Barbering and Cosmetology board approves apprenticeship report for inclusion in sunset review amid calls for stronger enforcement

The Board of Barbering and Cosmetology voted to include an apprenticeship task‑force report in its sunset review, directing staff to return with any final edits at the board’s next meeting.

The report summarizes two task‑force meetings, identifies widespread fraud and enforcement gaps in the apprenticeship pathway, and recommends statutory changes such as requiring apprentices be W‑2 employees (not booth renters), establishing fees and approval standards for program sponsors, mandating maintenance of on‑the‑job training (OJT) logs, and creating formal disciplinary processes and civil penalties for program sponsors, trainers and establishment owners.

The apprenticeship item was presented by Christy Underwood, Executive Officer for the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, who described the task force as “very intense, detailed” and recommended the board approve the draft report for inclusion in the sunset review. Underwood said the task force included board members, board staff, approved program sponsors, local educational agencies (LEAs) and a licensee owner who had been an apprentice.

Underwood told the board the report would request statutory authority to hold program sponsors accountable when apprentices are not paid hourly wages or are incorrectly treated as booth renters. “We would be able to build a case or work with the program sponsors more so, to say…we could come up with a citation. We can take action against it,” she said.

The report recommends several enforcement and program changes, among them: - Require apprentices be employees (W‑2) and earn an hourly wage; prohibit apprentices from being booth renters or paid solely by commission. The presenters stated that hourly pay for apprentices is already required by law but widely ignored. - Establish a review and approval process and a renewal fee for program sponsors so the board can recoup enforcement costs and properly manage oversight. - Limit program sponsors to using a single LEA and require that approved program locations be within 60 miles of that LEA to reduce remote, difficult‑to‑monitor “satellite” or virtual affiliates. - Require program sponsors to maintain OJT logs and daily activity records and to make those records available to the board upon request. - Require program sponsors to provide training in multiple languages where appropriate and to hold quarterly committee meetings that include the board and LEA representatives. - Create a formal disciplinary process for program sponsors similar to licensee discipline, including the option to suspend new enrollments; allow suspensions of trainers or establishments (staff discussed a proposed five‑year bar from training apprentices in egregious cases, with some board members proposing a shorter period or graduated discipline). - Require establishments to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for the full duration apprentices are employed and to provide proof upon request. - Establish a clear complaint and outreach process for apprentices, including a flyer and “victim’s” information to be mailed to current apprentices and shared with DAS and program sponsors.

Board members debated the length and structure of proposed disciplinary bans for trainers and establishment owners. Several members and task‑force participants asked for a graduated discipline schedule (warning for first offense, escalating sanctions for repeat violations) and asked staff to draft detailed procedures for a future meeting.

Public commenters supported the board’s effort but cautioned the legislature may question whether the board’s recommendations overlap with labor enforcement authorities. Fred Jones of the Professional Beauty Federation told the board that “the gatekeepers in that branch of government…are going to ask what is the mission of the State Board,” and urged the board to frame recommendations around consumer protection and demonstrable consumer harm.

The board approved the report’s inclusion in the sunset review with a roll call vote. Board staff said the draft may return once more for final edits prior to submission and that the board will be provided a focused list of subsequent changes at its next meeting.

Ending: The board directed staff to incorporate the apprenticeship task‑force recommendations into the sunset packet and to return with a refined report (and a proposed disciplinary flowchart and fee estimates) at the next meeting for final approval.