As nail technicians, we all remember the hours. The practical exams, the written test, the mannequin hand, the waiting for that license to arrive in the mail. For most of us, that license is framed on a wall or tucked in a station drawer, and we do not think much about it until renewal time comes around.
However, licensing is being talked about in a very different way these days. Legislators in a number of states have floated bills to reduce or remove licensing requirements for certain beauty services, and nail care is often at the top of that list. Some people in our industry are cheering. Others are alarmed.
This is a conversation worth having honestly. So let us look at both sides.
The Case For Keeping Licensing
We have all had conversation about what we do and don’t learn in nail school. That’s assuming ALL schools are the same. However, they aren’t. I’ve been to some pretty sore looking and acting schools and I’ve visited some very impressive schools with some great teachers. We have to remember the reasoning for licensing….and maybe come down on the schools and not the licensing itself.
Licensing protects the public. The number one argument for licensing is client safety. Nail services involve implements that break the skin, chemicals that can cause reactions, and foot baths that can harbor bacteria. California learned this the hard way in the early 2000s, when outbreaks of mycobacterial skin infections were traced back to whirlpool foot spas that were not being cleaned properly. Those outbreaks led directly to stricter sanitation rules. Licensing is how those rules reach every technician in the state.
It sets a baseline for infection control. Disinfection, sterilization, implement handling, and blood exposure protocols are not things most people pick up on their own. A licensing program guarantees that every technician has at least been taught the difference between cleaning and disinfecting before they ever touch a client.
It teaches when not to serve. A licensed technician is trained to recognize contraindications. Diabetes, poor circulation, open wounds, fungal infections, and clients going through cancer treatment all change what we can and cannot safely do in the pedicure room. Someone with no training has no reason to stop and ask.
It gives clients a way to hold us accountable. When something goes wrong, a licensed technician answers to a state board. There is a complaint process, inspections, and consequences. Without licensing, a client who is injured has very few places to turn.
It supports our credibility. A license tells the public, the medical community, and insurance carriers that nail care is a real profession with real standards. That credibility matters when we want to be taken seriously for advanced foot care, oncology services, or working alongside podiatrists.
The Case Against Licensing
The cost is a real barrier. Tuition, kit fees, exam fees, and time out of work add up. For someone who wants to start earning quickly, especially a single parent or someone changing careers, the price of entry can be enough to keep them out of the industry entirely. However, compared to some other careers, it’s fairly inexpensive and easy to get into a school and start a career.
The hours do not always match the skill. Required training hours vary widely from state to state, and a license earned with fewer hours in one state is not always accepted in another. Many technicians will tell you that school taught them how to pass the state board, not how to do a beautiful set of nails or run a busy book. Much of the real learning happens behind the table after graduation. Yet, isn’t this true of any Profession?
A license does not guarantee safe practice. We have all seen licensed salons that reuse single-use files, skip disinfection, or rush through pedicures with a dirty tub. A piece of paper on the wall does not make those choices for us. Critics argue that if licensed technicians can still cut corners, the license itself is not doing the heavy lifting people think it is.
Enforcement is thin. Many state boards are understaffed, and inspections can be years apart. Opponents say that without real enforcement, licensing becomes more of a tax than a safety net.
Unlicensed work happens anyway. Services are being done in kitchens, living rooms, and pop-up setups whether the law allows it or not. Some argue that a lower barrier to entry would bring more of those people into the open, where they can be educated and held to a standard, rather than pushed further underground.
Portability and workforce shortages. Moving to a new state can mean more hours, more exams, and more fees before a working technician can earn again. In areas with a shortage of technicians, supporters of deregulation say licensing keeps qualified people from filling open chairs.
The Middle Ground Many People Are Talking About
It is not always all or nothing. Some states and industry groups have discussed options such as a shorter registration model focused entirely on sanitation and safety, a required infection control course in place of full licensing hours, stronger continuing education requirements, better license reciprocity between states, and more funding for inspections so the rules on the books are actually enforced.
Each of these tries to keep the public protected while lowering the barriers that frustrate so many people on the other side.
Where Education Fits In
Here is what both sides tend to agree on, even when they disagree on everything else. The client in your chair does not care what the statute says. They care whether their nails look good, whether their feet feel better, and whether they leave your table healthier than they arrived.
A license can open the door. However, it has never been the thing that keeps a technician safe, skilled, and in demand for decades. That comes from continuing to learn. Knowing why a protocol matters, not just that it is required. Understanding disinfection chemistry. Recognizing when a client needs a referral instead of a service. Knowing how to adapt a pedicure for someone going through chemotherapy.
Whatever direction the laws go, the technicians who invest in real education will be the ones clients trust.
Hope is not a protocol, and neither is a license on its own.
I would love to hear where you stand. Is licensing protecting our profession, or holding it back? If you are looking for the kind of education that goes beyond what the state requires, come see us at Centre for Beauty. We are always happy to talk shop and help you build the knowledge that supports confident, professional service for the long haul.
Outcome based education which drives product selection and confident use!
Thank you for writing this, I had no idea our licensing was up for removal in some states. I am sort of shocked, but not. You bring up good points on both sides. I have always been on the side of education. I have gone above and beyond, in my state anyways, for trying to educate myself. I completed the NASP levels 1-4, the Meticulous Manicurist course. And probably more that I’m forgetting. I do think if they removal licensing, the ones who educate themselves will stand out from those who don’t for sure.
Yes, it is and is not shocking. I somewhat agree with your last statement however, it sure doesn’t help our poor clients who go to a salon with unlicensed, not knowledge technicians. And, if we want to be an “essential” Business, we have to raise the bar not lower it. Keep up the good work in keeping yourself educated. I appreciate you taking the time to comment.
I’m going to have to go with having a license. Not only does it protect clients, it also protect license nail tech. I’ve been doing nails for over 20yrs, 14 of those working with clients who have health issues. I’ve heard of stories and I always educate my clients on what to look for and what to expect and when to speak up. I used to worked at a podiatrist clinic so most of my clients -90%- are diabetes. I think the public would like to know that their nail techs have more education about the nails then they do.
Jodie, you are so right. I 100% agree. Thank you for your input.
I feel like education needs to be addressed. I remember back in the 1980’s when I earned my Washington State Cosmetology license. 3000 hours!!! Fully licensed and I still didn’t feel like I was equipped to work in a salon!
Eventually, life happened. I relocated a few times, my license expired and I found myself back in nail school in Oregon during the pandemic.
Did you know that a nail tech license here only requires 300 hours??? That’s literally 1/10th of the time it took to earn my first license 40 years ago!
In nail school here, my classroom education was an assignment to read a chapter in Milady Standard, complete the exercises in the workbook and the following day take the test. Classes were on Tuesday and Wednesday. No real discussion.
We “graduated” to the floor and completed 10 classic manicures, 10 classic pedicures, 30 artificial nails (this included silk wraps, overlays, tips and sculpted extensions.) I recall asking our educator about using acrylic and being told, “That’s not my forte. You’re going to have to find a YouTube tutorial to learn it.” Seriously? These young people are in debt up to their eyeballs to be told to learn from a YouTube tutorial?!?! I was livid!!! So, when she wasn’t paying attention (most of the time) I taught them how to construct acrylic nails. Proper liquid to powder ratio, allowing the product to work for me and apex placement. I honestly don’t know how that educator kept her job. Some nepotism, I’m guessing?
Anyway, it’s a consensus among my peers here that we did literally pay for just enough to pass the state board exams and get licensed.
I would have just gone on reciprocity except I had allowed my previous licensing to expire around 20 years prior and had no way to prove that I ever had it aside from my skills.
I do feel that licensing can be a good thing. It shows that at some point, a person has made the effort to learn sanitation/disinfection and how to identify many diseases and disorders, when and when not to service. I also feel that next to our licenses we should be showing proof of liability/business insurance and that in order to maintain our license, we should be maintaining our insurance individually.
I’m all about covering my backside as well as my clients.
Re-structuring our education in this industry is necessary, however. I feel that there should be a universal standard amount of hours nationwide in order to earn our licensing. And if the state wants to play the money game, they should be presenting us with something more than an annual bill.
Maybe get those inspectors out in the field and have them look for a little bit more than where we clean our tools?
Maybe an additional requirement for us to provide proof of annual continuing education would make those license fees more worthwhile? We can buy all the product in the world and still not have a clue about how to safely use it.
A truck driver carries a CDL (commercial driver license) with additional endorsements for the different types of equipment he’s been trained to operate. Air brakes, hazmat, double trailers, triple trailers, etc. It is state issued but federally regulated. Our licenses could also work like this. And, just like the commercial drivers license, when we relocate to another state, we pay the transfer fees and get on with our business.
Kelley, you are so right on. Here in Florida, they just reduced licensing to 120 hours which is nearly what I had 39 years ago. It’s extremely sad and very frustrating. Not only are we fighting the licensing battle, we are competing with DIYers with NO regulation. Visiting most (not all) schools is also very disappointing. Many use us educators as babysitters. The instructors don’t even sit in on the class. I go back to what I keep saying. Licensing is very important, especially to help with the image of our industry. Yet I feel like 1/2 the hands on stuff can be left out. Do mostly theory to learn the why’s and leave the hands on training to on the job. It’s a convoluted situation for sure. I sincerely appreciate your feedback and 100% agree.
I believe licensure is necessary. For many reasons, including all of the ones you mentioned in your article. I do think it keeps us in a more professional light, even though we still have a long way to go in that regard. I have been doing this for 46 years and when I started many states were not requiring licensure.
As far as the cost of schools, training, etc. maybe the education hourly requirements could be adjusted to include professionally supported classes, in lieu of classroom hours at an” school”. Sort of giving more education on top of maybe a baseline safety requirement that could even be achieved online.
Your suggestion is spot on. Less technical and more theory. The why’s, not so much the how’s as the how is more learned on the job than in school. Thanks Jennifer.
CJ, I say it all new guest members when they come to me.
1. Skilled labor isn’t cheap; Cheap labor isn’t skilled!
2. Your need a Drivers License to drive a car. Why, would you want someone without valid licensure to provide or offer the best in service treatments. You only get one body.
3. Your in good hands that’s not Allstate.
So true. Very well put. Might have to use that myself :). Thank you!