State should overhaul licensing

A new report sheds light on one of the biggest, if little-known, obstacles that block Ohioans from earning an honest living: occupational licensing. Today, more than 25 percent of Ohio’s workforce is either licensed or certified. That means licensing now affects more workers than unions (14 percent) or the minimum wage (just over 2 percent), combined.

Perversely, the sheer amount of time and money needed to get a license effectively fences out many job opportunities for workingclass Ohioans, thwarting their chances at upward mobility.

According to a study published last month by the Institute for Justice, before workers can obtain a license in a lower-income occupation, they have to, on average, complete 350 days of education and experience, pass one exam and pay $188 in fees. In fact, IJ found that Ohio has the 20th-mostburdensome licensing laws for lower-income workers in the nation. Compared with its neighbors, only Kentucky has more stringent licensing requirements.

In Ohio, a natural haircare license to braid hair takes 450 hours of education, while a barber’s license requires 1,800 hours of coursework. By comparison, emergency medical technicians (EMTs) need a mere 150 hours of training to become licensed.

Fortunately, lawmakers are considering reforms that could drastically overhaul licensing in the Buckeye State. Last week, the Senate Government Accountability and Reform Committee held a hearing on Senate Bill 129, which would drastically cut the number of hours needed to become a licensed cosmetologist, esthetician, hair designer or manicurist. (I submitted testimony in support.)

Sponsored by Republican Sen. Kris Jordan and Democratic Sen. Charleta Tavares, the bill would allow for more students in the beauty industry to enter the workforce sooner and with less studentloan debt.

Going even further, Reps. Ron Hood and Robert McColley have introduced House Bill 289, which would actively review the state’s licensing boards. Those boards would have to justify their continued existence on up to two dozen different metrics, including their cost-effectiveness and efficiency, whether or not the license requirements enforced by the board restrict competition and economic growth, and if the board is truly necessary to protect public health and safety.

H.B. 289 would also make it official state policy to identify and use the “leastrestrictive regulation” possible that still addresses genuine concerns for consumer welfare.

By enacting commonsense reforms, lawmakers can ensure that workers spend their time earning a living instead of earning a license. Legislative analyst Institute for Justice Arlington, Virginia