Archive for phil stone

Will Anything Change?

Posted in Booth Rental Advice, Customer Service, Haircare Advice, Industry News with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 6, 2012 by Joseph Kellner Hairdresser/Makeup Artist in Orlando 32836

As I sit back and discover the endless possibilities we have to change our industry, I often think if the currents events are just a ban-aid on the problem of the Formaldehyde issue in our industry. Last year women’s magazines and pop culture blogs were afire with the news that the popular Brazilian Blowout–an expensive salon treatment that promises to smooth and straighten hair for up to six months–released formaldehyde, a known carcinogen. Hair Scare! Brazilian Bombshell! It was a story made for clever headlines and consumer backlash. Not only was the treatment exposing women to carcinogens, the products used in the Brazilian Blowout treatment were actually labeled “formaldehyde free,” when they clearly weren’t. Moreover, in the midst of the media blitz, the U.S. federal government’s National Toxicology Program officially added formaldehyde to its list of substances known to cause cancer, and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) declared that one product, Brazilian Blowout Acai Professional Smoothing Solution, contains “unacceptable” levels of formaldehyde.

You’ll notice, however, that the Brazilian Blowout did not disappear from salon menus. In September 2011, the FDA sent Mike Brady, chief executive officer of Brazilian Blowout maker GIB LLC, a firmly worded letter stating that the company’s products contain formaldehyde and were thus mislabeled. But while it might seem logical for the FDA to then remove that product from consumers’ reach, instead it focused on the need for the products to be labeled appropriately. According to both the letter in question and the language of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure that the products it markets are safe and otherwise in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements.

In addition to the FDA letter, GIB LLC was also sued by the state of California, where it is headquartered. The results of that suit came through in the form of a settlement that 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.

Which begs the question: Should California law–and beyond that, federal law–do more to protect consumers? After all, how many people really read labels, much less on products that are part of a third-party service? And this is a product that, because it releases formaldehyde gas, could affect even those who have chosen not to purchase it.

Opponents have argued that consumers essentially have the right to expose themselves to whatever carcinogens they choose. If you’re to pull this beauty product from shelves, the thinking goes, then you’d also have to pull cigarettes. Then again, if beauty products containing carcinogens had to have the same sort of Surgeon General warnings on them that packs of cigarettes do, perhaps companies would think twice about producing such products. The cigarette analogy works on another level: Remember how smoking bans started when advocates linked second-hand smoke exposure to unfair working conditions? The same route is likely to be taken here, with an eye toward protecting the health and rights of salon workers. Health advocates are pushing for the FDA to step in and do more, especially in light of California’s legal decisions.

The FDA, which has little authority to do much in these sorts of cases, thanks to the wording of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, did warn GIB LLC that failure to correct its violations “may result in enforcement action without further notice, including, but not limited to, seizure and/or injunction.” The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the National Healthy Nail and Beauty Salon Alliance are calling on the FDA to follow through with its threat and not only seize Brazilian Blowout products, but ban the use of formaldehyde in hair products. It sounds logical enough, but they may end up with an unlikely opponent in their quest: female consumers.

The thing is, despite nearly two years now of bad press, the Brazilian Blowout is still a popular treatment. Perhaps not quite as popular as it was, but popular nonetheless. Anecdotally, in the past six months I’ve mentioned to at least five female friends who are fond of the treatment that it contains a known carcinogen. Across the board the response was essentially the same, “Doesn’t everything cause cancer these days? Besides, personally I think it’s worth it.”

It’s a response that leads the discussion in one of two ways: On the free market side, there’s the argument that this is a product people want and they should be allowed to buy it, provided they understand the risks; on the public health side, there’s the argument that in some cases consumers need to be protected not only from companies but also from themselves. The same argument crops up around things like bag bans and proposed taxes on unhealthy food and in broader political debates about how and when government should intervene in business. Point being, while the great Brazilian Blowout debate may seem silly, the result of it could have broad implications.

Brazilian Blowout You Really Fucked Up! Hair treatment ruled carcinogenic!

Posted in Customer Service, Haircare Advice, Industry News with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 2, 2012 by Joseph Kellner Hairdresser/Makeup Artist in Orlando 32836
 
The makers of the popular Brazilian Blowout line of hair-straightening products — which can cost up to $500 per salon treatment — have agreed to change their labeling to warn consumers that the treatments can release formaldehyde gas, which is considered a carcinogen and can cause irritation of the eyes and skin, according to a report from USA Today.
The move by GIB LLC comes following a lawsuit from the California state attorney general’s office. The products are labeled as formaldehyde-free, but last September the FDA warned that Brazilian Blowout contains “dangerously high levels” of the gas. According to a report from WebMD, the FDA found that Brazilian Blowout products contained between 8.7 percent and 10.4 percent formaldehyde. Levels about 0.1 percent required an occupational hazard alert under guidelines from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

At the time, GIB CEO Mike Brady denied that his company’s products contained formaldehyde.
The FDA and OSHA issued their first health hazard about Brazilian Blowout in April 2011 to let salon workers and owners know about the potential for formaldehyde exposure from these products.
The FDA issued a warning letter to GIB on Aug. 22, 2011, saying “Brazilian Blowout contains methylene glycol, the liquid form of formaldehyde, which, under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling, releases formaldehyde when hair treated with the product is heated with a blow dryer and then with a hot flat iron.” The agency reported a wide range of health problems that had been reported by users of the products: “Adverse events have reported the following injuries associated with Brazilian Blowout: eye disorders (irritation, increased lacrimation, blurred vision, hyperaemia); nervous system disorders (headache, burning sensation, dizziness, syncope), and respiratory tract (dyspnea, cough, nasal discomfort, epistaxis, wheezing, rhinorrhea, throat irritation, nasopharyngitis). Other reported symptoms included nausea hypotrichosis, chest pain, chest discomfort, vomiting, and rash.”
The FDA has authority over product packaging, but has none over the operation of salons. OSHA, on the other hand, governs workplace safety, including air conditions.
 
 
The FDA’s warning letter presented CEO Brady with an ultimatum: “You should take prompt action to correct the violations cited in this letter. Failure to do so may result in enforcement action without further notice, including, but not limited to, seizure and/or injunction.”
 
The state of California, where GIB is located, followed the FDA’s letter with its lawsuit, charging deceptive practices.
 
Health concerns over Brazilian Blowout had been voiced for some time before the FDA letter was sent. Oregon Health & Science University issued a report about the products in September 2010 after complaints from stylists at one of that state’s salons.
 According to a March 2011 report from Fox News, Brazilian Blowout treatments can cost between $200 and $500 and last several months. Despite the growing health concerns, the products have been popular in Hollywood, where celebrities such as Nicole Kidman and Halle Berry have used the treatment.
GIB has agreed to pay $600,000 in penalties and fines and provide salons with a product safety brochure. The company has already changed the labeling of its products. The saddest thing about this whole situation it took a organization outside of our industry to do something about the proble. Way to go pba.org it’s all about manufacturer dollars in my industry. You all suck!

Change your Industry? Really think about it! Change is good!

Posted in Booth Rental Advice, Industry News with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 25, 2012 by Joseph Kellner Hairdresser/Makeup Artist in Orlando 32836

Does the thought of cosmetology losing its professional status by the elimination of the license sends chills up and down your spine? Hold on folks, don’t worry! There are a lot of ways to lose your professional status other than the elimination of a license.

Think about most of the other industrialized countries that do not have licenses and no harm has come to them as a result of not being licensed. As a matter of fact, the cosmetologist are held in higher esteem than are their counterparts in the US. As it stands now, beauty schools have to teach their students the criteria to pass the licensing examination. Their future funding is based on their ability to have their students pass their arbitrary examination, which has little to do with real life in the salon. Furthermore, beauty schools may put as many cosmetologist into the workforce as possible, without any requirement for schools to support job placement. 

The Indiana Regulated Occupational Evaluation Committee (ROEC) had it right when they said the cosmetology profession should be self-regulating. “We all have friends who have their hair done, so all we need do is ask someone for a recommendation”. In fact, salons are reliant on repeat business. Without that dynamic, salons cannot stay in business. I would suggest there would be no harm coming to the salons if the license is eliminated. Those who are thriving would continue to thrive, those who are struggling would continue to struggle or go out of business. Consumers would draw their own conclusions as to what salons they would frequent. 

ROEC states,”..a voluntary organization to be formed, based on a small fee from each professional.  Membership in the voluntary organization could be based on prescribed qualifications that would provide a basis for designation as a preferred provider. Professionals who choose to practice without the preferred provider designation would do so at their own risk in the marketplace.” 

Salons would have something to say about how their future employees are to be trained while in school. Currently, schools do not listen to the needs of licensed cosmetologist and salon owners. If we suggest a change of curriculum, they respond that curricula is mandated by the state board. To those who say, “If there is no license than anyone can do hair”, my response is “Anyone can do hair now and they are.” In California, the Cosmetology Board licenses 35,000 annually, and no jobs are being created. It’s naive to think these people are not doing someone’s hair.   According to the ROEC, “The cosmetology license does not prevent practitioners from incompetence. As a matter of fact, most of the complaints received by State Board come from people reporting unlicensed activity”.  

I have trained many apprentices through the years. Something happens to the apprentice at the end of their two-year apprenticeship when they become licensed. They often cop an attitude like now I am as good him (me) since I have the same license as he does. Once a person earns their license, not all but many, feel they have nothing else to learn. I, myself, had the same attitude when graduating and becoming licensed. So before you rant about it, stop and think about what it would be like with just an apprenticeship program. The ONLY reason to go to beauty school is to become a professional cosmetologist. Sadly, that is no longer the case. This bill will also clean out all the industry SCUM BAGS, that push students through for their acquisition of Pell Grants, Government loans etc. Not worrying about the education they give to students, but to make a profit from the students. Remember this is just a license, that is why we go to beauty school to be trained to take a test. THAT IS IT! In my industry I always hear from so-called professionals these students don’t know anything, well my opinion is don’t blame the student, blame the schooling they receive. How would you like to be ripped off financially for a beauty school education, take a look at the price’s of tuition at the Paul Mitchell schools. It’s crazy to pay huge amounts for schooling that teach’s you only the requirements for a state test. Europeans has no license. Do you think in the state of Florida the continuing education requirements are kept up to date, There not. Change is good everyone.  But when you really take the time to research this industry, you really find out that corruption will prevail, financial attainment by manufacturers and beauty schools will have the final say on CHANGE IN THIS INDUSTRY. It all comes back to the manufacturer dollar, in this industry.  And there will be no change in this industry unless YOU change. Change in the way your handle your retail space, your employment practices, researching what are the most “SAFE” products you can use in the salon and on your customers, learn to think on your own and not taking a manufacturers word as gospel, quit playing follow the leader and elect your own industry leaders, learn how to say “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH”. 

Change is Good!

Federal Guidelines The Beauty Industry Must Follow For Permissible Exposure Limit to Airborne Formaldehyde

Posted in Booth Rental Advice, Customer Service, Haircolor Advice, Haircare Advice, Industry News with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 11, 2012 by Joseph Kellner Hairdresser/Makeup Artist in Orlando 32836

In our industry a salon owner will more or less do what is legally correct for there employee’s. Being a fully functional and viable business is far and few in my industry. The bottom line is the almighty dollar!  Shortcuts for the health and welfare of employee’s are consider abundant and the ever mounting chemicals that are used in the salon grow newer and newer each and every year. You life is very important and the care involved with protecting your body and health should be first and foremost to the employer in our industry. But it is also your responsibility to speak up and question about the environment that you work in on a daily basis. If you are a employee of a salon make sure the lighting is working properly in your salon, if not speak up. Straining of the yes will limit the focusing power of the eye. Making headaches a every day happening, and if your client cannot see the service that he or she just paid for. Well that is not a good impression for you to give, and it will fall back on you not the salon owner. Air conditioning should work properly in the salon. Working in Florida the hot summer months will sap all the energy out of you and leave you and your client with a very unforgettable appointment. Look out if the salon owner is trying to cut costs with air-conditioning in your salon. If you chair does not properly lock, and does not basically work this will lead to back problems for you. Fix the problem, speak up. when dealing with a chemical in your salon, make sure the owner has proper MSDS sheets on the product in the salon. Also ask the manufacturer for the ingredients list of the product. If they will not give it to you then call your local OSHA OFFICE .

They will gladly assign an agent to get the proper material that you will need for using these products in your salon. Do not take the advice or the word of the salon owner ask question to your employer. If you are a booth renter in a salon that also has commission employee’s ask the salon owner for the chemical product list he or she use’s in the salon and make sure that they meet the requirements of OSHA! Do not use chemicals that you are unsure of. Trust your inner voice. Ask questions. You have only one life and one body protect it. The salon charges for these keratin treatments are not worth your health at all. And simply do not take the work of a manufacturer in our industry, research you products and give the Best To Your Clients! And protect your body. Below are the Permissible Exposure Limits to Airborne Formaldehyde in your salon, read these carefully and if you are unsure please contact your local OSHA OFFICE. You do not need to breathe these chemicals in your body and also you need to research what you are using in the salon. In a commission salon you are at the whims of the salon owner, INVESTIGATE AND MOST OF ALL REPORT IF YOU ARE EXPOSED TO THESE PRODUCTS!

The employer shall establish regulated areas where the concentration of airborne formaldehyde exceeds either the TWA or the STEL and post all entrances and accessways with signs bearing the following information:

DANGER
FORMALDEHYDE
IRRITANT AND POTENTIAL CANCER HAZARD
AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY
 

The employer shall limit access to regulated areas to authorized persons who have been trained to recognize the hazards of formaldehyde.

1910.1048(e)(3)

An employer at a multiemployer worksite who establishes a regulated area shall communicate the access restrictions and locations of these areas to other employers with work operations at that worksite.

1910.1048(f)

Methods of compliance -

1910.1048(f)(1)

Engineering controls and work practices. The employer shall institute engineering and work practice controls to reduce and maintain employee exposures to formaldehyde at or below the TWA and the STEL.

1910.1048(f)(2)

Exception. Whenever the employer has established that feasible engineering and work practice controls cannot reduce employee exposure to or below either of the PELs, the employer shall apply these controls to reduce employee exposures to the extent feasible and shall supplement them with respirators which satisfy this standard.

1910.1048(g)

Respiratory protection.

1910.1048(g)(1)

General. For employees who use respirators required by this section, the employer must provide each employee an appropriate respirator that complies with the requirements of this paragraph. Respirators must be used during:

1910.1048(g)(1)(i)

Periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering and work-practice controls.

1910.1048(g)(1)(ii)

Work operations, such as maintenance and repair activities or vessel cleaning, for which the employer establishes that engineering and work-practice controls are not feasible.

1910.1048(g)(1)(iii)

Work operations for which feasible engineering and work- practice controls are not yet sufficient to reduce employee exposure to or below the PELs.

Respirator program.

1910.1048(g)(2)(i)

The employer must implement a respiratory protection program in accordance with § 1910.134(b) through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii), (d)(3)(iii)(b)(1), and (2)), and (f) through (m), which covers each employee required by this section to use a respirator.

1910.1048(g)(2)(ii)

When employees use air-purifying respirators with chemical cartridges or canisters that do not contain end-of-service-life indicators approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, employers must replace these cartridges or canisters as specified by paragraphs (d)(3)(iii)(B)(1) and (B)(2) of 29 CFR 1910.134, or at the end of the workshift, whichever condition occurs first.

1910.1048(g)(2)(ii)(A)

Replace the cartridge after three (3) hours of use or at the end of the workshift, whichever occurs first, unless the cartridge contains a NIOSH-approved end-of-service-life indicator (ESLI) to show when breakthrough occurs.

1910.1048(g)(2)(ii)(B)

Unless the canister contains a NIOSH-approved ESLI to show when breakthrough occurs, replace canisters used in atmospheres up to 7.5 ppm (10xPEL) every four (4) hours and industrial-sized canisters used in atmospheres up to 75 ppm (100xPEL) every two (2) hours, or at the end of the workshift, whichever occurs first.

1910.1048(g)(3)

Respirator selection.

1910.1048(g)(3)(i)

Employers must:

1910.1048(g)(3)(i)(A)

Select, and provide to employees, the appropriate respirators specified in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A) of 29 CFR 1910.134.

1910.1048(g)(3)(i)(B)

Equip each air-purifying, full facepiece respirator with a canister or cartridge approved for protection against formaldehyde.

1910.1048(g)(3)(i)(C)

For escape, provide employees with one of the following respirator options: A self-contained breathing apparatus operated in the demand or pressure-demand mode; or a full facepiece respirator having a chin-style, or a front-or back-mounted industrial-size, canister or cartridge approved for protection against formaldehyde.

1910.1048(g)(3)(ii)

Employers may substitute an air-purifying, half mask respirator for an air-purifying, full facepiece respirator when they equip the half mask respirator with a cartridge approved for protection against formaldehyde and provide the affected employee with effective gas-proof goggles.

1910.1048(g)(3)(iii)

Employers must provide employees who have difficulty using negative pressure respirators with powered air-purifying respirators permitted for use under paragraph (g)(3)(i)(A) of this standard and that affords adequate protection against formaldehyde exposures.

1910.1048(h)

Protective equipment and clothing. Employers shall comply with the provisions of 29 CFR 1910.132 and 29 CFR 1910.133. When protective equipment or clothing is provided under these provisions, the employer shall provide these protective devices at no cost to the employee and assure that the employee wears them.

1910.1048(h)(1)

Selection. The employer shall select protective clothing and equipment based upon the form of formaldehyde to be encountered, the conditions of use, and the hazard to be prevented.

1910.1048(h)(1)(i)

All contact of the eyes and skin with liquids containing 1 percent or more formaldehyde shall be prevented by the use of chemical protective clothing made of material impervious to formaldehyde and the use of other personal protective equipment, such as goggles and face shields, as appropriate to the operation.

1910.1048(h)(1)(ii)

Contact with irritating or sensitizing materials shall be prevented to the extent necessary to eliminate the hazard.

1910.1048(h)(1)(iii)

Where a face shield is worn, chemical safety goggles are also required if there is a danger of formaldehyde reaching the area of the eye.

1910.1048(h)(1)(iv)

Full body protection shall be worn for entry into areas where concentrations exceed 100 ppm and for emergency reentry into areas of unknown concentration.

1910.1048(h)(2)

Maintenance of protective equipment and clothing.

1910.1048(h)(2)(i)

The employer shall assure that protective equipment and clothing that has become contaminated with formaldehyde is cleaned or laundered before its reuse.

1910.1048(h)(2)(ii)

When ventilating formaldehyde-contaminated clothing and equipment, the employer shall establish a storage area so that employee exposure is minimized. Containers for contaminated clothing and equipment and storage areas shall have labels and signs containing the following information:

DANGER
FORMALDEHYDE-CONTAMINATED [CLOTHING] EQUIPMENT
AVOID INHALATION AND SKIN CONTACT

1910.1048(h)(2)(iii)

The employer shall assure that only persons trained to recognize the hazards of formaldehyde remove the contaminated material from the storage area for purposes of cleaning, laundering, or disposal.

1910.1048(h)(2)(iv)

The employer shall assure that no employee takes home equipment or clothing that is contaminated with formaldehyde.

1910.1048(h)(2)(v)

The employer shall repair or replace all required protective clothing and equipment for each affected employee as necessary to assure its effectiveness.

1910.1048(h)(2)(vi)

The employer shall inform any person who launders, cleans, or repairs such clothing or equipment of formaldehyde’s potentially harmful effects and of procedures to safely handle the clothing and equipment.

1910.1048(i)

Hygiene protection.

1910.1048(i)(1)

The employer shall provide change rooms, as described in 29 CFR 1910.141 for employees who are required to change from work clothing into protective clothing to prevent skin contact with formaldehyde.

1910.1048(i)(2)

If employees’ skin may become splashed with solutions containing 1 percent or greater formaldehyde, for example, because of equipment failure or improper work practices, the employer shall provide conveniently located quick drench showers and assure that affected employees use these facilities immediately.

1910.1048(i)(3)

If there is any possibility that an employee’s eyes may be splashed with solutions containing 0.1 percent or greater formaldehyde, the employer shall provide acceptable eyewash facilities within the immediate work area for emergency use.

1910.1048(j)

Housekeeping. For operations involving formaldehyde liquids or gas, the employer shall conduct a program to detect leaks and spills, including regular visual inspections.

1910.1048(j)(1)

Preventative maintenance of equipment, including surveys for leaks, shall be undertaken at regular intervals.

1910.1048(j)(2)

In work areas where spillage may occur, the employer shall make provisions to contain the spill, to decontaminate the work area, and to dispose of the waste.

1910.1048(j)(3)

The employer shall assure that all leaks are repaired and spills are cleaned promptly by employees wearing suitable protective equipment and trained in proper methods for cleanup and decontamination.

1910.1048(j)(4)

Formaldehyde-contaminated waste and debris resulting from leaks or spills shall be placed for disposal in sealed containers bearing a label warning of formaldehyde’s presence and of the hazards associated with formaldehyde.

1910.1048(k)

Emergencies. For each workplace where there is the possibility of an emergency involving formaldehyde, the employer shall assure appropriate procedures are adopted to minimize injury and loss of life. Appropriate procedures shall be implemented in the event of an emergency.

1910.1048(l)

Medical surveillance -

1910.1048(l)(1)

Employees covered.

1910.1048(l)(1)(i)

The employer shall institute medical surveillance programs for all employees exposed to formaldehyde at concentrations at or exceeding the action level or exceeding the STEL.

1910.1048(l)(1)(ii)

The employer shall make medical surveillance available for employees who develop signs and symptoms of overexposure to formaldehyde and for all employees exposed to formaldehyde in emergencies. When determining whether an employee may be experiencing signs and symptoms of possible overexposure to formaldehyde, the employer may rely on the evidence that signs and symptoms associated with formaldehyde exposure will occur only in exceptional circumstances when airborne exposure is less than 0.1 ppm and when formaldehyde is present in material in concentrations less than 0.1 percent.

1910.1048(l)(2)

Examination by a physician. All medical procedures, including administration of medical disease questionnaires, shall be performed by or under the supervision of a licensed physician and shall be provided without cost to the employee, without loss of pay, and at a reasonable time and place.

1910.1048(l)(3)

Medical disease questionnaire. The employer shall make the following medical surveillance available to employees prior to assignment to a job where formaldehyde exposure is at or above the action level or above the STEL and annually thereafter. The employer shall also make the following medical surveillance available promptly upon determining that an employee is experiencing signs and symptoms indicative of possible overexposure to formaldehyde.

1910.1048(l)(3)(i)

Administration of a medical disease questionnaire, such as in Appendix D, which is designed to elicit information on work history, smoking history, any evidence of eye, nose, or throat irritation; chronic airway problems or hyperreactive airway disease: allergic skin conditions or dermatitis; and upper or lower respiratory problems.

1910.1048(l)(3)(ii)

A determination by the physician, based on evaluation of the medical disease questionnaire, of whether a medical examination is necessary for employees not required to wear respirators to reduce exposure to formaldehyde.

1910.1048(l)(4)

Medical examinations. Medical examinations shall be given to any employee who the physician feels, based on information in the medical disease questionnaire, may be at increased risk from exposure to formaldehyde and at the time of initial assignment and at least annually thereafter to all employees required to wear a respirator to reduce exposure to formaldehyde. The medical examination shall include:

1910.1048(l)(4)(i)

A physical examination with emphasis on evidence of irritation or sensitization of the skin and respiratory system, shortness of breath, or irritation of the eyes.

1910.1048(l)(4)(ii)

Laboratory examinations for respirator wearers consisting of baseline and annual pulmonary function tests. As a minimum, these tests shall consist of forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)), and forced expiratory flow (FEF).

1910.1048(l)(4)(iii)

Any other test which the examining physician deems necessary to complete the written opinion.

1910.1048(l)(4)(iv)

Counseling of employees having medical conditions that would be directly or indirectly aggravated by exposure to formaldehyde on the increased risk of impairment of their health.

1910.1048(l)(5)

Examinations for employees exposed in an emergency. The employer shall make medical examinations available as soon as possible to all employees who have been exposed to formaldehyde in an emergency.

1910.1048(l)(5)(i)

The examination shall include a medical and work history with emphasis on any evidence of upper or lower respiratory problems, allergic conditions, skin reaction or hypersensitivity, and any evidence of eye, nose, or throat irritation.

1910.1048(l)(5)(ii)

Other examinations shall consist of those elements considered appropriate by the examining physician.

1910.1048(l)(6)

Information provided to the physician. The employer shall provide the following information to the examining physician:

1910.1048(l)(6)(i)

A copy of this standard and Appendix A, C, D, and E;

1910.1048(l)(6)(ii)

A description of the affected employee’s job duties as they relate to the employee’s exposure to formaldehyde;

1910.1048(l)(6)(iii)

The representative exposure level for the employee’s job assignment;

1910.1048(l)(6)(iv)

Information concerning any personal protective equipment and respiratory protection used or to be used by the employee; and

1910.1048(l)(6)(v)

Information from previous medical examinations of the affected employee within the control of the employer.

1910.1048(l)(6)(vi)

In the event of a nonroutine examination because of an emergency, the employer shall provide to the physician as soon as possible: a description of how the emergency occurred and the exposure the victim may have received.

1910.1048(l)(7)

Physician’s written opinion.

1910.1048(l)(7)(i)

For each examination required under this standard, the employer shall obtain a written opinion from the examining physician. This written opinion shall contain the results of the medical examination except that it shall not reveal specific findings or diagnoses unrelated to occupational exposure to formaldehyde. The written opinion shall include:

1910.1048(l)(7)(i)(A)

The physician’s opinion as to whether the employee has any medical condition that would place the employee at an increased risk of material impairment of health from exposure to formaldehyde;

1910.1048(l)(7)(i)(B)

Any recommended limitations on the employee’s exposure or changes in the use of personal protective equipment, including respirators;

1910.1048(l)(7)(i)(C)

A statement that the employee has been informed by the physician of any medical conditions which would be aggravated by exposure to formaldehyde, whether these conditions may have resulted from past formaldehyde exposure or from exposure in an emergency, and whether there is a need for further examination or treatment.

1910.1048(l)(7)(ii)

The employer shall provide for retention of the results of the medical examination and tests conducted by the physician.

1910.1048(l)(7)(iii)

The employer shall provide a copy of the physician’s written opinion to the affected employee within 15 days of its receipt.

1910.1048(l)(8)

Medical removal.

1910.1048(l)(8)(i)

The provisions of paragraph (l)(8) apply when an employee reports significant irritation of the mucosa of the eyes or of the upper airways, respiratory sensitization, dermal irritation, or dermal sensitization attributed to workplace formaldehyde exposure. Medical removal provisions do not apply in the case of dermal irritation or dermal sensitization when the product suspected of causing the dermal condition contains less than 0.05 percent formaldehyde.

1910.1048(l)(8)(ii)

An employee’s report of signs or symptoms of possible overexposure to formaldehyde shall be evaluated by a physician selected by the employer pursuant to paragraph (l)(3). If the physician determines that a medical examination is not necessary under paragraph (l)(3)(ii), there shall be a two-week evaluation and remediation period to permit the employer to ascertain whether the signs or symptoms subside untreated or with the use of creams, gloves, first aid treatment or personal protective equipment. Industrial hygiene measures that limit the employee’s exposure to formaldehyde may also be implemented during this period. The employee shall be referred immediately to a physician prior to expiration of the two-week period if the signs or symptoms worsen. Earnings, seniority and benefits may not be altered during the two-week period by virtue of the report.

1910.1048(l)(8)(iii)

If the signs or symptoms have not subsided or been remedied by the end of the two-week period, or earlier if signs or symptoms warrant, the employee shall be examined by a physician selected by the employer. The physician shall presume, absent contrary evidence, that observed dermal irritation or dermal sensitization are not attributable to formaldehyde when products to which the affected employee is exposed contain less than 0.1 percent formaldehyde.

1910.1048(l)(8)(iv)

Medical examinations shall be conducted in compliance with the requirements of paragraph (l)(5)(i) and (ii). Additional guidelines for conducting medical exams are contained in Appendix C.

1910.1048(l)(8)(v)

If the physician finds that significant irritation of the mucosa of the eyes or of the upper airways, respiratory sensitization, dermal irritation, or dermal sensitization result from workplace formaldehyde exposure and recommends restrictions or removal, the employer shall promptly comply with the restrictions or recommendation of removal. In the event of a recommendation of removal, the employer shall remove the affected employee from the current formaldehyde exposure and if possible, transfer the employee to work having no or significantly less exposure to formaldehyde.

1910.1048(l)(8)(vi)

When an employee is removed pursuant to paragraph (l)(8)(v), the employer shall transfer the employee to comparable work for which the employee is qualified or can be trained in a short period (up to 6 months), where the formaldehyde exposures are as low as possible, but not higher than the action level. The employer shall maintain the employee’s current earnings, seniority, and other benefits. If there is no such work available, the employer shall maintain the employee’s current earnings, seniority and other benefits until such work becomes available, until the employee is determined to be unable to return to workplace formaldehyde exposure, until the employee is determined to be able to return to the original job status, or for six months, whichever comes first.

1910.1048(l)(8)(vii)

The employer shall arrange for a follow-up medical examination to take place within six months after the employee is removed pursuant to this paragraph. This examination shall determine if the employee can return to the original job status, or if the removal is to be permanent. The physician shall make a decision within six months of the date the employee was removed as to whether the employee can be returned to the original job status, or if the removal is to be permanent.

1910.1048(l)(8)(viii)

An employer’s obligation to provide earnings, seniority and other benefits to a removed employee may be reduced to the extent that the employee receives compensation for earnings lost during the period of removal either from a publicly or employer-funded compensation program or from employment with another employer made possible by virtue of the employee’s removal.

1910.1048(l)(8)(ix)

In making determinations of the formaldehyde content of materials under this paragraph the employer may rely on objective data.

1910.1048(l)(9)

Multiple physician review.

1910.1048(l)(9)(i)

After the employer selects the initial physician who conducts any medical examination or consultation to determine whether medical removal or restriction is appropriate, the employee may designate a second physician to review any findings, determinations or recommendations of the initial physician and to conduct such examinations, consultations,and laboratory tests as the second physician deems necessary and appropriate to evaluate the effects of formaldehyde exposure and to facilitate this review.

1910.1048(l)(9)(ii)

The employer shall promptly notify an employee of the right to seek a second medical opinion after each occasion that an initial physician conducts a medical examination or consultation for the purpose of medical removal or restriction.

1910.1048(l)(9)(iii)

The employer may condition its participation in, and payment for, the multiple physician review mechanism upon the employee doing the following within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the notification of the right to seek a second medical opinion, or receipt of the initial physician’s written opinion, whichever is later;

1910.1048(l)(9)(iii)(A)

The employee informs the employer of the intention to seek a second medical opinion, and

1910.1048(l)(9)(iii)(B)

The employee initiates steps to make an appointment with a second physician.

1910.1048(l)(9)(iv)

If the findings, determinations or recommendations of the second physician differ from those of the initial physician, then the employer and the employee shall assure that efforts are made for the two physicians to resolve the disagreement. If the two physicians are unable to quickly resolve their disagreement, then the employer and the employee through their respective physicians shall designate a third physician who shall be a specialist in the field at issue:

1910.1048(l)(9)(iv)(A)

To review the findings, determinations or recommendations of the prior physicians; and

1910.1048(l)(9)(iv)(B)

To conduct such examinations, consultations, laboratory tests and discussions with the prior physicians as the third physician deems necessary to resolve the disagreement of the prior physicians.

1910.1048(l)(9)(v)

In the alternative, the employer and the employee or authorized employee representative may jointly designate such third physician.

1910.1048(l)(9)(vi)

The employer shall act consistent with the findings, determinations and recommendations of the third physician, unless the employer and the employee reach an agreement which is otherwise consistent with the recommendations of at least one of the three physicians.

1910.1048(m)

Hazard communication -

1910.1048(m)(1)

General. Communication of the hazards associated with formaldehyde in the workplace shall be governed by the requirements of paragraph (m). The definitions of 29 CFR 1910.1200 (c) shall apply under this paragraph.

1910.1048(m)(1)(i)

The following shall be subject to the hazard communication requirements of this paragraph: formaldehyde gas, all mixtures or solutions composed of greater than 0.1 percent formaldehyde, and materials capable of releasing formaldehyde into the air, under reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, at concentrations reaching or exceeding 0.1 ppm.

1910.1048(m)(1)(ii)

As a minimum, specific health hazards that the employer shall address are: cancer, irritation and sensitization of the skin and respiratory system, eye and throat irritation, and acute toxicity.

1910.1048(m)(2)

Manufacturers and importers who produce or import formaldehyde or formaldehyde-containing products shall provide downstream employers using or handling these products with an objective determination through the required labels and MSDSs if these items may constitute a health hazard within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.1200(d) under normal conditions of use.

1910.1048(m)(3)

Labels.

1910.1048(m)(3)(i)

The employer shall assure that hazard warning labels complying with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1200(f) are affixed to all containers of materials listed in paragraph (m)(1)(i), except to the extent that 29 CFR 1910.1200(f) is inconsistent with this paragraph.

1910.1048(m)(3)(ii)

Information on labels. As a minimum, for all materials listed in paragraph (m)(1)(i) capable of releasing formaldehyde at levels of 0.1 ppm to 0.5 ppm, labels shall identify that the product contains formaldehyde; list the name and address of the responsible party; and state that physical and health hazard information is readily available from the employer and from material safety data sheets.

1910.1048(m)(3)(iii)

For materials listed in paragraph (m)(1)(i) capable of releasing formaldehyde at levels above 0.5 ppm, labels shall appropriately address all hazards as defined in 29 CFR 1910.1200 (d) and 29 CFR 1910.1200 Appendices A and B, including respiratory sensitization, and shall contain the words “Potential Cancer Hazard.”

1910.1048(m)(3)(iv)

In making the determinations of anticipated levels of formaldehyde release, the employer may rely on objective data indicating the extent of potential formaldehyde release under reasonably foreseeable conditions of use.

1910.1048(m)(3)(v)

Substitute warning labels. The employer may use warning labels required by other statutes, regulations, or ordinances which impart the same information as the warning statements required by this paragraph.

1910.1048(m)(4)

Material safety data sheets.

1910.1048(m)(4)(i)

Any employer who uses formaldehyde-containing materials listed in paragraph (m)(1)(i) shall comply with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1200(g) with regard to the development and updating of material safety data sheets.

1910.1048(m)(4)(ii)

Manufacturers, importers, and distributors of formaldehyde-containing materials listed in paragraph (m)(1)(i) shall assure that material safety data sheets and updated information are provided to all employers purchasing such materials at the time of the initial shipment and at the time of the first shipment after a material safety data sheet is updated.

1910.1048(m)(5)

Written hazard communication program. The employer shall develop, implement, and maintain at the workplace, a written hazard communication program for formaldehyde exposures in the workplace, which at a minimum describes how the requirements specified in this paragraph for labels and other forms of warning and material safety data sheets, and paragraph (n) for employee information and training, will be met. Employers in multi-employer workplaces shall comply with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(2).

Employee information and training -

1910.1048(n)(1)

Participation. The employer shall assure that all employees who are assigned to workplaces where there is exposure to formaldehyde participate in a training program, except that where the employer can show, using objective data, that employees are not exposed to formaldehyde at or above 0.1 ppm, the employer is not required to provide training.

1910.1048(n)(2)

Frequency. Employers shall provide such information and training to employees at the time of initial assignment, and whenever a new exposure to formaldehyde is introduced into the work area. The training shall be repeated at least annually.

1910.1048(n)(3)

Training program. The training program shall be conducted in a manner which the employee is able to understand and shall include:

1910.1048(n)(3)(i)

A discussion of the contents of this regulation and the contents of the Material Safety Data Sheet.

1910.1048(n)(3)(ii)

The purpose for and a description of the medical surveillance program required by this standard, including:

1910.1048(n)(3)(ii)(A)

A description of the potential health hazards associated with exposure to formaldehyde and a description of the signs and symptoms of exposure to formaldehyde.

1910.1048(n)(3)(ii)(B)

Instructions to immediately report to the employer the development of any adverse signs or symptoms that the employee suspects is attributable to formaldehyde exposure.

1910.1048(n)(3)(iii)

Description of operations in the work area where formaldehyde is present and an explanation of the safe work practices appropriate for limiting exposure to formaldehyde in each job;

1910.1048(n)(3)(iv)

The purpose for, proper use of, and limitations of personal protective clothing and equipment;

1910.1048(n)(3)(v)

Instructions for the handling of spills, emergencies, and clean-up procedures;

1910.1048(n)(3)(vi)

An explanation of the importance of engineering and work practice controls for employee protection and any necessary instruction in the use of these controls; and

1910.1048(n)(3)(vii)

A review of emergency procedures including the specific duties or assignments of each employee in the event of an emergency.

1910.1048(n)(4)

Access to training materials.

1910.1048(n)(4)(i)

The employer shall inform all affected employees of the location of written training materials and shall make these materials readily available, without cost, to the affected employees.

1910.1048(n)(4)(ii)

The employer shall provide, upon request, all training materials relating to the employee training program to the Assistant Secretary and the Director.

1910.1048(o)

Recordkeeping -

1910.1048(o)(1)

Exposure measurements. The employer shall establish and maintain an accurate record of all measurements taken to monitor employee exposure to formaldehyde. This record shall include:

1910.1048(o)(1)(i)

The date of measurement;

1910.1048(o)(1)(ii)

The operation being monitored;

1910.1048(o)(1)(iii)

The methods of sampling and analysis and evidence of their accuracy and precision;

1910.1048(o)(1)(iv)

The number, durations, time, and results of samples taken;

1910.1048(o)(1)(v)

The types of protective devices worn; and

1910.1048(o)(1)(vi)

The names, job classifications, social security numbers, and exposure estimates of the employees whose exposures are represented by the actual monitoring results.

1910.1048(o)(2)

Exposure determinations. Where the employer has determined that no monitoring is required under this standard, the employer shall maintain a record of the objective data relied upon to support the determination that no employee is exposed to formaldehyde at or above the action level.

1910.1048(o)(3)

Medical surveillance. The employer shall establish and maintain an accurate record for each employee subject to medical surveillance under this standard. This record shall include:

1910.1048(o)(3)(i)

The name and social security number of the employee;

1910.1048(o)(3)(ii)

The physician’s written opinion;

1910.1048(o)(3)(iii)

A list of any employee health complaints that may be related to exposure to formaldehyde; and

1910.1048(o)(3)(iv)

A copy of the medical examination results, including medical disease questionnaires and results of any medical tests required by the standard or mandated by the examining physician.

1910.1048(o)(4)

Respirator fit testing.

1910.1048(o)(4)(i)

The employer shall establish and maintain accurate records for employees subject to negative pressure respirator fit testing required by this standard.

1910.1048(o)(4)(ii)

This record shall include:

1910.1048(o)(4)(ii)(A)

A copy of the protocol selected for respirator fit testing.

1910.1048(o)(4)(ii)(B)

A copy of the results of any fit testing performed.

1910.1048(o)(4)(ii)(C)

The size and manufacturer of the types of respirators available for selection.

1910.1048(o)(4)(ii)(D)

The date of the most recent fit testing, the name and social security number of each tested employee, and the respirator type and facepiece selected.

1910.1048(o)(5)

Record retention. The employer shall retain records required by this standard for at least the following periods:

1910.1048(o)(5)(i)

Exposure records and determinations shall be kept for at least 30 years.

1910.1048(o)(5)(ii)

Medical records shall be kept for the duration of employment plus 30 years.

1910.1048(o)(5)(iii)

Respirator fit testing records shall be kept until replaced by a more recent record.

1910.1048(o)(6)

Availability of records.

1910.1048(o)(6)(i)

Upon request, the employer shall make all records maintained as a requirement of this standard available for examination and copying to the Assistant Secretary and the Director.

1910.1048(o)(6)(ii)

The employer shall make employee exposure records, including estimates made from representative monitoring and available upon request for examination, and copying to the subject employee, or former employee, and employee representatives in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020 (a)-(e) and (g)-(i).

1910.1048(o)(6)(iii)

Employee medical records required by this standard shall be provided upon request for examination and copying, to the subject employee or former employee or to anyone having the specific written consent of the subject employee or former employee in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020 (a)-(e) and (g)-(i).

What can I do to reduce exposure to formaldehyde, Does your salon owner?

Posted in Booth Rental Advice, Customer Service, Haircare Advice, Haircolor Advice, Industry News with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 21, 2011 by Joseph Kellner Hairdresser/Makeup Artist in Orlando 32836

What can I do to reduce exposure to formaldehyde when using formaldehyde releasing hair smoothing/straightening products?

Employers, stylists, and other salon workers should read the product information and MSDSs for the products they buy and use so that they know what chemicals are in them and how to use them safely in the workplace. The best way to control exposure to formaldehyde is to use products that do not list formaldehyde, formalin, methylene glycol, or any of the other names for formaldehyde listed above on the label or in the MSDS. Beauty care companies are now making and selling products that they claim do not contain formaldehyde in the solution. Choosing one of these products might eliminate the risk of formaldehyde exposure. Note that just because a product doesn’t list formaldehyde, formalin, or methylene glycol does not mean that it does not contain any other hazardous ingredients.

If salon owners decide to use products that contain or release formaldehyde, then they must follow the requirements in OSHA’s Formaldehyde standard. The standard requires that employers test the air to find out the level of formaldehyde present in the air when the product is being used. If the test shows that formaldehyde is present at levels above OSHA’s limits (0.75 parts of formaldehyde per million parts (or ppm) of air during an 8-hour work shift or 2 ppm during any 15-minute period), then the employer must:

  • Install air ventilation systems in the areas where these products are mixed and used to help keep formaldehyde levels below OSHA’s limit and perform regular maintenance to make sure the systems work correctly;
  • When possible, require workers to use lower heat settings on blow-dryers and flat irons used during the process;
  • Give workers respirators, if needed; train them to use the respirator properly; and meet the other requirements in OSHA’s Respiratory protection standard, 29 CFR 1910.134;
  • Ensure workers understand the information on a product’s label and MSDS;
  • Post signs at entryways to any area where formaldehyde is above OSHA’s limit to tell workers of the danger and stating that only authorized personnel may enter;
  • Tell workers about the health effects of formaldehyde, how to use the product safely, and what personal protective equipment to wear while using the product; and
  • Train workers how to safely clean up spills and properly throw products out.

In addition, where the tests show that formaldehyde is present in the air at a level of 0.5 ppm during an 8-hour work shift or 2 ppm during any 15-minute period, then the employer must:

  • Get workers the right medical attention (e.g., doctor exams), and
  • Test the air periodically to make sure that formaldehyde levels are below OSHA’s limits.

Whether or not air tests show formaldehyde levels above OSHA’s limits, employers must follow certain parts of the standard if a product contains formaldehyde:

  • Give employees appropriate gloves and other personal protective equipment (e.g., face shield, chemical splash goggles, chemical-resistant aprons) and train them on how to use this equipment while mixing and applying the products;
  • Explain to workers how to read and understand the information on a product’s label and MSDS;
  • Make sure the workplace has eye and skin washing equipment if products that contain formaldehyde could be splashed onto the workers’ skin or into their eyes;
  • Train workers how to safely clean up spills and properly throw products out; and
  • Get workers the right medical attention (e.g., doctor exams) if they develop signs and symptoms of an exposure to formaldehyde or are exposed to large amounts of formaldehyde during an emergency (e.g., a large spill).

Employers must also keep records of the air tests they perform, any medical attention needed by their employees, and respirator fit-testing. Do you actually think a salon owner is going to do this??????

Valid Or Not Valid: The Truth about Contracts

Posted in Industry News with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 2, 2011 by Joseph Kellner Hairdresser/Makeup Artist in Orlando 32836

So many professionals have invested in our beauty industry in becoming a Paul Mitchel salon. And have been let down by the huge conglomerate by not policing their end of the contract that they make you sign when purchasing the hair care line in your salon. That is why there is a huge class action lawsuit brought on to them by no one but themselves.  Contracts in this profession do not hold up in court.  This false advertising lawsuit was filed in New York Federal Court on July 1, 2010, against the following: L’Oreal USA, Inc., the owners of Matrix, Redken, Pureology, Kerastase and others; The Procter and Gamble Company, the owners of Wella, Sebastian, Nioxin, and Graham Webb; Conair Corporation, the owners of Rusk; Farouk Systems, Inc., the owners of Chi and Biosilk; Sexy Hair Concepts, LLC; Tigi Linea, LP; and John Paul Mitchell Systems. This is what corporate greed gets you. 
The purpose of a contract is to ensure the completion of actions based on specific guidelines or stipulations for the parties involved. Incidentally, most people think that in order for a contract to be valid it has to be written, but that isn’t always the case.

 

A valid contract does however need to contain certain elements. First of all, it needs to identify all the parties involved. Secondly, it needs a mutual consent between the parties. Typically, there is an offer and acceptance that takes place between the parties that is communicated in the contract.

 

Thirdly, a valid contract needs to have an object, which is the portion of the contract that is actually being agreed upon. For this part, it is best to be specific on dates, deadlines, payments, breach of contract requirements, and termination conditions.

 

The fourth element is the consideration factor. The consideration shows what each party will gain as a result of the agreement. Paul Mitchel Systems offers ”A EXCLUSIVE” to the product in your salon. Do you see the product anywhere else? I see it all over the commercial sector of the beauty industry.  Is that what you signed for.

 

The next time you see a contract, make sure it includes all the above elements. If it doesn’t, or if there is a portion that you question, you should probably contact a lawyer before you take any action. When considering buying Paul Mitchell products be assured that there end of the bargain will be in the commercial sector of retailing and not your salon. When considering of having a retail line in your salon, go with independent manufacturers within the beauty industry. AND DONT SIGN A CONTRACT. It is a waste of ink.


Great Reviews for the Documentary THE REAL HAIR TRUTH!

Posted in Industry News with tags , , , , , , , , , , on April 6, 2011 by Joseph Kellner Hairdresser/Makeup Artist in Orlando 32836

The Real Hair Truth Documentary Review

Are you looking to jump in headfirst into the beauty industry as a hair dresser? Are you currently going to a beauty school to obtain your license? Before you continue your journey through the beauty industry, let Joseph Kellner give you some words of advice. His words of wisdom can be found in The Real Hair Truth Documentary, which was put together by him with the help of advice from numerous hairstylist professionals and salon owners. A nearly two hour documentary covering the truth of the hair industry, some facts are a hit, while some parts you’ll wonder about the entire purpose of the film.

What Kellner talks about in this documentary is of how over-saturated and perhaps unethical the beauty industry is today, and why it needs to be improved. Included in the documentary are facts and experiences from real professionals in the industry, from the booth rental based salons, lack of hourly wages and benefits for hairdressers, and lack of education to help hair dressers evolve in their careers. Kellner also brings up one good point of the beauty industry today, the art aspect of the industry is missing and has turned into a show biz, with manufacturers shoving products down the consumer’s throat, entertainment performances taking place at hair shows instead of pure education, and the same hairstylists and individuals who show up at the hair shows and tell attendees the same information previously given the year prior.

Kellner makes it clear that the beauty industry is a very tough industry, and that education is truly lacking, with the government involved to try and get their fair share by providing mandatory license tests with no meaning. So if you’re in a beauty school expecting to know everything about hair and coloring, and expect to make a lot of money once you graduate, think again. Kellner and the professionals in the documentary pinpoint that education is continuous process, and you have to find resources and people who are willing to help you obtain more knowledge to succeed. That source of information provided from the documentary is there to let you know how this industry operates, and what to prepare for.

Three fourth’s of the way through The Real Hair Truth is where things take a different turn. During that time Kellner is talking about product diversion, professional salon products being sold to and displayed in grocery stores, counterfeit hair products, and what people can do with products once they purchase them. It’s during this time you start to wonder if this is a documentary about expecting of what’s to come when starting your hair dresser career, or how the hair industry is from a business standpoint. The real message isn’t told clearly enough, as the part about product distribution and such should have been compiled into a separate documentary.

A few tips provided by the film, like ways to market yourself when starting your career as a hairdresser, was welcomed. A couple of hair academies Kellner recommends in the film was also helpful, but it would have been great to also hear from him or the others involved in the film of how to bring change to the industry in a positive manner, like ways to bring the art back into the hair industry or of how education can be enhanced so people new to the industry can be properly trained to work behind the chair.

From viewing this documentary, it would mostly appeal to individuals going to a beauty school or are looking to start their careers as a hairdresser. Information from the film lets you know that you have to put in hard work, have dedication, be well educated, and be business savvy to survive in the industry. Remember this isn’t a how-to film, but rather an alert message of how the beauty industry is, with many flaws that need to be improved. Though some tips of ways to succeed as a hairdresser or improve the beauty industry would have been welcomed, the hair truth has definitely been told. If you want the truth about the industry, you can’t go wrong with purchasing this documentary.

Pure’ity Blog

Little Film Makes Big Waves!

Posted in Industry News with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on March 15, 2011 by Joseph Kellner Hairdresser/Makeup Artist in Orlando 32836

 

Early this morning I made route to my editor’s office to work on the second documentary and do the customary up to date information for the next film. After 4 hours of editing I decided to call it quits. I made my way back to take care of emails, walk the dogs, appointments etc. And I noticed I sold several films. When I sell a film I always see who bought it and my wife loves to see where they are being sent to.

This purchase was from Christina Senezak who works in a law firm in New York on the Avenues of the America’s (She can be reached at cmsenezak@pbwt.com). The law firm Paterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP represents Loreal in the Class action Law Suit brought against them by the Group SALONFAD. Why would the attorneys of Loreal want a copy of my film?? Hmmmm. It so happens the law firms for Conair, and also TIGI are all located on the same street. Why didn’t they include Paul Mitchell are they the red-headed stepchild of the group. Either way the Lawsuit brought on by themselves is starting to make headway in the beauty industry. Bravo to SalonFad. SalonFad was given copys of the film and they were pleased to receive them. I spoke to the attorney for the group in Texas and was asked if I would be interested in helping them out with the lawsuit. I provide them with any and all assistance I possibly can, thru several telephone conversations with Niel Casson. It was explained to me from Mr Casson that it is “imperative for me to join this wave of change within our industry”.  Mr Casson has his views on the changes being made and changes that should be made within our industry. But I will not align myself fully to any one certain group.  But it seems the defense attorneys for the Manufacturers in this lawsuit want to see the documentary THE REAL HAIR TRUTH. Well they can find another way to view it! So if you want to make things right in you industry you can do it! You just got to stand up for what is right. If you want to educate the industry through haircutting, hair coloring, up do’s so be it. If you want to make a product line and teach about non-diversion so be it! Do whatever floats your boat but have purpose in your intent! I will expose the industry and try to make changes for the betterment of the Professional Beauty Industry.  Talking to my friend Martin he says “Non-diversion needs to be taught on the beauty school level”. Which I highly agree, Strength from knowledge and experience must be given to these students to make them aware of the deception the manufacturers lead them into!  Below are a list of the law firms who represent the Manufacturers in this class action lawsuit.

For Defendant L’Oreal USA, Inc.:

Catherine Anne Williams

Frederick Burdett Warder III

Paterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP

1133 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

For Defendants Convair Corporation and TIGI Linea, LP:

Lewis Richard Clayton

Susana Michele Buergel

Andres N. Madrid

Scott Jonathan Sholder

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP

1285 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

For Defendant The Procter and Gamble Company:

Eileen Miriam Patt

Harold Paul Weinberger

Norman Christopher Simon

Kramer, Levin , Naftalis & Frankel, LLP

1177 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

Is it not amazing that they all work on the same street. Anyways since the REAL HAIR TRUTH, tells the truth of the industry. We did not fill the order from the Law firmPaterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP. They can get there copy of the documentary from somewhere else. This film shows how you can investigate your industry, and get several points acrossed about the corruption in our industry. The Real Hair Truth aims to expose, and educate the beauty industry of its pro’s and con’s. Do not be afraid to stand up for what is right, have a purpose in your life. Change your industry!  But either way you look at it this LITTLE FILM IS MAKING BIG WAVES!

 

Best Regards

Joseph Kellner

Manufacturer Loyality Is Gone!

Posted in Industry News with tags , , , , , , , , on January 9, 2011 by Joseph Kellner Hairdresser/Makeup Artist in Orlando 32836

 

I think you people are seeing the way it is. These companys do NOT CARE about brand loyality to the salon industry. Is what they are doing illegal? No. You can do anything you want with a product once you buy it. O.K! And this is there products, they can sell it anywhere. What is WRONG is the manufacturers and also Distributorships are selling out your retail space in the salon. THERE is no brand loyality ANYMORE. But YOU will sign a CONTRACT with PAUL MITCHELL so you wont divert there products! BUT they will have there products on a consistent basis to all of these store, which is not wrong at all. BUT you WILL let THEM make YOU abide by a contract, you basically wave you 1977 Free Fair Trade Right the goverment gave you! Look it up everyone. Diversion was made by the manufacturers by having you sign a CONTRACT. you sell the product you will take the blame for it being in the stores. They have created Camoflage for themselves by blaming YOU for the shelves being stocked in all the commercial sectors!

Kristin Edens It eats at me every time I walk into a drug or grocery store. Not to mention I sell it for cheaper than they do!
Roxanne Longstone  This is why us stylist need to sTick together and do something about. Send the product back and start searching for product’s developed by local stylist.
I finally smartened up and developed my own and just launched it in Oct. Our clients lov…e it ! We sell it like mad in our salon and more salon’s are starting to jump aboard.
Turn your head into another direction, CHANGE IS GOOD!
Katherine Batzlaff I have changed color and product lines. I won’t use any of these sleezebags products. We all need to take a stand together and not support these companies.
Roxanne Longstone I’m glad your with me on this :) We don’t need their product’s. Not to tute my own horn, but i worked on developing my product for 2 years and with the perfect chemist i must say my treatment is outstanding!
Trenton Clark ASLO WHAT WE NEED TO DO AS STYLISTS IS TO NOT USE PROUCTS THAT YOYU CAN FIND IN LOCAL STORES LIKE WALMART AND TARGET HOW CAN YOU SELL A PRODUCT AT SALON PRICES TOA CLENT WHEN THEY CAN FIND IT IN A STORE AND PEOPLE ARE REAL FUNNY THEY WANT TO SAVE MONEY,BUT WHT THEY DON’T KNOW IS WHEN YOU BUY PRODUCTS OUT OF THESE PLACES THERE NOT THE REAL PRODUCTS,I AGREE WITH YOU DON’T BE A SLAVE TO ANYONE!
Roxanne Longstone All they did was use us! All of us stylist built these companies and made them the millions. If it wasn’t for us who would they be? No one!
I say invest in the little guy :)
Subrina Farmer This sounds like estee lauder’s Aveda! You’ll end up being a franchise owned by a Fat Cat Corp. And they will suck up your slim profits any way they can get it, and tell ya your hands are committed to them!

Roxanne Longstone Check out HSN in the search box type Bed Head and look at all the TIGI Products

Phil Stone yes. but then i start laughing at all the hairdressers who still rally behind the TIGI banner at hairshows and claim the company can do no wrong. then i get sad, and die a little inside. The only thing I can control 100% is what is carried in my salon. I make my own products and sell a high end italian line that uses no distributors.

The Group Continues To Grow! Phil Stone Will Soon Bring You “Claudia”

Posted in Industry News with tags , , , on October 1, 2010 by Joseph Kellner Hairdresser/Makeup Artist in Orlando 32836

No ego’s, no stars, no attitudes that is how I describe the 2 full days we shot with Phil Stone, Claudia Diesti, Dan Diesti, Dan Cunningham, La’Niece, Matt Fienman, and myself. This was the start for Claudia’s DVD on haircoloring, haircutting, hairstyling, and a biography of herself and her beliefs. These 2 days were filled with the most remarkable, ambitious, giving professionals that could be put together in one room. So many different professionals were there to pull this off. And so much clowning around to the fullest extent, that I would love to do this again with the same exact group. This was Phil Stones first taping of an educational DVD series for his website REWIREDHAIR.COM.  And Dan Cunningham who filmed and edited the documentary THE REAL HAIR TRUTH took on this undertaking  with Matt Fienman who was also in charge of videography.  And Dan Diesti Claudia’s husband was the everything role. From food, to hair supplys, to makeup to wardrobe. Dan did it all. And for once I could kick back and just do makeup and I also helped with the photoshoot. Either way we did a little of everyone’s profession with the staff for the DVD. And learning was top on the agenda with this shoot.

Learning was on everyone’s mind the past two days with this shoot. Phil with Dan learning Videography, Myself learning from Claudia - Balayage, everyone had education on their minds. And getting the proper filming within this two-day event was close to 24 hours of filming, setting up the stage, supply runs, etc. But we all pulled together to shoot Claudia and get the best footage we could possibly get for her DVD.  All in all we all got the job done and there was a moment in time that I will always remember these two days of my career, That we all pulled together and did a positive for everyone, the Industry, Claudia, Phil, everyone. And to get that type of group together is sheer priceless. And all the time went so very fast I will truly remember this DREAM. Or maybe this wonderful moment.

Thank You Phil, Claudia, Dan, Daniel, Matt, La’Niece, and all the models.

Joseph Kellner

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 921 other followers