Awards season is underway in Hollywood, so now seems an appropriate time to recognize the bad, the worse, and the comically confusing in occupational licensing laws across the country. Although they might not reach the entertainment levels of restrictions on donkeys sleeping in bathtubs, some of them are still impressive head scratchers.
Worst Shampooer Licensing: Iowa
On the subject of head scratching, 33 states mandate a professional shampooer to obtain a license. As the job title makes abundantly clear, shampooers wash customers’ hair. In Iowa, the most restrictive state, obtaining a license to perform this task requires 2,100 hours of instruction, a $118 fee, and passing an exam.
However, if you want to perform hair care in Iowa, you still have reason to celebrate. After disputes about the requirement for professional hair braiders to obtain licenses, then-Republican Gov. Terry Branstad put the issue to rest by line-item vetoing the rule. Perhaps people can wash hair as freely there in the future.
Worst Barber Licensing: Nevada
Hair seems to present a particular concern for state legislatures. All 50 states and Washington, D.C., mandate licenses for barbers. Nevada has the highest regulatory burden, requiring 1,500 hours of instruction and 18 months of apprenticeship experience, totaling 896 days. It also requires $165 in fees and four exams.
Barber Licensing Dishonorable Mention: Michigan
Although Michigan has a somewhat lower total regulatory burden for barbers than Nevada, it earns a special note of hypocrisy courtesy of Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Michigan requires 1,800 hours of instruction and experience for barbers. Despite the high hurdles to becoming a barber in her state, during the COVID lockdowns, Gov. Whitmer famously advised residents to “Google how to do a haircut” after refusing to allow salons to reopen after other states had done so. Is this license really even necessary?
Worst Interior Design Licensing: Three-Way Tie
Only Washington, D.C., Louisiana, and Nevada maintain licensing laws for interior design. Although D.C. has the highest overall burden, all three have such outrageous rules that the other two earn no prizes for their minimally superior freedoms.
Washington, D.C. requires an astonishing six years of supervised or sponsored experience, $1,505 in fees, and an exam to receive a license; Nevada and Louisiana each require six years of experience and/or education, $1,485 in fees, and an exam.
Without a license in these states, designers are not legally permitted to work unsupervised by licensed designers in any place deemed a commercial space. This includes common areas in otherwise private residences, such as apartment buildings. Firms providing design services are also prohibited from operating unless at least one member is licensed, and unlicensed members may not even sign documents on behalf of the firm.
As The Manhattan Institute wryly noted, “No one has ever died from a room layout with poor feng shui, mismatched drapes, or ugly pillows.”
Yet, unbelievably, in her 2011 testimony at a Florida House hearing, interior designer Michelle Earley claimed improper interior design contributed to 88,000 deaths annually. Her supporting evidence for this claim? She cited a report finding that 88,000 patients per year died from hospital infections. Then, she concluded that because interior designers might be asked to decorate hospitals, proper interior design, using safe and bacteria-resistant fabrics, was a vital step to counter this epidemic. She typifies the established interests that want to keep occupational licenses in place to keep out new competition.
Other Worst Awards
Funeral attendants need a license in three states, tree trimmers need one in seven states, and locksmiths need one in 14 states. Butter graders (a tempting occupation, possibly worth a few extra steps to butter lovers) need a license in just two states: California and Wisconsin.
Although the odder rules may provide amusement to those who never must obtain a license, they cause true hardship for potential proprietors. They prevent some people from starting a business at all. They also increase costs for consumers. States on the list of shame should reexamine their stances.