Tag: california

Beauty Industry Group Sues Over Shop Closings

Newsom announced last week that salons could not reopen yet after revealing that the first case of known community-to-community transmission of the coronavirus in the state, in February, had been traced to a nail salon. He did not give further details about the salon or the patient.

In the lawsuit, the Professional Beauty Federation of California and others say that the order to remain closed deprives salon workers of their constitutional rights and that the classifications of “essential” vs. “nonessential” businesses are arbitrary, among other complaints.

Newsom announced last week that salons could not reopen yet after revealing that the first case of known community-to-community transmission of the coronavirus in the state, in February, had been traced to a nail salon. He did not give further details about the salon or the patient.

The revelation came in response to a reporter’s question about why salons were put in phase 3 of reopening, after parks and retail stores were allowed to reopen Friday, May 8. “This whole thing started in the state of California — the first community spread — at a nail salon,” Newson said at a news briefing. “I’m very worried about that.  Phase 3, when the salons are due to open, “may not even be more than a month away,” he said.  The February transmission occurred, he said, even though salon workers were already practicing protective measures such as wearing masks and gloves.  Before opening the salons and beauty colleges back up, he said, “We just want to make sure we have a protocol in place to secure the safety of customers, the safety of employees, and allow the business to thrive in a way that is sustainable.”

California’s shutdown that went into effect in mid-March affects barbers, aestheticians, electrologists, hair stylists, cosmetologists, and manicurists, said Fred Jones, counsel for the Professional Beauty Federation of California and a lobbyist.

He says that health and safety instruction make up a large part of the salon workers’ training.

In California, 621,742 people hold licenses from the California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology.

The Board of Barbering and Cosmetology’s laws and regulations that cover people providing salon services already require a number of health and safety measures, such as disinfecting tools and foot spas, single use of towels and robes, and personal cleanliness for workers providing services. Cheri Gyuro, a spokesperson for the California Department of Consumer Affairs, says the board is working on guidelines for COVID-19 that will be made public when they are complete.

 

The Slow Political Destruction Of The Beauty Industry By The Greedy!

California Licensed Estheticians & Consumers OPPOSE SB 296

We, your California Licensed Estheticians, Cosmetologists and California consumers, collectively OPPOSE SB 296, allowing nail techs to perform waxing services on their clients.  We do not oppose pursuing Continuing Education and we welcome anyone to join us by obtaining their license as an esthetician. We hold great concern for California consumers, our clients, and risks to public health that the passing of SB 296 will exacerbate.  The temptation of a quickie brow or other waxing service at the nail shop has caused traumatic injury to the consumers of California way too often. Consumers do not know that it is currently illegal for their nail tech to provide these services.

With the passing of this bill 130,000 licensed nail techs and those licensed while the bill is enacted and put into effect, potentially will be allowed to provide these services legally; without proper training and specific understanding of “how skin works”.In your Strategic Plan, you state that the “DCA protects and serves consumers in many ways, including…. Supporting and advocating for consumer interests BEFORE lawmakers. DCA staff review and analyze proposed legislation and regulations to ensure that consumers are protected.” 

The passing of this bill will only serve to VALIDATE THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY and injury caused to consumers that 21 overwhelmed BBC inspectors have failed to “catch in the act” thus far. With respect and as your stakeholders AND consumers, we ask that you OPPOSE SB 296 for the greater good of California consumers and California licensees that work diligently to protect them.  

Who we are:
From California Aesthetic Alliance and California Estheticians • Esthetician Advocacy. We are grassroots California Licensed Estheticians and Cosmetologists, licensed by the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology as part of the California Department of Consumer Affairs.

Wendy A. Jacobs
California Licensed Esthetician
Founder, California Aesthetic Alliance

SIGN THE PETITION PLEASE.

What California Bill 1513 Means for Salons and Spas on Commission

The Real Hair Truth

About frigging time, say goodbye bye to free labor. People deserve to be paid. Especially for sitting there waiting for a customer. Time is money. The ol trick of hiring a professional and giving them a chair and telling them they have to build up there clientele when they answer a advertisement for employment will be gone. That old trick is history, and should teach salon owners labor is not free. Good for the industry this should keep the owners honest. The industry was built on free labor. Pay back time. How can a professional come to work worrying about rent, food, electric, transportation etc if they work on commission. Salon owners will say I can’t do that, then you shouldn’t have opened a salon. Now I will wait for all the know it all’s to reply. Please do I love debate. I have watch professionals I have worked with in my 33 years of this industry, ripped offed, taken advantaged of, and done so much wrong to they have gotten out of the profession. Its interesting how salon owners can come up and blame the professionals. And assume that with your words that all are alike. “Have to pay people to sit in the break room, on their cellphones, bitching about how they are not busy.” Well not everyone in this industry does what you say. I’m glad to see this, it should have happened along time ago. I love it! Boo Hoo for the salon owners, good for the employees. The employees are what make you. About time this happened, I love all the new ways and new roads the industry is changing. Be your own Boss everyone Don’t live other peoples dreams. You will have nothing in the end. Especially in the Beauty Industry!, Hah!

Note: Although CA employment attorneys were consulted when researching this article, we highly recommend that you contact a legal representative to discuss your rights and responsibilities on this topic. Strategies is not a legal counsel and the contents of this article should not be considered as such. We will be updating this post as more information is presented to us.

Commission salons and spas in California were just given the ultimate “Bad Hair Day”.

With the passage of California Bill 1513 “piece-rate legislation”, the rules have completely changed on how salon and spa owners can compensate their stylists and massage therapists.

For all intents and purposes, the traditional commission model is no longer compliant in California. Strict new laws now require salons and spas to drastically alter they way they compensate their commissioned employees.

And unfortunately, the potential financial impact of Bill 1513 on many salons and spas could be catastrophic. See the full bill here.

What you need to know

Piece-rate vs. commission compensation:

As per the Labor Code, compensation for salon/spa services is technically labeled as “piece-rate” work, and not commission. Confused? Let’s look at the Labor Code’s definition of each classification:

  • Piece-rate is defined as pay “based upon an ascertainable figure paid for completing a particular task or making a particular piece of goods.”
  • Commission employees are defined as anyone “involved principally in selling a product or service, not making the product or rendering the service, and their compensation must be a percent of the price of the product or service.”

Because stylists and massage therapist are rendering services and not just selling them, their work is considered “piece-rate.” Why does this labeling matter? Because Bill 1513 only applies to piece-rate work and not commission work. But again, the Labor Code’s definition of commission is not the same as the salon/spa industry’s.

Big game changer #1…

Effective January 2016, all “piece-rate” California salons and spas must track, report and pay their stylists or massage therapists for “non-productive” and “rest/recovery” time.

“Non-productive time” is defined as the time employees are required to be at work, but are not actively servicing clients. This includes time…

  • Waiting for the next client to arrive
  • Folding towels
  • Sweeping the floor
  • Assisting at the front desk
  • Attending meetings
  • Technical training’s

“Rest/recovery times” is defined as time…

  • On break and meals

In other words, every minute that services providers are in the salon/spa and are not either servicing a client or on break, needs to be tracked, reported and compensated for.

The “non-productive” and “rest/recovery” pay rates must be at least the California minimum wage.

Big game changer #2…

And it’s a biggie…

The law states compensation for “non-productive” and “rest/recovery” time must be a separate pay rate from the rate paid for when services are being produced.

This means you are no longer allowed to average the total dollars paid by the total hours worked and let that cover both “productive” and “non-productive/rest” hours.

Previously, as long as the averaged hourly rate equaled or surpassed minimum wage, all was good.

This is no longer the case.

Big game changer #3…

In addition to aforementioned restrictions, Bill 1513 also contains one final crippling blow for California-based commission salons and spas:

  • Employers are required to calculate and pay back wages for all “non-productive” and “rest/recovery” hours worked dating back to July 1, 2012. And yes, employees have started filing lawsuits demanding back wages for this time period.
  • Or… choose the Safe Harbor option: Valid until July 1, 2016, Employers may choose to pay each employee 4% of their total earnings dating back to July 1, 2012. The state must be notified by July 1, 2016 that this option is being pursued, and full payment would be due by December 15, 2016. Doing so will also make them immune from any future employee lawsuits specifically related to Bill 1513.

An Example…Salon Sacramento

  • Open since 2006
  • $800,000 in gross service sales every year
  • 10 full-time stylists, each paid 50% commission
  • Each stylist works 40 per week, and is 75% productive.
  • California minimum wage as of 1/1/16: $10.00 per hour

Now let’s do some math…

  • $800,000 / 10 stylists = $80,000/yr gross revenue generated per stylist
  • $80,000 @ 50% commission = $40,000/yr gross pay for each stylist
  • If each stylist works 40 hour per week and is 75% productive, this means that 30 hours are spent servicing clients, and 10 hours are “non-productive” or “rest/recovery” hours.
  • 10 “non-productive” hours per week for 52 weeks is 520 “non-productive” hours for per year, per stylist

How this scenario would look under Bill 1513…

  • In addition to the $40,000 paid to each stylist for their commissions on services, they would each be due an additional $5,200 in compensation for their 520 “non-productive” hours worked at the minimum wage rate of $10 per hour.
  • This brings each stylist’s pay to $45,200/yr, the equivalent of 56% commission.
  • Multiplied by 10 stylists, this is a $52,200 increase in total salon payroll.

Salon Sacramento’s back wages due on all “non-productive” hours since July 1, 2012

  • We’re going to round our numbers to 3 years for clarity-sake
  • $52,200 x 3 = $156,600 due to employees if paid in full without using the Safe Harbor Clause
  • Or, if Salon Sacramento chooses to use the Safe Harbor Clause and pay the 4% penalty on all wages paid since 7/1/12, the amount due by December 15, 2016 would be as follows:
    • $40,000/yr x 10 stylists x 3 years = 1,200,000 / .04 = $48,000

Compensation alternatives for California salons & spas

So where do commission-based California salons and spas go from here? One thing is clear, the days of easily calculating 50% for them and 50% for the house are gone.

Here are four employee-based compensation structures for California salons and spas moving forward:

  • Continue to pay commission/piece-work. The big challenge presented here is how will salons and spas be able to afford paying for “non-productive” and “rest/recovery” hours on top of the commission rates they are already paying? Yes, commission rates that fluctuate or are averaged based on weekly sales could be used, but these methods would also introduce substantial increases in bookkeeping responsibilities. They also may spawn confusion and resentment from service providers.
  • Hourly pay: Putting service providers on a fixed hourly rate is a sure-fire way to meet all California compensation requirements, as long as the hourly rate is at minimum wage or higher. However, if salons and spas don’t have the systems and leadership to drive sales and keep staff motivated, issues may arise.
  • Hourly plus commission: Keeping close to the current commission structure, employers could elect to pay service providers a set hourly wage (such as minimum wage), and then add a reduced-rate commission for each service rendered.
  • Team-Based Pay: Converting to a Team-Based Pay (TBP) structure not only meets all Bill 1513 requirements, but also offers growth and cultural benefits far beyond traditional salon/spa compensation models. TBP is an hourly and/or salary program with a team bonus that is tied the achievement of critical numbers (e.g., revenue, gross margin, client retention, productivity, pre-booking, retailing, net profit). Individual growth is tied to overall performance – not just the employee’s ability to generate revenue. A TBP system is designed to reward the right behaviors and performance – those that support the business’s goals and culture. RELATED: To learn more about the benefits and structure of Team-Based Pay, download Strategies’ free Team-Based Pay white paper report here.

As counter-intuitive and debilitating Bill 1513 is to the California salon/spa landscape, it is not something not to be taken lightly. If you are not pro-active in making the necessary changes now, you could be facing state fines, employee lawsuits for back wages or both.

Where can you get help?

Your first step should be to talk to a legal representative to learn what your legal rights and responsibilities are with Bill 1513. They will also have a very firm understanding of the bill as more details and cases are presented.

Your next step should be to restructure your pay structure to meet all compliance standards. If you would like one-on-one help from our team of Certified Strategies Coaches to quickly execute the restructuring of your compensation system to Team-Based Pay, click the link below. Not only will we ensure you meet all Bill 1513 guidelines, we will help you implement a pay program that can increases sales and profits, motivate your staff to grow the business, and provide world-class customer service.

Click here for hands-on help from a Strategies compensation expert.

Note: We highly recommend that you contact a legal representative to discuss your rights and responsibilities on this topic. Strategies is not a legal counsel and the contents of this article should not be considered as such. We will be updating this post as more information is presented to us.

ll

Manufacturers finally getting there due in court!

 

Three of the cosmetics industry’s biggest companies, Mary Kay, Avon, and Estee Lauder (and all the brands under them!) have been named in a class action lawsuit filed in California on behalf of American consumers. The lawsuit sites that these companies fraudulently claimed not to be doing animal testing when in fact they were, misleading the American public. Defendants later purported to disclose, at least on their websites, that they in fact were animal testing, but the disclosures were wholly inadequate and deceptive, the lawsuit states. As a result of their claims of no animal testing, Avon, Estee Lauder and Mary Kay gained and held onto a spot on the much coveted, “Do Not Test” list compiled by PETA. This list indicates which companies do not test products on live animals. Until recently, Estee Lauder, Avon and Mary Kay were among the largest mainstream corporations to be included on PETA’s cruelty-free lists. Specifically, the lawsuit states “As a result of being included on the list, as well as many similar lists, defendants enjoyed the support of PETA and millions of consumers who buy cosmetics only from companies that do not conduct animal testing.  And hence, the commercial success of defendants’ products during the class period was positively influenced by their direct representations regarding animal testing. Simply put, defendants reaped hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from US consumers who otherwise would not have purchased defendants’ products. Filed in October, and entitled Marina Beltran et al. v. Avon Products Inc., Case No. 12-cv-02502, this amended class action lawsuit is the third filed against Avon, and has two new named plaintiffs that are alleging claims of fraud and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiffs allege that Avon is required to disclose its animal testing practices.

The “minerals” in Bare Minerals are a patented blend of 72 minerals (containing Mercury, Arsenic, and many more). Animal research is actually cited in the patent (held by Roger Blotsky and Leslie Blodgett). Fun fact: it’s also sold as a supplement for animals. Biokool is the company that produces it. Google away!

This lawsuit comes after the news in February that PETA was removing these companies from their cruelty free list. The reason that these companies were removed is they are sold in China. China requires cosmetics to be tested on animals, so there isn’t any way these companies could truly be cruelty free. The lawsuit seeks more than $100,000,000 in punitive and compensatory damages for a class of more than 1,000,000 consumers.

I hope this makes them wake up and pay attention!

I am actually really happy to hear about this. Whether or not you are a cruelty free beauty user exclusively, I like the idea of these corporations being held responsible. I hate that companies are able to get away with being vague about their practices, and maybe this lawsuit will help encourage other companies (okay, scare them) to be more transparent and forthcoming with information to consumers. Maybe it will also make them think twice about this whole thing, and flex their power and influence to get China’s animal testing policies changed. Cosmetics are a multi billion dollar industry. Surely there’s something someone can do?

US District Judge Cormac J. Carney ruled that the plaintiffs sufficiently pled their causes of action that Avon fraudulently concealed that it tests on animals.

I hope they win. How dare these companies lie to their consumers, THE ONES WHO PUT THEM IN BUSINESS. I wished I had known about this lawsuit & been able to be apart of it. I TOO had spent money on these companies with the impression that they were cruelty-free.

The technology is already out there to test cosmetic products without the use of animals. Usually these matters all come down to one thing: money. And that is why I hope the lawsuit not only goes forward, but that they win. You can’t teach a large company anything unless you hit them where they will feel it: their bottom line. Whether or not you are worried about animal testing, we simply cannot allow companies to lie to consumers, even by omission.

Avon lied to customers by claiming its products are cruelty free. For years, Defendants marketed and advertised their companies and their cosmetic products as not being tested on animals, when in fact Avon, Mary Kay, Estee Lauder were testing their cosmetic products on animals so that they could sell products in China and other foreign countries, thereby reaping hundreds of millions in sales.

Blog courtesy of The Gloss Managerie.com

GIB LLC, aka Brazilian Blowout Slapped on the hands by the Feds!

 

Here is the settlement!!!!!  Of course in my beauty industry you wont see this in a trade magazine, or posted by the any so-called industry website! Because it’s all about money. Advertising dollars are what sustain beauty industry publications, and independently owned websites. Behindthechair.com is owned by Loreal, and Hairbrained.me is an independently owned website. Advertising dollars are what sustain these entity’s. Modern Salon is owned by Vance Publishing Corp, and it goes on and on. Why would they write anything negative or truthful about the industry when they can potentially get the money from a manufacturer to have them buy future advertisement in their magazines or websites. It’s not about protecting you as a professional or informing you in a neutral way. It’s all about the coporate dollar, Not your health! The professional beauty industry preys on the non-educated, just like the cosmetic industry preys on the non-educated consumer.

The settlement requires GIB, LLC, which does business under the name Brazilian Blowout, to cease deceptive advertising that describes two of its popular products as formaldehyde-free and safe. The company must also make significant changes to its website and pay $600,000 in fees, penalties and costs.

“California laws protect consumers and workers and give them fair notice about the health risks associated with the products they use,” said Attorney General Harris. “This settlement requires the company to disclose any hazard so that Californians can make more informed decisions.”

Today’s settlement is the first government enforceable action in the United States to address the exposures to formaldehyde gas associated with Brazilian Blowout products. It is also the first law enforcement action under California’s Safe Cosmetics Act, a right-to-know law enacted in 2005.

In November 2010, the Attorney General’s office filed suit against GIB, LLC for violating five state laws, including deceptive advertising and failure to provide consumers with warnings about the presence of a carcinogen in its products.

The settlement covers two products used in a popular salon hair straightening process, the “Brazilian Blowout Acai Smoothing Solution” and the “Brazilian Blowout Professional Smoothing Solution”.

The complaint alleged the two products contained formaldehyde but were labeled “formaldehyde free.”
Proposition 65 requires businesses to notify Californians about certain exposures to chemicals in the products they purchase. Formaldehyde is on the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer.

The complaint alleged that that GIB – the manufacturer of the Brazilian Blowout products – did not inform customers or workers that formaldehyde gas was being released during a Brazilian Blowout treatment, and therefore product users did not take steps to reduce their exposure, such as increasing ventilation. Under the terms of the settlement, GIB is required to:

– Produce a complete and accurate safety information sheet on the two products that includes a Proposition 65 cancer warning; distribute this information to recent product purchasers who may still have product on hand; and distribute it with all future product shipments. The revised safety information sheet — known as a “Material Safety Data Sheet,” or MSDS — will be posted on the company’s web site.

– Affix “CAUTION” stickers to the bottles of the two products to inform stylists of the emission of formaldehyde gas and the need for precautionary measures, including adequate ventilation.

– Cease deceptive advertising of the products as formaldehyde-free and safe; engage in substantial corrective advertising, including honest communications to sales staff regarding product risks; and change numerous aspects of Brazilian Blowout’s web site content.

– Retest the two products for total smog-forming chemicals (volatile organic compounds) at two Department of Justice-approved laboratories, and work with DOJ and the Air Resources Board to ensure that those products comply with state air quality regulations.

– Report the presence of formaldehyde in its products to the Safe Cosmetics Program at the Department of Public Health.

– Disclose refund policies to consumers before the products are purchased.

– Require proof of professional licensing before selling “salon use only” products to stylists.

GIB will also pay $300,000 in Proposition 65 civil penalties, and $300,000 to reimburse the Attorney General’s office fees and costs.