The information below was posted here on the campaign Facebook page of James Corcoran, a Republican candidate for the TN House of Representatives District 18 in the August 4 Republican Primary, Early Voring July 15-30, 2016. Corcoran is a competent, successful Attorney with a thriving law practice where he primarily serves children and families.
You shouldn’t have to be a lawyer to know when a law that claims to give you a “Right to Earn a Living” really just creates more bureaucracy.
18th District Incumbent, Martin Daniel, has spent a lot of time talking about his so-called “Right to Earn a Living” Bill that passed this session. As this Bill worked its way through the Legislature, there was insinuation that boards such as those relating to cosmetology and barbers were somehow fighting against competition.
Protecting businesses against competition is bad for the economy; I absolutely agree. However, it isn’t the boards that are engaging in this anti-competition behavior– hence this Beacon Center lawsuit. The anti-competition laws in question are actually statutory.
For example: Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-4-110, requires a individual who wants to work “shampooing” must have 300 hours of training in a school that (apparently) doesn’t exist. The same law requires 1,500 hours of training for a cosmetologist. TCA § 62-3-110 requires 1,500 hours of training for a barber.
Under TCA § 62-38-204, Tattoo artists need two year apprenticeships before they can be licensed.
Under the so-called “Right to Earn a Living” Bill none of these regulations are changed– because they are created by the legislature. In other words, if anyone in Nashville really thought these regulations were excessive, they would have had to actually repeal them. That’s why the Beacon group is having to sue the State–the new legislation doesn’t help this individual who aspires to supplement her living washing hair.
So, what does the bill do in it’s final form? It gives the Legislature the ability to threaten to take away rule-making power from runaway Boards. In other words, it lets the Legislature legislate. Something they could have done anyway– if they actually bothered to find some boards doing something they disagreed with.
So, what was the “Right to Earn a Living” Bill really about? In a News Sentinel Article dated August 2, 2014, prior incumbent Steve Hall accused Martin Daniel of running just to be able to de-regulate billboards (Daniel makes his money in billboard advertising.) Martin Daniel responded that only local governments regulated billboards. However, if you look at the original version of the “Right to Earn a Living” bill, it would have allowed individuals to sue LOCAL governments over regulations that interfered with businesses that weren’t related to safety. Sound like de-regulating billboards to you?
Thankfully, the rest of the legislature wasn’t comfortable taking powers away from our local government, and the bill was effectively reduced to legislative thumb-twiddling prior to passage.
The News Sentinel Article from 2014 can be found here. The original bill is located here, begin on page 5 to see where Daniel went after local government, fortunately the legislature struck that out of Daniel’s attempt.
