Tag: loreal

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

~ Joseph Kellner
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?

Scum of my Beauty Industry!

~ Joseph Kellner

 

Professional hair care companies as well as professional hair dressers try to spread fear amongst hair consumers by warning them about hair care products. Fear is a powerful emotion which can motivate in a variety of ways. Why do professional hairdressers hate hair product diversion? Quite simply if hair consumers buy from CVS, Walgreens or Amazon.com, they’re not buying from their salon professionals. From the beginning of time, professional hair product companies would promise professional hairdressers that they would only sell to them so that there would be no competition for any other marketplaces.

As a result, when a professional product line such as Aveda winds up in Amazon.com, professional hairdressers rise up in arms to try and stop the sale of the professional products by anyone but professional hair stylists and salons. The basic bottom line is that professional hairdressers just want to protect their sales territories.
Ask yourself how professional hair products make it to CVS or other large grocery chains? Contrary to what the professional hair companies might want you to believe, they aren’t delivered in SUVs by individual professional hairdressers who are selling out the back door of their salon. No! If a CVS sized retail outlet is buying professional products, and they are, it’s because the professional hair care company is either secretly selling directly to CVS or is looking the other way when it happens. Bottom line. Professional hair product manufacturers talk out of both sides of their mouths. The professional hair care companies have brainwashed hair consumers. In fact, in the Summer of 2008 “Good Morning America” had a segment that was focused on what has become known as Professional Hair Product Diversion. The segment spread the same fear based untruths that are often spread to hair consumers.

According to the professional hair care industry professional hair care products are only to be delivered and sold through professional salons, distributors or hairdressers. Anyone else selling professional hair care products such as Amazon.com or CVS or Target is officially selling “diverted products.” Yet why would large corporations like that take the risk to divert?
To try and minimize diversion, the professional companies will put out the fear based rumors that hair consumers who buy their professional hair care products from Amazon.com, Target or CVS are buying potentially contaminated products. Seriously, do you think that a major company like CVS and Target would risk consumer lawsuits over contaminated products? Think about that one.

The other rumors are that diverted products may be counterfeit. While I’m sure this is much more of a possibility, it is very unlikely. Yes, there have been some isolated cases but they are very rare. While major hair product manufacturers like Aveda might say they fight product diversion, if they had a hint that their products were being counterfeited they would swarm down on the store in question and seize the products in question. Why? Neither the manufacter or the retailer, like CVS, wants any legal problems from counterfeited products.

Besides falling under monitoring by the FDA, hair care products are chock full of preservatives to extend the shelf life of the products. Most hair care products have a shelf life of 3-4 years. Those very preservatives protect against the growth of any type of fungus or bacteria. If not, the products would be bulging at the seems and have a frightful odor. Just like rancid food products.

The hair care industry also hints at fungal and bacterial infestation. Is this a real danger? Again, unlikely. It is simply a scare tactic to keep hair consumers away from professional products sold over the counter.
It should be noted that many of the professional hair products found on the shelves of CVS are the latest packaging and the latest ingredients. How do I know? I have stopped to look at them in great detail. I have even taken labels from professional products purchased through professional outlets and have compared them. And yes I have interviewed buyers of companys.
Cost factors is the other diversion bugaboo. Is it true that diverted products cost more in non-authorized companies than authorized professional beauty outlets? In some cases yes but in other cases maybe not.
1. Competition in the professional hair product arena continues to explode. If a professional hair product company can sell trailor truckloads of their products to a CVS or Target and look the other way, why not? I’m not saying ALL professional companies do it, but I’m saying it happens. Probably more than you think.

Guess what, professional hairdressers know the truth. Most of them do anyway. I talked to so many hairdressers over the years who all call Hair Product Diversion the industry’s “dirty little secret.”

2. Good Business Plans. Hair consumers are cutting back on any hair related luxuries. Why would professional hair care companies promote the myth of professional diversion when it could cost them a strong growing sales base and a competitive edge with their competitors? Have they thought about that? I wonder.

3. Professional Hair Product Diversion Does Not Exist In The Rest Of The World. Hair product diversion only exists as an issue in the United States. In Europe and the rest of the world there is no Professional Hair Product Diversion issues. Hair consumers buy products from their professional hairdressers and salons but because they trust their hairdresser with the proper product recommendation and because of timing. The same should be true in the United States. Why isn’t it?

4. Professional Hair Publications Give Lip Service To Diversion Topics. Why? If a professional hair magazine or online newsletter is receiving advertising from a major professional hair care production company like an Aveda, they are definitely going to drink and share the Kool-aide. Money talks and advertising talks even louder.

Ultimately all hair consumers must think for themselves and not just believe what the hair product companies want us to believe. Before drinking the Kool-Aide of product diversion think about the realities of the situation.

Is the product in question fully stocked on the shelves? Is the entire line of products options available from shampoo to styling products? Are the products restocked on a regular basis? Do the products like brand new? They probably are.

Best Regards
Joseph Kellner

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

~ Joseph Kellner

 

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.

No Beauty License? Quite a Scare Tactic Used On The Industry Sheep!

~ Joseph Kellner

 

So much misinformation is going around the beauty industry of how Licensurship  is going to take the cosmetology profession down the drain. Well in my view it already is! I feel quite differently about the subject. In several states there are plans to not have Cosmetology Licensurship NOT  needed anymore.. Just last week the same desperate so-called beauty industry cons went ahead and spreaded their thoughts about how this would damage our industry. Check out some of the videos made by (Tabitha) on television who knocks down salons by not doing it her way each and every week. She loves to say this will take us back to the stone ages by spreading her knowledge and scare tactics on the sheep of the industry.

Why would you think a license makes you professional? You are the PROFESSIONAL not the piece of paper. The salon professional and salon owner can police their own actions from within. You don’t need a license to purchase hair color, permanent waves, relaxers etc just go on the internet. The manufacturers make them available to the consumer selling you out and sweeping away your values and commitments to them out the door.

MONEY, MONEY WAKE UP!

 But to no haste you will find out that the PBA (Professional Bullshit Organization) will do it”s utmost to guard the financial pyramid and seek protection for the Student puppy mils of beauty college education (Paul Mitchell, Aveda) from financial destruction. Do you really think in this day and age this would not be a change in our industry, and the change will be for the better. And hopefully the United States will introduce and mandate all the perfection the Europeans have in their beauty industry for us. For many decades Europe has been the plateau of example on apprenticeships, beauty schools, and hairdressing. While the U.S. has the Photoshop example of counterfeit hairdressing by the perfect example of NAHA. Such a perfect example of poor leadership for the craft.

 But also think about how the riddance if Licensurship will make the individual so much for attuned to the craft of hairdressing, hair coloring. this may instill a pride in our profession. Yes we will get salons and organizations begging and craving for a solution.  Who’s the blame we all are, just like “WE” never took a stand on the deceptive practices of Paul Mitchel, Loreal, and all the other big named bullshit speaking manufacturers. But as time has gone by, I see the independent artists are creating their own forms of entrepreneurship in our industry. It has been a long time coming, but everyone, change is good, we really don’t need a license at all. Europeans don’t need one. And there methods of training has lasted for several decades. You will see the beauty industry supply chains jumping on this deferment of licensurship and they will likely start selling to the consumer overnight. See all the so-called bootlegged, diverted product lines that are sold in Salon Centric (Which is owned by Loreal)  will be available to the consumer. Big deal! They have been doing us wrong for decades what will happen if they sell so-called professional hair color to a consumer. You can already by the hair color on the internet.

 Hair shows will be able to sell tickets to consumers (which they always do), you will be able to do hair in your kitchen, which we are all guilty of including me. Professionalism will be represented by you, the hairdresser, colorist, makeup artist. And consumers will flock to you, just like they do now. In the makeup profession there is no Licensurship, and they seem to be able to police themselves. When you join a union as a makeup artist you take a test. Consumers know what they want, the have eyes, and senses. The ultimate decision for a service will come from them, not a so-called legal document that you receive out of beauty school.

When I took the test for my  hairdressing license did that mean I was a professional? No it didn’t, the same when I graduated makeup school I was not a professional and may I say, I was reminded that upon graduation. Did the DBPR do anything for you when we had the formaldehyde problems in our industry? No, they did not. OSHA and the FDA had to do all the work! Did the PBA do anything? Hell no! And they advertise themselves as the, “legal voice of the industry”.

BULLSHIT on THEM. 

Licensurship is a huge money-making conglomerate in our industry, for the schools and the state. Educational loans are the way to make an easy living for all and if you can start a beauty school and get state approval (accreditation) then you will get the loans. That is the easy meal ticket in my industry!  And we all see the product coming out of a Paul Mitchel school and Aveda is just the same.

And did you know Aveda is owned by Estee Lauder!! Follow the trail my friends.  

So times change everyone, will you be effected personally by this decision? No you wont, will the multi-million dollar beauty schools be effected? YES. If the states that expel the license adopt a form of apprentice ship this will rid the Paul Mitchell, and Aveda puppy mills from our industry. And when apprenticeships are taken upon the salon will and must pay the apprentice and also give them health care. Once and for all maybe an individual will be treated like a human being in our industry. College graduates upon their succeeding employment they receive a wage, sick days, 1-2 weeks vacation. Does anyone in our profession? No not at all, this way might have individuals seeing the industry for what it really is. And having the cream of the crop flowing to the surface.

I say good riddance to licensurship and lets move ahead.

Best Regards

Joseph Kellner

Beware of Labeling, Repackaging of Beauty/Cosmetic Products

~ Joseph Kellner

The Real Hair Truth!

Across the gamut of media formats – from television to the Internet to print – beauty product advertising bombards consumers on a daily basis. Each ad seeks to persuade potential buyers of the product’s value, or even its necessity for the buyer’s well-being and self-image. These techniques, sometimes manipulative in nature, affect more than the consumer’s wallet. It can effect their health. In my industry if a product is not selling to the so-called professionals they will repackage the product. And sell under a new gimmick. Here is a lawsuit placed in a Florida court against Loreal. Read the print very closely. I just love to see when a customer takes a major beauty/cosmetic bully to court. Especially if it is Loreal!

Morelli Ratner Files Class Action Against L’Oreal for Defrauding Consumers

Morelli Ratner PC, together with the Alters Law Firm, filed a class action last week against L’Oreal and Lancôme for defrauding consumers. The case is Nino v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. et al, and was filed in federal court, in the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the Defendants have advertised their “anti-aging” creams as having been scientifically tested, making claims and promising results to consumers that the Defendants know to be unfounded. Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration sent Lancôme a formal warning letter about the misleading advertising. The complaint alleges that L’Oreal has made millions of dollars by knowlingly and willfully misleading consumers. Plaintiff Costanza Nino, a resident of Florida, is bringing the suit on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of all persons who purchased Lancôme’s “Anti-Aging” products within the applicable statutory limitations period, and a Subclass of Florida residents.

 Read more on this Loreal Lawsuit!