Perfect nails, poisoned workers

[milee]

May 12, 2015 6:10:46 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

May 12, 2015 6:01:25 GMT -5 milee said:

Funny you should mention this, but when I was reading the article all I could think was "where is OSHA?" I'm not in favor of overbearing European style Nanny regulation on everything, but in America, we seem to be getting a strange patchwork that's extremely inconsistent.  The chemicals we use in our manufacturing process are tightly regulated and many have been banned over the years, and our process does not expose the public at all. Here's something using more toxic chemicals plus exposing the general public, and nothing.

My honest guess is that traditional manufacturing exposes men to chemicals and men are considered more valuable to our society than women. Especially immigrant women. In the eyes of the law, these women are considered disposable, as are the frivolous female customers that lawmakers assume use these places.

I think this is more about inertia.  The laws that regulate hazards in most manufacturing are decades old.  This would be new.  The fed and states never regulated anything in cosmetics.  So it would require new laws.  What gov official lately is willing to say more regulation is a good thing?

And all that inertia allows the industry to get their lobbyists to work their magic.  Who lobby's for the plain old workers anymore?  Unions and the ACLU are largely derided here yet they are exactly what this group desperately needs IMO.

[Bold added by me to show what I'm responding to]

This wouldn't require new laws or a union, it would just require the OSHA regulation already in place to be directed at ALL workplaces, not just the ones that OSHA currently focuses on.  Some excerpts from the OSHA website www.osha.gov/OSHA_FAQs.html :

What are employers' responsibilities under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act?

Employers have the responsibility to provide a safe workplace. Employers MUST provide their workers with a workplace that does not have serious hazards and must follow all OSHA safety and health standards. Employers must find and correct safety and health problems. OSHA further requires that employers must first try to eliminate or reduce hazards by making feasible changes in working conditions rather than relying on personal protective equipment such as masks, gloves, or earplugs. Switching to safer chemicals, enclosing processes to trap harmful fumes, or using ventilation systems to clean the air are examples of effective ways to eliminate or reduce risks.

BTW, page 5 of this OSHA published report on indoor air quality specifically mentions "Nail salons" as a place that need to monitor and provide acceptable indoor air quality.  www.osha.gov/Publications/3430indoor-air-quality-sm.pdf

The framework for addressing this is in place, what is lacking is the desire to monitor and act.  Partly because OSHA resources are directed at other types of businesses.

[973beachbum]

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is the federal agency that sets chemical exposure limits inrkplaces. The studies that have examined the chemical exposure levels for manicurists have found them to be well below these standards. Health advocates say the safety administration’s standards are badly out of date and flawed.

Even Dr. Michaels, the head of the safety administration, said his agency’s standards needed revision. Currently, he said, workers “can be exposed to levels that are legal according to OSHA but are still dangerous.”

The agency makes illustrated pamphlets warning manicurists about the chemical hazards they face and urges them to wear gloves and ventilate their shops. These steps and others become mandatory when exposure limits are exceeded.  Dr. Michaels said the agency was hamstrung by its own cumbersome rule-making process.  But in practical terms, with the standards set so high, salons are free to do nothing.
.

There is more but I didn't want to copy huge texts.  Basically the cosmetics industry got it codified that these chemicals are safe up to a pretty high level for use in cosmetics applications.  They fight tooth and nail that any and all problems by the workers is not from those chemicals in the products.  The problem isn't that the OSHA can't force them to stop doing what is put in laws to be unsafe. 

The problem is that the industry has managed to force the law to say what they have isn't unsafe when even an innocent bystander walking by a salon can smell that it probably isn't.

I still say these workers need an advocate.  That or millions of people saying they won't go to these salons until they are made safe but judging from this thread that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

[resolution]

I know that unions are unpopular these days, but they really did a lot for safety in manufacturing.

[973beachbum]

So if a salon is such an unpleasant work environment, why aren’t there laws protecting nail techs
requiring ventilation systems to be installed in every salon?

That’s a complicated question without a great answer. Many different
government agencies hold some claim to enforcing clean air requirements in
nail salons. However, in many cases, the laws are outdated or simply
unenforced. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires engineering controls
when chemicals in the workplace exceed permissible exposure limits (PELs). However, in nail salons
PELs are almost never exceeded. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean there aren’t potential health effects at
concentrations below OSHA PELs. Plus, OSHA doesn’t have established PELs for some of the chemicals
used in nail products.

aerovexsystems.com/images/uploads/files/You_Are_Now_Entering_the_Breathing_Zone_Updated_2_12_15%281%29.pdf

Thank you for holding this teleconference and thank you for the announcement. Craig Palmer, ADA News. I'm wondering if these are sector specific, and in any case what kind of transition period if any there is for employers to absorb the information and adjust to the new PELs.

David Michaels:

Well these aren't new PELs in that these don't carry the weight of law. These are recommendations and we're really reporting these ones that already exist.

I mean, the California ones carry the weight of law in California but we're not presenting anything new. So really this is just - these are tools that we're putting out, not new regulations and they're not sector specific. They're really - they really are applicable across the board.

Craig Palmer:

Well what do employers have to do with them? What - other than be informed about them?

David Michaels:

Well what we're asking employers to do is actually to begin with by looking at the Web site - the - on transitioning to safer substitutions, safer chemicals and we provide a number of very concrete steps that they can use to identify whether there are hazardous chemicals that can be substituted, and then showing them how to choose the proper substitute.

So again this is on a voluntary basis but we think this is a very useful tool, telling many employers what other hundreds - thousands of other employers have already done, which is go through a process to identify and substitute.

www.osha.gov/Chemical_press_call.html

The last one is from a teleconfrence that is really long.  It goes into OSHA regulations about hazardous chemicals.  It also has points about new guidelines including nail salons and the chemicals in cosmetics.  But he does specifically say, as I quoted above, that those new guidelines are only suggestions and they hope business owners will do everthing necessary to protect workers safety voluntarily.

[Shooby]

I think employers are obligated to provide reasonable protective equipment. But, do we really need hoods and Hazmat suits to do nails? A lot of jobs entail some risk. From being a teacher to a roofer to a police man to cutting deli meat. You cannot eliminate all risk. And, the more onerous regs you put on businesses, then you simply put people on the streets and umemployed, which has been shown to be markedly unhealthy as well.

[973beachbum]

Why is this a Reproductive Justice Issue?  Nail salon workers are predominantly immigrant women of reproductive age. A lack of
opportunities forces them into an industry that depends on low-wage labor and exposes them to high levels of toxic chemicals. Exposure to these chemicals is particularly harmful to women as it can cause infertility, miscarriages, and birth defects.
Industry regulation is extremely weak and there is little worker education or regulatory standards to protect them.

lsrj.org/documents/factsheets/11_Poisonous%20Polish.pdf

This is an interesting recap of all the problems from a more workers safety POV.  But the bent is on reproductive rights as a group.  It makes me wonder how many handicapped children are born ever year because of these chemicals and their exposure to these salon workers? 

As a society we all would have to pay to take care of these children.  In some cases even for the rest of their lives.  The parents are obviously low paid workers.  Is that enough financial incentive, since actual caring on a human level obviously isn't enough, to get our people as a country to do something to protect these people?

[milee]

May 12, 2015 8:23:57 GMT -5 Shooby said:

   But, do we really need hoods and Hazmat suits to do nails? A lot of jobs entail some risk. From being a teacher to a roofer to a police man to cutting deli meat. You cannot eliminate all risk. And, the more onerous regs you put on businesses, then you simply put people on the streets and umemployed, which has been shown to be markedly unhealthy as well.

Maybe.

I'm a business owner so understand how difficult and costly it can be to comply with layers of regulation.  And it's even worse because there is no easy way to even figure out what regulations you need to comply with.  There are local, city, state and federal laws plus local, city, state and federal regulating bodies and agencies, all with unique requirements and few of which are spelled out clearly.  It's a nightmare to even know what "the rules" are because it's so complicated and piecemeal. So count me in the number of people who don't think the current system works or is desireable.

On the other hand, there is risk and there is unacceptable risk.  IMHO, we need to start applying common sense to what is regulated and how much risk is OK. If the very air in your workplace is so toxic that you cannot breathe then that's a very different situation than having a workplace like roofing where there is risk but you can mitigate the risk through some simple safety procedures. You may be able to mitigate falls with safety harnesses but you can't mitigate toxic fume exposure by not breathing.

And we as consumers also need to decide if some things are even worth the risk. If the stuff we use for manicures is so toxic that just breathing it in causes health issues, is that an OK risk?  Is it an OK risk for the workers and is it an OK risk for us as consumers?  How about the pesticides used on our food or the chemicals used on our lawns?  If the stuff we're spraying all over our yard and food is so toxic that a person needs a hazmat suit to apply it - is this a great choice?  Migrant farm workers have been experiencing horrible birth defects for years due to pesticide exposure, just like we're hearing now that immigrant manicurists are having health issues from exposure to manicure chemicals.  Even if you don't think that these lives are important enough to save, is it really worth risking your own in a trade for shiny nails or cheap tomatoes? 

[Deleted]

May 12, 2015 8:23:57 GMT -5 Shooby said:

I think employers are obligated to provide reasonable protective equipment. But, do we really need hoods and Hazmat suits to do nails? 

Of course not; if you want to see what happens when an entity attempts to eliminate all risk, try taking  a commercial plane flight.

I could see regulations about ventilation for a start. Breaks could be regulated so they could step outside and get fresh air periodically.   Allowing the manicurists to wear protective masks would be a good second step but I can see a huge fight on that since the customers may get the idea these substances aren't very good for them, either.  And some substances should just be banned.  That would encourage the development of polishes and other finishes that don't contain them.

[MJ2.0]

May 12, 2015 8:58:01 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

May 12, 2015 8:23:57 GMT -5 Shooby said:

I think employers are obligated to provide reasonable protective equipment. But, do we really need hoods and Hazmat suits to do nails? 

Of course not; if you want to see what happens when an entity attempts to eliminate all risk, try taking  a commercial plane flight.

I could see regulations about ventilation for a start. Breaks could be regulated so they could step outside and get fresh air periodically.   Allowing the manicurists to wear protective masks would be a good second step but I can see a huge fight on that since the customers may get the idea these substances aren't very good for them, either.  And some substances should just be banned.  That would encourage the development of polishes and other finishes that don't contain them.

I don't see a problem here. Some of the substances ARE toxic, and companies SHOULD develop less toxic nail care products.

[milee]

Not defending the current chemicals, but I'm always leery of the idea of just banning certain things as the main solution.

The theory is good - stop using stuff that we know is toxic. But the practice sometimes results in worse outcomes. Sometimes instead of being safer, the products that are substituted in are just unknown. Could be safer, might not be - we just don't know. That's happening now with some of the push to eliminate BPA from plastics. The label now says "BPA free", but the chemicals that are now being substituted may or may not be safer, they're just less known.  I've also seen it in manufacturing; one chemical is banned to be replaced with another that turns out to be even worse than what is banned. 

That could easily happen here. Formaldehyde is banned and replaced with Substance X. Nobody knows if Substance X is safer or will make you grow a 3rd arm, we just know it's not Formaldehyde.

IMHO, instead of banning certain chemicals in the process, might be smarter to work on developing good alternatives.  For example, instead of eliminating a certain chemical in the brush on paint forcing manufacturers to just substitute another chemical which is unknown, maybe we focus on developing alternatives.  Substitute durable stickers for the paint maybe.  I like the Jamberry stickers and have found them to be pretty durable and I'm guessing with a little R& they could be made even better.  There's a lot more research and evidence based study on nontoxic adhesive material (because it has medical uses as well) than on nontoxic durable paints and solvents, so it's more likely that we could have nontoxic stickers than just keep banning and substituting random stuff in an attempt to make paint less toxic. Plus, the solvents used to dissolve paint are pretty much always going to contain some pretty nasty stuff, so avoiding the need for removal solvent in the first place would eliminate some of the issue.

[bean29]

I did see mention in an article I googled about the toxic environment manicurists work in, but I thought the major news story last week was that many immigrant nail salon workers were working only for tips or were paying for their jobs.

I have been getting acrylic manicures for several years now.   They usually work on my nails for about an hour it is $26-33 and I usually tip $6.00.  I don't think the salon I usually go to is practicing the kind of employment violations b/c most of the people that work there are related to the manager and I am not sure who the owner is - it may be her or her ex or a 3rd party.  The building is less than 10 years old, and it seems well ventilated enough.

The workers do occasionally wear masks, but I thought it was b/c if you use acrylic nails they use a tool to grind the stuff off and reapply it - and the fine dust particles are the environmental hazard  They also often have the door propped open - I imagine it is b/c they are well aware of the environmental hazards.

I am not really surprised that some of the workers may not be permitted to work - I suspected that long ago b/c it is largely a cash business and the workers seem to keep notes on what they have done for the day - If everything was legit recorded via a cash register or a computer you would not see this going on all the time. 

I have to decide if by patronizing my local nail salon I am feeding possible human rights violations.  I don't think that is the case, but maybe I am in denial.