The Nanny State Rolls On
Reminding us that no business is beyond attack by the State of California, legislation has been introduced that will require dog groomers to be licensed and regulated by the State.
If the legislature should be doing anything in regards jobs and businesses here, they should be trying to make it easier for businesses to open and people to find jobs. Not so in the Golden State. You'll recall food workers were recently required to get a state certificate to work in restaurants.
Oh, and don't forget they're trying to ban food trucks from operating within 1,500 feet of schools now, too.
Yet more examples of why we should return to a part- time legislature. The less time they spend in session, the less damage done.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 7:40 AM
15 comments
15 Comments:
Good news. Dog groomers should be licensed. Fred, you probably don't realize that your blog is a source of joy for many, all the things you complain about being good news to the rest of us.
I like to think of you as an amateur Stephen Colbert. I try to forget that you're being serious.
And there you go, my friends. I knew we'd hear from the one of many who have helped run this state into the ground.
So sad. Just when Fred was considering going into dog grooming.
Funny, I think it's people like Fred running this entire country into the ground, all the while offering only the best of intentions.
I'm happy with the minimal requirements imposed by regulation of the private sector. With respect to dog groomers, I'll like being able to look up a company's history of consumer complaints. This change is to our benefit as consumers, make no mistake. Deregulation hurts we the people, be it with corporations or the guy repairing your leaky faucet.
Atleast the state hasn't deemed you unqualified to pick up dog shit Fred
You're insane. Better Business Bureaus are perfectly capable of handling complaint history.
"Henchman Of Justice" says,
1) Groomers may be employees too, just as business owners.
2) Groomers, if to be certified, would be ala General Construction trades "Class A,B,C-#'s"; THEREFORE, these "employee-groomers" should be able to get the same tax write-off benefits as a business owner groomer.
3)Truly, this is about creating yet another tax base so the State Of California can pay its bills and expand government size at higher costs to society.
4) then comes lawmakers actually "caring" about animals getting "injured or miscared for"....Why? Inevitable, civil or criminal court system will always hear your complaint unless it is an outright shamola.....
5) Consumer protection is nothing more effective, so this certification is just a money arrangement for bureaucrats who have "financially quitclaimed" this State.......unless a complaint directory is what the consumer wants, then to that I say, ok, then SMA zones (Streamside Management Zones) need compalint directory lists too so the consumer knows prior hand whom to avoid or whom to not trust or whom to see is not an upfront business person, etc....same thing, consumer protections over environmental products, purchases, tenements, etc....
I will say that injuring or damaging an animal while being groomed is just as wrong as that of a human being where necessary and reasonable care must be practiced.....kinda like an animal doctor must as well. The court systems provide an avenue for "after-the-fact" process for damages and injuries. Unfortunately, certification is not a preventative protocol for businesses likely to be unworthy of committing damages or injuries while doing business...just because standards are taught in classes to become "certified", it does not mean that the standards will always be practiced, but hey, just one or two more "legal charges" any DA can file to prosecute....which again pulls us right back to the court system where government departments heading the certification process will only want to be fussed with when subpoena "i hand" is served to testify on behalf of the consumer whose animal is damaged or injured....still just mop-up after-the-fact....AND...after California got its certified tax base.......as long as the consumers don't complain about higher prices.
HOJ
Don't see why there should be objection to licensing pet groomers, especially if the industry supports it. The individual industries often ask the Legislature to pass licensing requirements to protect the integrity of the industry.
The food truck bill is another matter. Surprised Bill Monning would introduce it. I doubt it will get very far. It is not being well-received in the Legislature.
The individual industries often ask the Legislature to pass licensing requirements to protect the integrity of the industry.
Not quite. They pass licensing requirements so they have control of and can try and limit any potential competition. Make potential competitors have to jump through a few hoops and a lot less people will try to enter the field.
And isn't this the perfect sign how low the state and many people living in it have gone: We're talking washing dogs here and people think it's perfectly acceptable to require a license to do it.
I realize most of the comments have been made by the same fellow, but he's probably representative of at least a third of the populace and certainly representative of the Democrats that control the legislature.
Addendum: One of the commenters to the SacBee story on this wrote, "I do not have the answer as I don't believe in big brother. I think a start would be for the grooming busines to be licensed and go through a rigorous training requirement for their employees.".
To which I offered a compromise: How about we have licensing, but it be voluntary? Whether some association of pet groomers, or even the government, comes up with a licensing program, fine. If you want to take your pet to a facility licensed by that entity, fine.
However, if someone wants to operate a pet grooming business without going through the hassle of the licensing and regulation, they are free to do so. If someone wants to take their pet to an unlicensed facility, they are free to do so.
Even I'd be willing to go along with that. Any objections?
"Henchman Of Justice" says,
If it is industry that pushes licensing in tandem with government or on its own, it definately "raises the cost" of doing business so that those in control with higher stakes in the game (market share, tax collections) get to take more money in profits and tax collections based on higher valuated returns from consumer costs being higher, employer costs turned employee benefits are more, etc....win, win, win for big brother nanny state and market share businesses.....while small businesses not busy enough to generate the extra cash flows to cover "all costs associated with licensing requirements" ARE HURT....just like the old rich versus poor argument when inflation goes upward...
HOJ
Dunno all the arguments but barbers and hairstylists are licensed because they can do great harm to people's health and spread disease.
Pet groomers also cut hair(using sharp objects) and can similarly do great harm and spread disease.
Lots of people cherish their pets as much or more than people, so I can understand a desire to have pet groomers have mandatory licensing requirements.
A friend of mine took their dog to a groomer and the groomer actually cut off the dogs ear and then tried to super-glue it back on and didnt tell my friend. When she got home the dogs ear fell off. I think licensing it a good thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home