Worker rights? Racial bias? A law change for manicurists prompts debate, confusion
Since the beginning of the year, licensed manicurists and nail salon owners in Orange County and across the state have been confused about whether a change in state law allows the business practice of renting a booth to continue or not.
After an exemption expired under state law, nail salon workers are now subject to a rigorous test to determine if they are independent contractors while licensed aestheticians, electrologists, barbers and cosmetologists remain exempted from it.
Assemblyman Tri Ta, a Republican whose 70th Assembly District encompasses cities including Garden Grove, Westminster and Fountain Valley, is leading an effort to bring the exemption back and extend it indefinitely to clear up the confusion.
'In the past few months, my office has received a lot of calls and emails from nail salon owners and professionals,' Ta said. 'They are stressed out because the exclusion has created financial and operational difficulties. That is a burden and financial hardship for salon owners and manicurists. We have to do something for them.'
What Ta proposes is simple: reinsert the independent contractor exemption for licensed manicurists through Assembly Bill 504, which he co-authored with fellow Republican Assembly member Alexandra Macedo.
Lucero Herrera, a co-author of a UCLA Labor Center report on nail salon workers published last year, expressed concerns that the bill would represent a step back for manicurists.
'While some manicurists operate as legitimate independent contractors — bringing their own supplies, setting their own hours and managing their own clients — many should be classified as employees and receive essential labor protections,' she said. 'Extending the exemption under AB 504 could further erode worker protections and perpetuate precarity in the nail salon industry.'
Ta introduced his bill on Feb. 10 and said it aims to correct 'racial targeting' in state employment law, as he pointed to the UCLA report's finding that 82% of manicurists were born in Vietnam and 85% are women.
'If the exemption already works for other types of beauty licenses, it should work for manicurists,' he said. 'We know that the industry is made up of minority business owners and workers. They are pursuing their own version of the American dream.'
Mike Vo, a Huntington Beach-based business attorney and co-founder of the Pro Nails Assn., deemed a joint bulletin by the state Department of Consumer Affairs and Board of Barbering and Cosmetology alerting manicurists that the rules would 'slightly differ' in 2025 to be an understatement.
'It's a dramatic change,' he said. 'I think that misled some folks.'
In recent months, Vo has educated the nail salon industry, from owners to manicurists, about his interpretation of the rule changes.
'It's really disrupting the business model that folks have invested thousands of dollars into,' Vo said. 'The investments that are required to perform nail services as a licensed manicurist would require substantial investments in either retrofitting a home or having a mobile trailer. For some people, that's not practical.'
Vo has advised manicurists who are also licensed cosmetologists that they can also legally do nails at a salon as an independent contractor, but that would entail budgeting a return to beauty school for those who don't already hold a cosmetology license.
The change in state law particularly impacts Southern California, where half of all of the state's nail salon workers are located, according to the UCLA report.
Orange County, as home to the largest Vietnamese population outside of Vietnam, has long seen such refugees work as manicurists after the fall of Saigon nearly 50 years ago.
'For several decades, Vietnamese nail professionals have been really successful,' Ta said. 'The nail industry is one of the most important career opportunities for the Vietnamese American community, not only in Orange County, not only in California, but across the nation.'
With a more critical view of the industry, former Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez originally set a 2022 sunset provision for manicurists in AB 5, a bill that was signed into law in 2019.
'Nail salons have had a long history of high rates of misclassification and utilization of an immigrant workforce that often is unaware of their employment rights — an issue I worked on as a legislator long before AB 5,' said Gonzalez, a Democrat who is now president of the California Federation of Labor Unions. 'Additional guardrails were needed in the law to ensure the misclassified workers in this industry were protected, while still allowing individual business owners the ability to work as a sole proprietor and simply rent space from a salon.'
In 2021, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an extension that expired this year.
The California Federation of Labor Unions is working with legislators to clarify its position that booth renting can continue after the law change.
Vo doesn't see any viable way for a licensed manicurist to be considered an independent contractor under what's known as the ABC test, which demands proof that their work is not overseen by a business owner and is provided outside of the normal course of a hiring business owner.
'I have yet to talk to anyone who is still legally characterized as an independent contractor after the ABC test,' Vo said.
Being classified as an employee entitles nail salon workers to earn at least the state's minimum wage in addition to other rights and benefits like sick pay, rest and meal breaks, overtime pay and workers' compensation.
According to the UCLA report, a third of nail salon workers were classified as self-employed before the rule change and 80% of nail salon workers, overall, were considered low-wage earners earning less than $17.08 an hour.
'Misclassification often results in lower wages, unstable income and lack of rights,' Herrera said. 'Unemployment insurance, health and safety protections and safeguards against retaliation and discrimination are all benefits that proved critical for manicurists during the pandemic.'
Ta's bill is awaiting a referral to a policy committee. He sees it as a necessary step to correct what he believes is an unfair singling out of mostly Vietnamese women manicurists.
'We just want to correct an unfair treatment in California employment law,' Ta said. 'Everyone needs to have the same treatment. It is a must for nail salon professionals.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Hegseth says ‘Iran has a choice,' US not seeking regime change
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Sunday morning that Iran faces a choice between a negotiated settlement or an escalating conflict with the U.S. after strikes hit three nuclear sites in the country on Saturday. 'Now is the time to come forward for peace,' Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon along with Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan 'Razin' Caine. 'And I think Tehran is certainly calculating the reality that planes flew from the middle of America and Missouri overnight, completely undetected over three of their most highly sensitive sites, and we were able to destroy nuclear capabilities,' he added. Caine said the damage assessment was ongoing but that all three nuclear sites targeted in the strikes sustained 'severe damage and destruction.' Trump on Saturday said the facilities had been 'obliterated.' Iran signaled little interest in diplomacy in the hours after the strikes, dubbed as Operation Midnight Hammer. 'The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences,' Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Aragaci posted on the social media site X shortly after the strikes. 'In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.' Hegseth said Saturday's strikes were limited in scope, but pointed to President Trump's warning on Truth Social that 'any retaliation by Iran against the United States will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.' The Pentagon chief said the operation was 'not and has not been about regime change' in Iran. He said it had set back Iran's nuclear timeline. Caine also provided new details about the operation during Sunday's briefing, which he called the largest B-2 bomber operation in history. He said the U.S. dropped 75 guided weapons on the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear enrichment and research sites. This included 14 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs, the first operational use of the weapon, and two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from a submarine, he said. A total of 125 aircraft were involved in the mission. The B-2 bombers involved in the operation flew 37 hours non-stop from their base in Missouri, refueling in the air. Caine said that a group of the bombers had been deployed west over the Pacific Ocean as a decoy. The weapons were dropped in a window from 6:40 p.m. to 7:05 p.m. Eastern time. Trump announced the strike via a Truth Social post about 45 minutes later. The American forces appear to have gone undetected in Iranian airspace. Caine said no shots were fired at American aircraft, nor did Iran's missile defense system notice them. 'Throughout the mission, we retained the element of surprise,' he said. Hegseth said Congress was only notified of the attacks after warplanes had dropped their payload and exited Iranian airspace. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle accused the administration of violating the Constitution, which requires congressional approval before entering foreign wars. 'This is not Constitutional,' Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) tweeted as the news broke. Massie sponsored a House resolution earlier this week to require Congressional authorization for any strike in Iran. Vice President Vance, a veteran and frequent skeptic of foreign intervention, congratulated the troops and others involved in the strike on Sunday morning. 'I think what they did was accomplish a very core American national objective. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapons program,' said in an interview on ABC News.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CarMax First Quarter 2026 Earnings: EPS Beats Expectations
Revenue: US$8.03b (up 6.2% from 1Q 2025). Net income: US$210.4m (up 38% from 1Q 2025). Profit margin: 2.6% (up from 2.0% in 1Q 2025). The increase in margin was driven by higher revenue. EPS: US$1.38 (up from US$0.97 in 1Q 2025). We've found 21 US stocks that are forecast to pay a dividend yield of over 6% next year. See the full list for free. All figures shown in the chart above are for the trailing 12 month (TTM) period Revenue was in line with analyst estimates. Earnings per share (EPS) surpassed analyst estimates by 18%. Looking ahead, revenue is forecast to grow 1.8% p.a. on average during the next 3 years, compared to a 5.2% growth forecast for the Specialty Retail industry in the US. Performance of the American Specialty Retail industry. The company's shares are up 5.6% from a week ago. You still need to take note of risks, for example - CarMax has 1 warning sign we think you should be aware of. — Investing narratives with Fair Values Vita Life Sciences Set for a 12.72% Revenue Growth While Tackling Operational Challenges By Robbo – Community Contributor Fair Value Estimated: A$2.42 · 0.1% Overvalued Vossloh rides a €500 billion wave to boost growth and earnings in the next decade By Chris1 – Community Contributor Fair Value Estimated: €78.41 · 0.1% Overvalued Intuitive Surgical Will Transform Healthcare with 12% Revenue Growth By Unike – Community Contributor Fair Value Estimated: $325.55 · 0.6% Undervalued View more featured narratives — Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
18 minutes ago
'This Week' Transcript 6-22-25: Vice President of the United States JD Vance, Sen. Tom Cotton & Rep. Jim Himes
A rush transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" airing on Sunday, June 22, 2025 on ABC News is below. This copy may not be in its final form, may be updated and may contain minor transcription errors. For previous show transcripts, visit the "This Week" transcript archive. JONATHAN KARL, ABC "THIS WEEK" CO-ANCHOR: Mr. Vice President, thank you for joining us. The big question right now is the United States -- J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thanks, Jon. Thanks for having me. KARL: Sure thing. The big question, is the United States now at war with Iran? VANCE: No, we're not at war with Iran, Jon. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program. And I think the president took decisive action to destroy that program last night. If I could step back a little bit. We have to give an incredible amount of gratitude to the troops who did an amazing thing last night. Think about this, Jon, they threw -- they flew thousands of miles away, a 30-hour non-stop flight. They never touched down on the ground. And they dropped a 30,000-pound bomb on a target about the size of a washing machine. No military in the world has the training, the skills and the equipment to do what these guys did last night. I know the president and I are both very proud of them. And I think what they did was accomplish a very core American national objective. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapons program. The president's been very clear about this. And thanks to the bravery and competence and skill of our great pilots and everybody who supported this mission, we took a major step forward for that national objective last night. KARL: It certainly was a complex and overwhelming mission, 125 aircraft involved, we are told. Can you say definitely that Iran's nuclear program has -- has now been destroyed? VANCE: Well, Jon, I don't want to get into the sensitive intelligence here, but we know that we've set the Iranian nuclear program back substantially last night. Whether we -- whether it's years or beyond that, we know it's going to be a very long time before Iran can even build a nuclear weapon if they want to. But I actually think that raises the most important question. The president talked about this last night. We want Iran to give up their nuclear weapons program peacefully. But there is no way that the United States is going to let Iran have a nuclear weapon. And so, they really have to choose a pathway, Jon, are they going to go down the path of continued war, of funding terrorism, of seeking a nuclear weapon, or are they going to work with us to give up nuclear weapons permanently. If they're willing to choose the smart path, they're certainly going to find a willing partner in the United States to dismantle that nuclear weapons program. But if they decide they're going to attack our troops, if they decide they're going to continue to try to build a nuclear weapon, then we are going to respond to that with overwhelming force. So really what happens next is up to the Iranians. KARL: So -- but -- but let me drill down on what was accomplished, because there's a -- there's a report this morning in 'The New York Times' that Fordo, that deep, underground enrichment facility, was severely damaged, but not fully destroyed. But the president said last night the enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Can -- can we say that definitively, or are we just not sure yet? I mean, have those facilities been obliterated? VANCE: Well, Jon, severely damaged versus obliterated, I'm not exactly sure what the difference is. What we know is we set their nucleal program back substantially. KAR: Well -- well, one -- I mean -- VANCE: And I -- again, Jon, I don't want to get into very sensitive intelligence about what we know, but I feel extremely confident, and I can say to the American people with great confidence that they are much further away from the nuclear program today than they were 24 hours ago. That was the objective of the mission, to destroy that Fordo nuclear site and, of course, do some damage to the other sites as well. But we feel very confident that the Fordo nuclear site was substantially set back, and that was our goal. KARL: The -- the UN's atomic energy watchdog said that Iran had 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium. What -- do we know what has become of that? Is -- was it destroyed in this attack? Do we know? That's a big stockpile. VANCE: Well, we're going to work in the coming weeks -- yes, Jon, we're going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel. And that's one of the things that we're going to have conversations with the Iranians about. But what we know, Jon, is they no longer have the capacity to turn that stockpile of highly enriched uranium to weapons grade uranium. And that was really the goal here. Uranium is not that difficult to come by, Jon, but enriching uranium up to the point of a nuclear weapon, that is what the president put a stop to last night. KARL: This morning, the Russian reaction caught -- caught my eye. Dmitri Medvedev, of course, the former president, prime minister of Russia, now, the deputy chairman of Russia's security council, said the enrichment of nuclear material, and now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons will continue. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads. What do you make of that Russian response? And are they -- they off base? I mean they're -- they're saying that the nuclear program in Iran is -- is still well underway. VANCE: Well, first of all, I think it's a bizarre response, but I also don't know that that guy speaks for President Putin or for the Russian government. One of the things that we've picked up, Jon, in our conversations with the Russians over the last few months, despite our many disagreements, of course, with the state of Russia, they've been very consistent that they don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. And -- and this is what I think many commentators underappreciated about what the president did last night. Iran having a nuclear weapon, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, is a disaster for pretty much everybody. It's one of the few issues where Russia, China and the United States have broad agreement is that we don't want to see a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. So, what the president did was very important. I'll -- I'll let President Putin speak to what the official Russian position on this is. But I feel very confident that both for Russia, for China, and most importantly, of course, for us, we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And I think that that goal is going to continue to animate American policy for the next few years. KARL: Well, President Trump, last night, also threatened additional military action if Iran retaliates or if peace does not come quickly. How quickly are we talking about? Are we talking about days? Are we talking about weeks? VANCE: Well, look, Jon, I'll let the president make those determinations, actually. But we're now going to have a serious conversation about how to get rid of Iran's nuclear weapons program permanently, meaning they have to choose not to have a nuclear weapons program, and they have to give this thing up. Now, if you go back a little bit, Jon, what we have said consistently and repeatedly is, they cannot have a nuclear weapon. We accomplished the goal of putting them back substantially last night. But there are two big things that the Iranians are going to have to choose from here. Number one, do they attack American troops in the region? If they do, as the president said, you're going to see overwhelming force from the Americans. If they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon, you're also going to see overwhelming force from the American people. So, we've got really the ball in Iran's court here. If they make smart decisions, I think they're going to find us willing to work with them. If they continue to support terrorism, nuclear weapons programs, then they're going to find overwhelming American force from the American military. That is really the choice before the Iranians. And that's a choice only they can make. KARL: So, what retaliation are you expecting? I mean I know what you're hoping for, but they have vowed retaliation. What are you prepared for? What are you expecting from the Iranians? VANCE: Well, it's always hard to guess what the other side is going to do. But what we're prepared for is, if they attack us in a maximal direction, first of all, we have got maximum defensive posture. I think that we're going to be able to defend as many of our people as possible. And, of course, I'd encourage Americans to pray for our guys in the Middle East because, yes, they are under a significant amount of duress and a significant amount of threat right now. But then, of course, Jon, if the Iranians attack us, they're going to be met with overwhelming force. And I don't think the president could be clearer about this. If -- if you look at what we did yesterday, Jon, we did not attack the nation of Iran. We did not attack any civilian targets. We didn't even attack military targets outside of the three nuclear weapons facilities that we thought were important to accomplish our goal of preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. So, how Iran responds, I think, is ultimately the ball is in their court. But if you look at what we did, it was very precise, very narrowly tailored to our objective. And if the Iranians decide to expand this, then that's ultimately their decision. And the president of the United States will respond in kind. KARL: So -- so you're raising the real possibility that this is not the end of this conflict, but the beginning of this conflict. You know, U.S. response to -- to Iranian retaliation. There's one thing the president has been really consistent about throughout his entire life in politics, and that is the idea of no more wars. Let me play you what he said on election night and, of course, at his inauguration. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm not going to start a war. I'm going to stop wars. We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps, most importantly, the wars we never get into. (END VIDEO CLIP) KARL: So -- so let me ask you, what do you say to those, including some of the president's strongest supporters who were really worried this morning that the United States is now involved in yet another protracted war, conflict, whatever you want to call it, in the Middle East? VANCE: Well, first of all, Jon, I think the president has been very clear that we are not interested in protracted conflicts in the Middle East. But there's a question about, how do you achieve peace? And we believe the way that you achieve peace is through strength. We took a very narrow and limited approach to destroying the Iranian nuclear program, Jon. That's what the president did. And I think that, more than anything, is going to ensure a peaceful resolution in that region of the world. You can't be weak. You can't sit there and allow the Iranians to achieve a nuclear weapon, Jon, and expect that's going to lead to peace. It would lead to absolutely disastrous military conflict all over the Middle East. We don't want that. Our Gulf Arab nation allies don't want that. Israel doesn't want that. And it's one of the few issues, frankly, that unites the Arabians to the Israelis is none of them want the Iranians to get a nuclear weapon, because they know that it would lead to the opposite of peace. And so, I'd say to people who are worried about a protracted military conflict is, number one, the president, more than anybody, is worried about protracted military conflicts. That is not what we're getting ourselves involved in. What we're getting ourselves involved in is a very targeted effort to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program. That will continue to be the goal of American foreign policy. And it's that goal that is going to motivate our action in the -- in the weeks and months to come. KARL: But -- but this was, as we discussed, a complex and overwhelming military action last night. And the president is vowing something bigger if the Iranians respond by retaliating. He's also raised the specter of targeting the supreme leader himself. As you know, earlier in the week he said he knew where this -- where the ayatollah is hiding and that he would be an easy target. Has the U.S. ruled out targeting the -- the supreme leader in Iran? Has the U.S. ruled out trying to achieve regime change? VANCE: Well, first of all, we don't want to achieve regime change. We want to achieve the end of the Iranian nuclear program. Jon. That's America's objective. And that's what the president has set us out to do. The president, in the very tweet you mentioned, or the Truth that you mentioned, Jon, said explicitly that he's not trying to take out the Iranian supreme leader. He's trying to take out their nuclear program. And, of course, we took a major step forward with that last night. And again, Jon, I think we have to back up and -- and -- and test some premises here. How do you achieve long term peace? How do you prevent spiraling Middle Eastern conflict? Is it through overwhelming military power targeted to an American objective, or is it by sort of walking yourself into these long-term, protracted military conflicts? I think by choosing overwhelming force and overwhelming force tied to something that is important to the American people, that is the end of the Iranian nuclear program, we can achieve peace much more fully than if we sort of sit on our hands and hope that somehow, if the Iranians get a nuclear weapon, they're going to be more peaceful. That is a stupid approach, and the president rejected it.
