I once listen to a gentleman who was black say to me “I’m still living in slavery”. That was about in 1990 and I was living in Ft. Lauderdale working as a hairdresser. Life in my profession was hard and you really, really had to marry the profession. To be successful. Time went by and I began to really have a good experience in the profession. I had my own business, I went to advanced training twice a year for a week at a time. And practiced and practiced all along the course of my profession. I went to makeup school and bought a camera. And started taking photo’s of my work and as time went by a lot of my work appeared in magazines. Especially in Europe. I really spread out my wings to embrace the fashion world and adopted wardrobe in my photo-shoots.
Money was no problem it was always flowing. My wife and I bought house, beautiful house I may say. Payed our debts and put my son in good schools. Mind you there was a price to pay, I never seen the sun rise or set for many years. I do well in my profession. But no it is 2024 and a lot of private business are closed. Especially since we had COVID which destroyed small business. Leaving employment opportunity only at the large corporations in the beauty industry. Which you can no longer make a living at anymore.
Now it all about them, the corporations and only them. I think back at what that black man once told me that he was still living in slavery. NOW EVERYONE is in slavery, corporate slavery. Which means for the side of the hairdresser in the industry you will get what they give you. And alone that is financial poverty. I am starting my third documentary and in doing so I see the break up of the beauty industry. Employment is high and pay is low. So low they will only give you commission. A very low commission. With no salary or benefits. And if you do get benefits you will not have a paycheck left.
I came acrossed a Job post for the Eforea spa at Hilton Orlando on indeed.com. Here is what they are offering you now starting off as a hairdresser at there multi-million dollar hotels for employment.
Full job description
Cosmetologist, Eforea Spa at Hilton Orlando
Set over 26 acres, near the major theme parks and International Drive, stands the beautiful We are looking to welcome a Cosmetologist to the team!
Rate of Pay: $5. 63/Hr (30% commission and 18% gratuity)
Schedule: Potential Shift (10AM-6PM) – Need Full flexibility and Availability
As a Cosmetologist, you would be responsible for providing professional hair care and treatments, nail treatments, and facials to guests in the hotel’s continuing effort to deliver outstanding guest service and financial profitability. Specifically, you would be responsible for performing the following tasks to the highest standards:etc, etc, etc.
Now take the time to think for yourself will this rate of pay allow you to pay your bills.
I’m sure this post is going to cause a war between salon owners and salon employees, but these things need to be said. These are my opinions and I’m sure a lot of people (mostly salon owners) will disagree with me, but the way this industry is run is a complete joke. Currently, the “standard” compensation method in many salons is “commission-only.” Some weeks, your paycheck (when averaged against the hours you’ve worked) may end up far less than minimum wage and some weeks you’ll make considerably more than minimum wage
. In either case, in most salons, you’re expected to sit around in empty salons, do laundry, clean floors, answer phones, and perform a whole litany of other menial tasks that fall far outside your job description as a nail technician or hair stylist–tasks you may not be getting compensated to do. Most American workers are covered by the FLSA (the Fair Labor Standards Act), which is enforced by the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor. The FLSA dictates that if you are a commission-only employee, your paycheck (when averaged into hourly pay for a two week pay period) must equal or exceed the prevailing minimum wage. If it doesn’t, the employer must make up the difference.
The FLSA doesn’t care what you’re doing at work. If you’re there at the request of your boss, you need to be getting compensated. If your employer requires you to sit in the salon and wait for business, they should be paying you.Whether you’re folding towels, sweeping the floors, answering the phones etc. Too many of you are being treated as servants. You’re told that you have to “pitch in” and “do your share” and “be part of the team.” It is one thing to clean up after yourself and help out your coworkers, it is an entirely different thing to work for free.
It costs an owner nothing to fill a salon with bodies and tell them to “sit and wait.” I know of salon owners who have never paid for reception services or cleaning services. Why would they when they can order their stylists do it for free? Some salon owners have even gone so far as to intentionally sabotage an employee’s books so they’ll be available to run the front desk, assist, or clean. These owners will keep their salons full of employees because they aren’t paying anyone hourly. It doesn’t matter to them that each of their workers is barely making enough money to pay their mortgages because the owners are simply collecting income from them. There’s no risk of loss involved, so they hire indiscriminately.
Salon are normally full of employees who spend every day sitting around, waiting to build their book–yet, the owner still hires until all the empty stations are full. Everyone in the salon is unhappy. The senior stylists and techs are frustrated because they haven’t built yet and are having to share the limited walk-in business with several new people. Every commission-based employee knows that a new stylist often means a pay cut for everyone in the salon.
You cannot point the finger at your team and blame them for their lack of income. You are the captain of the ship. Your leadership determines whether or not the salon succeeds. Every salon has an employee or two who consistently under-performs due to their own inabilities, but if every single one of your team members are floundering, the problem is with you; not them. You are failing them as a leader and you’re failing your business.
Bargain stores are known for selling name-brand beauty products for a fraction of the original price. But what if our pursuit of a bargain comes at a much higher cost than we thought? Allegedly, it’s believed that these stores don’t trash out these used items. But instead, they just put it back on the shelf for the next customer to purchase. A customer told me, she bought three “untouched” beauty products—two Sephora eye shadow palettes and Truly Beauty’s Moon Jelly face mask—tampered with them at home, then attempted to return the items to see if the store would resell them.
In the interview she told me that when she walked up there, and I told them that I wanted to buy these items, I asked the [store assistant] if it was OK to return these items,” Natalia said. “And she said that I can return these items as long as they’re untouched, that I can open them, look at them, but I can’t touch them. And I have 30 days to return them.” Cool she thought to herself. But here is the kicker in this whole revelation.
When it came to returning the tampered products, Natalia claimed that while the shop assistant “went to look at the items,” they “[gave] up halfway and [didn’t] even bother looking at the items.” “She [didn’t] even open them,” Natalia added. “Just put them to the side and [gave] me my money.” The next day, Natalia filmed herself returning to the store and found all three items back on the shelf. Upon inspection, she confirmed that the items on the shelves were the exact same ones she returned. Sad isn’t it everyone. And this happens a lot at other department stores, so check you products before purchasing them. Sanitation is a must when applying makeup to the skin.
On March 2, 2023, Sephora filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss proposed class action claims that its “Clean at Sephora” program was false and misleading, disputing allegations that a significant portion of relevant, reasonable consumers were or could be misled about what ‘Clean at Sephora’ means, and that the ingredients permitted by Sephora’s program were potentially harmful to humans.
Sephora’s reply (presumably) concludes preliminary briefing in what has become a closely-watched lawsuit in the beauty and wellness industry over the meaning of the term “clean beauty.” Absent clear regulatory guidance from the FDA and the FTC, companies’ claims involving the terms “clean,” “natural,” “nontoxic,” or “organic” have been scrutinized in social media, and by an increasingly active and organized plaintiffs’ bar.
While it remains to be seen how the court will decide the “Clean at Sephora” case, companies should continue expect more litigation in this area, as what it means for beauty products to be clean, natural, nontoxic, or safe, remains the subject of intense debate.
As explained in our previous publications (here, here, and here), the market for clean beauty is expected to reach an estimated $11.6 billion by 2027. But absent clear regulatory guidance about what it means for beauty products to be “clean,” “natural,” “nontoxic,” or “safe, promoting products as “clean” can carry significant regulatory risks, and leaves the industry ripe for class action litigation.
Sephora launched its “Clean at Sephora” program in 2018. To qualify for inclusion in the program, which spans across various product categories, products must be formulated without certain common cosmetic ingredients—such as parabens, sulfates SLS and SLES, phthalates, formaldehyde and more—that are linked to possible human health concerns.
On November 22, 2023, Plaintiff Lindsay Finster filed a proposed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleging that products advertised as part of the “Clean at Sephora” program contain ingredients that are “inconsistent with how consumers understand” the term “clean.”
According to plaintiff, consumers understand the definition of “clean” beauty to mean the dictionary’s definition of “clean”: “free from impurities, or unnecessary and harmful components, and pure.” Thus, to be considered “clean” in the context of beauty, plaintiff alleged that products should be “made without synthetic chemicals and ingredients that could harm the body, skin or environment.” But, as plaintiff contended, “a significant percentage of products with the ‘Clean at Sephora’ [seal] contain ingredients inconsistent with how consumers understand the term.” Consequently, plaintiff alleged that the “Clean at Sephora” program “misleads consumers into believing that the products being sold are “natural,” and “not synthetic” and to paying a price premium based on this understanding.”
Plaintiffs alleged potential class action violations of §§ 349 and 350 of New York’s General Business Law (“NY GBL”), as well as multi-state consumer protection statutes, and breach of express and implied warranty, the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, fraud, and unjust enrichment claims.
On February 2, 2023, Sephora moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, arguing that “[i]t is not plausible that reasonable consumers are or could be confused by the ‘Clean at Sephora’ program” for several reasons.
First, Sephora argued that plaintiff relied on unsupported and conclusory allegations about consumers understanding of the word “clean.” While plaintiff argued that consumers understood the definition of “clean” beauty to mean the products made without synthetic chemicals and or potentially harmful ingredients, Sephora countered that plaintiff failed to plead any facts showing that a significant portion of relevant reasonable consumers could be misled by Sephora’s claims into believing that the “Clean at Sephora” program consisted of only natural products and ingredients. As Sephora noted, words like “natural,” “organic,” and the like never appeared on the label or elsewhere. Instead, plaintiff relied upon “on selectively quoted blog posts and webpages from small businesses, which not only lack reliability and authority but are presented without evidence that any significant number of consumers have even read them, let alone agreed with them.”
Second, Sephora argued that plaintiff mischaracterized Sephora’s representations as being about the kinds of ingredients included in the program, rather than excluded. Thus, plaintiff was attempting to turn “Clean at Sephora” into “Natural at Sephora”—claims that Sephora did not make. On the contrary, Sephora’s marketing for the program focused on the exclusion of certain ingredients linked to potential human health outcomes. Because Sephora made no representations about the products or ingredients included, it argued that it could not mislead consumers about the safety of included products or ingredients in the program. Moreover, plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that any of the ingredients included in the program were potentially harmful, relying instead on a series of unattributed and unsubstantiated blog posts.”
Finally, Sephora rejected plaintiff’s contention that it forced consumers to scrutinize product lists in contradiction of the Second Circuit’s 2018 decision in Mantikas v. Kellogg, which prohibits the use of ingredient lists on the side of packaging to clarify otherwise misleading presentations where plaintiff failed to identify any misleading conduct by Sephora.
Sephora also rejected plaintiff’s efforts to seek relief under other unspecified consumer protection statutes, arguing that plaintiff failed to plead how the unspecified consumer protection statutes were similar to the NY GBL, and disputed plaintiff’s breach of warranty, consumer fraud, and unjust enrichment claims as duplicative of plaintiff’s NY GBL claims, or otherwise contingent on the same erroneous premise—that the ‘Clean at Sephora’ label is misleading—and thus, equally deficient.
In opposition to Sephora’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff reiterated that it was sufficiently plausible that reasonable consumers would perceive the “Clean at Sephora” as excluding synthetic ingredients, and that “Clean at Sephora” meant free from potentially harmful ingredients. Plaintiff further contended that resolution of her multi-state claims was not ripe until the class certification stage, and that Sephora’s advertising campaign created an express warranty that “Clean at Sephora” products were formulated without potentially harmful ingredients.
In its reply, Sephora argued that reasonable consumers could not interpret the phrase “Clean at Sephora” as limited to only “natural” ingredients when Sephora “prominently explains, in plain terms, exactly what it means by the phrase: ‘formulated without parabens, sulfates sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and sodium laureth sulfate (SLES), phthalates, mineral oils, formaldehyde, and more.’” Sephora also refuted plaintiff’s efforts to characterize the program’s inclusion of the phrase “and more” into an impression that synthetic ingredients were excluded along with the listed ingredients, noting that plaintiff alleged no facts to support her contention that reasonable consumers shared that impression.
Finally, Sephora rejected what it described as plaintiff’s efforts to conflate the meaning of the word “clean” with “non-synthetic” or “natural,” or otherwise assert that because products are not “natural,” they were not safe, noting that not all synthetic ingredients were unsafe, while not all natural ingredients were safe.
The Real Hair Truth 
You must be logged in to post a comment.