OK, We License Dogs --but Why Barbers?

It takes 1,500 hours of college or 2,000 hours of apprenticeship just to qualify. The all-day exam, given in secret, entails a written test, a tactile component and an aesthetic dimension. Fully one in four supplicants fails.

Are these brain surgeons? Jet pilots? Art restorers?

Hardly. This is what it takes to get a California barber’s license. Take money for cutting hair without a license and you’re a criminal.

The California Board of Barber Examiners is only the silliest of the 50 state boards, commissions and other agencies regulating “professionals” and, lest anyone think this is small potatoes, consider that nearly a quarter of the California work force holds a state license of some kind regulating work.

That’s right. The state auditor general in May counted 3.4 million license holders, including manicurists, paperhangers, sign installers, guide-dog instructors, cemetery plot salesmen, tax preparers and animal-health technicians. All these people--and many others--are regulated at a cost of $300 million a year.

Hardly anyone thinks California should stop licensing physicians and others whose competence can be a matter of life or death. But the state licenses an awful lot of activity not in the do-or-die category.

For example, the New Motor Vehicle Board can stop, say, another Ford dealership from opening within 10 miles of an existing dealership if the latter complains. Complainants rarely win, but even so, the necessary proceedings can be costly and time-consuming.

The board can also get involved when an auto company wants to fire a dealer. Elizabeth Grimes, a lawyer whose firm, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, represents several big car companies, says that when a dealer protests a termination, it’s rarely resolved in less than six months.

Most states have such boards, but then again, most states license barbers. The car dealers say they need the board to balance the great power of the car companies. Yet there is no hamburger board to protect McDonald’s franchisees, and the protection seems to come at the expense of consumers.

In a 1986 study, the Federal Trade Commission staff analyzed 1978 Chevrolet sales and found that, in growing areas, these “relevant market area” laws raised the average price of nine Chevy models that year by 7.6%. Nationwide, the study estimated, such laws cost consumers $3.2 billion in 1985 dollars.

“Higher prices and fewer dealers,” explains Robert C. Fellmeth, who heads the Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego Law School.

Fellmeth says California licensing boards typically arise from lobbying by the practitioners who would be regulated. He says practitioners often dominate the boards and head off opposition by raising all the money needed to administer the boards from licensing fees--and by having political action committees that donate generously.

This is a double levy on society. First, the fees (that $300 million again) are ultimately paid by customers, as are the campaign contributions. Second, competition is restricted, raising prices further. Fellmeth says many boards are intended to suppress competition, under the guise of consumer protection. And, he says, they often fail to carry out their stated purpose, which is to police a given trade.

Aside from the Board of Fabric Care, which once stood stalwart between Californians and the ravages of inept dry-cleaning, few go out of business. On the contrary, boards are always finding something new to license, and new boards are always threatening.

Robin Witt of the state Department of Consumer Affairs says pending legislation proposes to regulate midwives, hydrogeologists, tanning salons, perfusionists (who work with heart/lung machines) and photogrammetry (mapping with aerial photos). Some years ago, a California legislator proposed licensing astrologers.

“I guess it just wasn’t in the stars,” says Witt.

Fellmeth proposes four sensible criteria to determine who’s unnecessarily licensed.

* Is the marketplace sufficient by itself? Barbers who give bad haircuts will simply go out of business.

* Is there irreparable harm? When a wallpaper hanger screws up, nobody dies.

* Can competence be tested? In the case of psychologists, for example, Fellmeth thinks not. A simple permit would suffice.

* Who hires these people? Consumers aren’t fit to judge the competence of nuclear engineers, but Bechtel Group, the engineering giant, probably knows more about this than the state and has every reason to hire good ones.

Interestingly, nuclear engineers mainly need a license for consulting. Employees of companies such as Bechtel are exempt, and, says Darlene Stroup of the engineering board, “individuals aren’t required to hold a nuclear engineering license to work at Rancho Seco.”

Meanwhile, every Monday in Los Angeles, aspiring barbers are required to give a haircut; a state examiner decides if it’s any good. They also get tested on shampoo technique. “Then there’s scalp manipulation,” says Barber Board executive officer Lorna Hill.

Barber aspirants even have to shave someone. Recognizing that hardly anyone is shaved in a barber shop nowadays and that some barbers worry about AIDS, most state barber colleges favor abolishing the shave test.

According to the California Regulatory Reporter (which Fellmeth edits), Barber Board President Edna Mayhand would have none of it, because the shave is all that distinguishes barbering from cosmetology--regulated by a different board. Besides, the board’s legal counsel figured that the change would require legislation.

But we won’t have the Barber Board of Examiners to kick around much longer. Next July it merges with the slightly less unnecessary state Board of Cosmetology. Once merged, let’s hope our tonsorial watchdog remains alert. Otherwise, the consequences could be ugly.