It is your health and your life and you have only one to live. TAKE CHARGE, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!
 
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 gives employees and their representatives the right to file a complaint and request an OSHA inspection of their workplace if they believe there is a serious hazard or their employer is not following OSHA standards. Further, the Act gives complainants the right to request that their names not be revealed to their employers.Complaints from employees and their representatives are taken seriously by OSHA. It is against the law for an employer to fire, demote, transfer, or discriminate in any way against a worker for filing a complaint or using other OSHA rights. OSHA will keep your information confidential. We can help.

If you think your job is unsafe and you want to ask for an inspection, contact us. It is confidential. If you have been fired, demoted, transferred or discriminated against in any way for using your rights under the law, you must file a complaint with OSHA within 30 days of the alleged discrimination.

Employees or their representatives have a right to request an inspection of a workplace if they believe there is a violation of a safety or health standard, or if there is any danger that threatens physical harm, or if an “imminent danger” exists. Employee representatives, for the purposes of filing a complaint, are defined as any of the following:

  1. An authorized representative of the employee bargaining unit, such as a certified or recognized labor organization.
  2. An attorney acting for an employee.
  3. Any other person acting in a bona fide representative capacity, including, but not limited to, members of the clergy, social workers, spouses and other family members, and government officials or nonprofit groups and organizations acting upon specific complaints and injuries from individuals who are employees.

In addition, anyone who knows about a workplace safety or health hazard may report unsafe conditions to OSHA, and OSHA will investigate the concerns reported. Employees or their representatives must provide enough information for OSHA to determine that a hazard probably exists. Workers do not have to know whether a specific OSHA standard has been violated in order to file a complaint.

The following are examples of the type of information that would be useful to OSHA when receiving a complaint. It is not necessary to have the answers to all these questions in order to file a complaint. The list is provided here as a guide to help you provide as much complete and accurate information as possible:

  • How many employees work at the site and how many are exposed to the hazard?
  • How and when are workers exposed?
  • What work is performed in the unsafe or unhealthful area?
  • What type of equipment is used? Is it in good condition?
  • What materials and/or chemicals are used?
  • Have employees been informed or trained regarding hazardous conditions?
  • What process and/or operation is involved?
  • What kinds of work are done nearby?
  • How often and for how long do employees work at the task that leads to their exposure?
  • How long (to your knowledge) has the condition existed?
  • Have any attempts been made to correct the problem?
  • On what shifts does the hazard exist?
  • Has anyone been injured or made ill as a result of this problem?
  • Have there been any “near-miss” incidents?

How To Wrestle With Non-Compete Contracts in the Beauty/Cosmetic Industry

The Real Hair Truth Documentary Blog!

 

You’d expect a fat non-compete clause in a top-tier investment banker’s employment contract. Yet more companies of all stripes are foisting non-compete contracts on lower-level lieutenants–and even line workers.

Some employers also use non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements. A non-disclosure agreement helps an organization safeguard its trade secrets and other proprietary information. Under the agreement, employees are prohibited from disclosing this information. Confidentiality agreements are similar, except that the agreement requires that one or both parties must keep information confidential.

“Even though hair stylists aren’t six-figure earners, they are frequently being asked to sign [non-competes],” says David Conforto , an attorney at Conforto Law Group in Boston. Conforto recently won an injunction for a stylist client so she could continue to work; the judge deemed her non-compete contract un-enforceable because of the high demand for qualified stylists.

Employers wield non-competes to stanch turnover and keep a firm grip on proprietary client lists and critical research. And with global competition more fierce than ever, the paranoia is at a fever pitch. Being a member of this so-called professional industry a few words of wisdom from me to you may help you from being deceived from business owners who rent chairs. After your interview make sure you take a copy of the contract to a lawyer, NOT YOUR FRIEND TO READ. But a Lawyer. Sign nothing, and if the owner will not let you take it out of the salon to give to an attorney, they are probably 100% not honest with you. SCAMMERS are abundant in the beauty industry my friends. Do not get your advice on Non-Compete contracts from a beauty industry magazine, beauty industry website, a hair idol, or so-called Icon, but from an attorney licensed in your state. Read On My Friends.

In Pictures: Five Tips For Negotiating Non-Compete Contracts

While you probably can’t avoid having to sign these contracts, you should make every effort to negotiate as much wiggle room as possible. It is your business and you must conduct yourself as a business owner.

First step: Hire an attorney to vet your contract before you sign it. Yes, you might pay $200 to $500 an hour for the privilege, but that’s probably a good bet. The cost of going to trial over a breach of a non-compete typically runs in the tens of thousands of dollars. Even if you do win the case, you don’t recoup those legal fees, as defendants typically do in other cases. If you lose, you’re out of work to boot.

If you’re presented with a non-compete clause, send your potential employer a letter confirming that you are consulting an attorney to make sure you understand all the terms. Declaring that step in writing is important because it prevents the employer from retaliating by swiping the job offer later on. (Judges don’t look too kindly on a move like that.)

In lieu of a traditional non-compete contract, try to angle for a “non-disclosure” or a “non-solicitation” agreement. Non-disclosure agreements stipulate that departing employees can’t make off with valuable research, while non-solicitation agreements prohibit them from going after important clients–except those they cultivated prior to joining the company. If that doesn’t work, focus on winnowing the scope of the non-compete. “The employer is going to push it to be as broad as possible, but you want to make it as restricted as possible without jeopardizing the job offer. Two key elements here: geography and time. Try to limit both. Reasonable restrictions will vary by industry, of course.

For example, temporarily barring a hairstylist from working in an entire county might not be plausible, but shackling a pharmaceutical rep in the same area might. Contracts stating that you can’t work in the industry throughout the U.S. probably won’t hold up in court, although some tech companies may be able to enforce them, because of the global nature of the Internet. The same strategy goes for the time span of the non-compete. The standard window for these contracts is six months to a year. Anything more than two years is downright draconian, and probably won’t hold up in court. Then again, don’t count on a judge to bail you out. “You still have to pay for litigation, or hope that your new employer will pay for it. In a tough economy, that’s a chance you probably don’t want to take. Take my advice my fellow professionals go see a lawyer.

Legal matters

While there are no federal laws directly governing non-compete agreements, some states do address the legality of such agreements. Under Wisconsin law, for example, the agreements must:

  • Be necessary for the protection of the employer;
  • Provide a reasonable time period;
  • Cover a reasonable territory;
  • Not be unreasonable to the employee; and
  • Not be unreasonable to the general public.

Although most states will enforce non-compete agreements if they are “reasonable” in terms of breadth and length of the restriction, the definition of what is “reasonable” varies. When crafting a non-compete agreement, an organization must pay careful attention to the agreement’s scope. An overly limiting agreement may be deemed un-enforceable by state courts.

 


 

California Superior Court Gives Brazilian Blowout 30 Days to Reformulate or Remove Products from Marketplace

Los Angeles—The California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, issued an order on November 29, 2012 requiring the manufacturers of Brazilian Blowout hair straightening solution, GIB, LLC (GIB) to stop selling its product in California within 30 days and prove that its new, reformulated product meets California Air Quality Standards. According to the attorney general’s court papers, testing by three different laboratories shows that GIB’s hair straightening product violates California air quality law and emits smog-forming pollutants at levels higher than allowed by the California Air Resources Board. Formaldehyde, a human carcinogen, is a major ingredient in Brazilian Blowout.

“The move to pull the original Brazilian Blowout formula from the market is a victory for women’s health,” said Alexandra Scranton, on behalf of the National Healthy Nail and Beauty Salon Alliance. “Brazilian Blowout continues to expose salon workers to cancer-causing chemicals and it clearly violates California’s air pollution standards.”

In a previous settlement agreement with California Attorney General Kamala Harris’s office, GIB agreed to stop deceptively advertising the product as formaldehyde-free and put caution stickers on their product advising users that it releases carcinogenic formaldehyde gas. The company also agreed to participate in further testing to evaluate whether its Brazilian Blowout product violated California air quality laws and reformulate its product if it were found in violation.

Three independent laboratory tests showed that Brazilian Blowout releases high levels of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and in violation of its previous agreement with the State of California, GIB had refused to either reformulate Brazilian Blowout or remove it from the marketplace. Following that refusal, the California Attorney General’s Office asked the California Superior Court to remove Brazilian Blowout from the market on October 9, 2012.

According to the California Air Resources Board, VOCs are an important component in the formation of ground level ozone, a major part of California’s smog problem. The Board’s air quality standards require that Brazilian Blowout contain no more than six percent VOCs by weight. Testing by two independent labs approved by the company, and testing by the Board, found Brazilian Blowout contained between 8.1 percent and 11.49 percent of regulated VOCs by weight.

“We applaud the attorney general for vigorously pursuing an action against this manufacturer who evidently believes it can ignore the law without repercussion. A cosmetic product should never contain formaldehyde, a known carcinogen and respiratory irritant. It’s reassuring that the original formula of Brazilian Blowout, due to violating air quality laws, will no longer be around to harm consumers and hair salon workers in California,” said Catherine Porter with the National Healthy Nail and Beauty Salon Alliance.

Stylists who regularly perform Brazilian Blowout treatments are exposed to formaldehyde gas at levels well in excess of the state’s Proposition 65 warning threshold, according to the California AG’s lawsuit.

“As a hairstylist that has been seriously affected by Brazilian Blowout, I know firsthand just how dangerous this product is. Getting the original Brazilian Blowout formula off the shelves will be a big win for salon workers who have suffered irreparable health problems due to exposure to this product,” said California salon worker Jennifer Arce.

According to the California Attorney General’s office, the California Air Resources Board will test the reformulation of Brazilian Blowout by December 15 to ensure the product meets the VOC limit of six percent.

Brazilian Blowout has been banned in Canada and at least four other countries, including Germany, France, Ireland and Australia, but is still allowed to be sold in the U.S. The federal Safe Cosmetics Act, introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives in July 2011 by Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) would ban chemicals known to cause cancer from cosmetics, as many other countries have already done.

“This dangerous product never should have been on the market to begin with,” said Janet Nudelman on behalf of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “But because of lax U.S. regulation, countless stylists and salon patrons have been exposed to harmful levels of formaldehyde.  Unfortunately, Brazilian Blowout is just one of many examples of why Congress needs to pass the Safe Cosmetics Act.”

Johnson & Johnson reformulating products!

Manufacturing giant Johnson & Johnson says it is phasing out the use of a number of potentially harmful chemicals, including formaldehyde, in products made for adults by 2015. Formaldehyde and some other chemicals help fight bacteria and reduce the risk of irritation. Formaldehyde though, has been classified by the National Toxicology Program as a cancer-causing chemical.

In addition, J & J plans to phase out some ingredients in fragrances and an antibacterial substance used in soaps.
Many companies have long been under the gun to take action.  Consumer and environmental groups launched stepped-up safety campaigns against shampoo and cream makers in recent years. But Johnson & Johnson is being praised by former critics for responding to calls for change. “There’s a public discussion underway about the ingredients in beauty care products, and we think it’s important to be part of that,” said Susan Nettesheim, Vice President of Product Stewardship & Toxicology for Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.  “Consumers today expect more information and greater transparency than ever before and we’re always listening to the people who use our products.  On this site, we’ll do our best to explain how we make the choices we make, and to show how our plans incorporate consumers’ feedback.  We want all consumers to see for themselves how and why every one of our products can be used with peace of mind.”

SafetyandCareCommitment.com includes information about how ingredients are selected and evaluated, and provides details on our gold standard safety assurance process.  The site will evolve and be updated to incorporate consumer feedback, the latest science, new regulations and new information about our policies.  The site contains information about our approach to research, the extra care we put into the development of products for babies and toddlers, and our commitment to sustainability.

The Johnson & Johnson Family of Consumer Companies includes, among other divisions, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products Company Division of Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., which markets the JOHNSON’S® baby, AVEENO®, RoC®, and CLEAN & CLEAR® brands, and Neutrogena Corporation, which markets the NEUTROGENA® brand.

We applaud the company for ther interest and transparency with there products.

Unilever’s Suave Product is still under Investigation!

 
Profile Picture
 
Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30 Day Smoothing Kit Unilever Trumbull. CT 06611. Actual Kit UPC 7940019562 Modular Display Unit Description and Case UPC : Suave SA Keratin Smoothing Kit 8PC PDQ 10079400228786 Suave Mixed Keratin 17 PC PDQ 10079400233025 Suave Keratin Kit 12PC Wing 10079400240221 SV SH CD Kit Keratin 12PC 15 Inch PDQ 10079400241372 Suave SH/CD/SA Keratin 258PC Bin 10079400244359 SV MB Naturals/Keratin 670 PC Pallet 10079400245790 Standard Case: SV Smoothing Kit (ATG) 12 1ct 10079700195620. Recall # F-1332-2012
CODE
All lots
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Recalling Firm: Unilever United States, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, by letters dated May 8, 2012.
Manufacturer: Les Emballages Knowlton Inc., Knowlton, Canada. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON: Unilever has received numerous consumer complaints related to undesired hair treatment outcomes and potential consumer misunderstanding for Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30 Day Smoothing Kit.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
381,288 Kits
DISTRIBUTION
Nationwide
 
Unilever is one of the world’s leading suppliers of fast moving consumer goods. Unilever markets the product under its wholly owned Suave brand name as a Keratin-based hair straightening product that is “an affordable at-home alternative” to professional salon treatments that’s “formaldehyde free.” However, Unilever may not be able to substantiate its claims. In addition, Unilever may have failed to inform consumers that the Product contains a chemical known as “Tetrasodium EDTA,” which is mainly synthesized from formaldehyde. Unilever also may have failed to inform consumers that the Product contains a chemical preservative known as “DMDM Hydantoin,” which is an antimicrobial formaldehyde releaser with the trade name Glydant. Formaldehyde has been classified as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing substance) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and as a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

So when do we stop thinking of ourselves and start thinking and helping others. Where did simple kind compassion go in a world of give-me. Where did listening and  understanding one another’s problems leave our day-to-day life. When we know the truth and not say the truth that is the most common sin of all. .  Do you really care anymore.

 
I just used this product a few days ago and my hair is also fried. And when I went to the store to try to find a deep renewing conditioner the product was still on the shelf! I don’t know what to do with my hair at this point. I’ve been trying to nurse it back to life with coconut oil and mayonnaise but it still isn’t enough. Help?!
Sent from my iPhone
 
I too used this product and fried my hair…4 haircuts later still having issues with dry hair and itchy scalp. Any ideas on what I need to do to promote good hair health?
Thanks
 
Hello Mr. Kellner,
Help it has been 4 months for my hair and it continues to break off and is fried.  It seems like it is getting worse not better.  I have spent over $2000 and yet I am still struggling.  No one is responding to my letters Unilever, Suave or Kroeger. I tried to join a class action lawsuit with Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten but they have not contacted me back yet either.  The $12 is not sufficient and my current professional stylist believes it will be at least another year before my hair is back to normal if ever.  I can not afford this!!  
 Is there any hope we will get some resolve from the company.  Please someone help!! This is truly a nightmare and not only has it ruined my hair but my personal life, my professional life and my personal well-being have all been severely compromised.
Any information that you might have regarding where I might go next would be greatly appreciated.
Suzanne M. Light, Pharm.D.
 
I used this kit twice the first time my tightly curled hair was soft shiny the second time at first I didnt see any change in my then a couple of weeks after my hair started coming out by the handfuls it took me three years to get the growth I had now all Ivan do is cut it all off and do intensive conditioning treatments .something should be done to suave for the damage it has done to my hair.thank you
Sent from my iPhone
 
Hello Joseph,
My name is Dawn Rettew, a hairdresser/make-up artist, three-time salon owner.
I would like to thank you for your courage in addressing the issues of our profession.
Having been a “brainwashed sheep” myself, I understand most of what you are saying.
I would like to break into private labels and have attempted this in the past with no success. Mostly, I’m not able to know which companies to trust anymore and the up front cost is too high.
There are no products left that are not diverted. I especially like the way the product companies are not including “online discount drug stores” as diversion. To me, online sales are diversion. I’ve signed contracts with companies promising to do my part and now I can walk into any Target, TJ Max, most online outlets and purchase the very same products
At this point, I don’t even trust having my own private label for fear of losing even more credibility with clientele. They lie about the ingredients. etc. I’ve been made to be a liar one too many times. If you have any private label insight that you would be willing to share with me, I would greatly appreciate it. I’m just looking for a product line that is non-diverted, the best available ingredients at the best available prices without the deceptive practices that go along with them.
I appreciate you honesty,
Dawn Rettew
 
I bought the treatment on 3/23/12 from Wal-Mart and I used it a week later.  I have previously used Sally’s brand about 8 months prior so I knew what I was doing and I read the directions correctly.  Not even a week after I used the Suave brand, my hair got considerably lighter, which has never happened and my hair started to fall out.  Even now, every time I was my hair, more of it breaks and I am losing it by the handfuls.  I only use the treatments because after I had my daughter, my hair got wavy and thicker only in the back and I wanted an easier way to maintain my hair.  The treatment I used before worked wonders and seeing as Suave’s was a whole lot cheaper, I took a chance.  I know it is not supposed to make it straight, but it is supposed to make it easier to straighten, and this did not do as it was supposed to.  I saw the recall at my local CVS and wanted to know what I am supposed to do from here?  Thanks for your time.
Ashley Mier