The New York Times "Helped" Nail Salon Workers Right Out Of Jobs
Elizabeth Nolan Brown writes at Reason that the NYT exposé on nail salons has not been a good thing for those who work in them:
Reporter Sarah Maslin Nir said she wanted to highlight the pervasive worker exploitation she believed took place in the city's Asian nail salons.Response to Nir's "expose" was swift and emotional, with fashion-bloggers crowing about how they would rethink their weekly mani-pedis and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo ushering through a package of "emergency protections" for salon staff. The state also launched a Nail Salon Enforcement Task Force which, by mid-July, had issued 1,799 new citations to nail salons. Officials heralded this as a step toward stamping out salon-worker exploitation, while activists and Twitter bleeding-hearts took it as proof that Nir's prognoses was right: these salon owners were out of control, and needed the government to put them in their place.
New York authorities had been on a crusade since at least year to regulate nail salons more tightly. It seems Nir's article provided the impetus and public support enabling the city to do just that.
But you know who hasn't been so psyched about the new worker "protections?" The people who actually work at nail salons. Because of citations and new regulations, some salons have been forced to close, costing the women who worked there their jobs. Because of rules mandating extra pay for overtime work, manicurists saw hours cut back. "I know the article tried to help us," an Upper East Side salon employee told the Times in July. "But for some employees it created a worse situation."
...If there's a silver lining... well, I'd like to think that the massive outcry from salon staff against their self-appointed saviors may actually change minds a little on the liberal side--make them rethink whether excessive regulation is always the best way to end alleged exploitation, and whether lurid advocacy journalism is the best basis for public policy. Perhaps even consider that maybe, just maybe, libertarians oppose this shit not out of some childishly rebellious attitude or yearning for the robber-baron days but precisely because it hurts those in precarious positions the most. But I won't hold my breath. For a lot of people, it's much easier to see the world as a black-and-white struggle between vulnerable workers and exploitative bosses, between honorable pro-regulatory types who care for the poor and their greedy, small-government foes. It's much easier not to think too hard about these things.
...If there's a silver lining... well, I'd like to think that the massive outcry from salon staff against their self-appointed saviors may actually change minds a little on the liberal side--
Yeah right.
If anything those asians will now be called 'white' and be accused of collusion, and people will comment on how 'sorry' they are that such simple cretins cant see how their overlords er, protectors are trying to help, in the mean time here is a welfare check, and vote democrat otherwise you wont even get this money that we graciously give you out of the goodness of our hearts
lujlp at October 8, 2015 10:29 PM
I wonder - who allowed the standards to be disregarded in the first place?
By analogy - if your high school passed a bunch of people for social reasons when the kids couldn't do the work, are you going to complain when the school actually returns to enforcing standards?
Let's all say rigorous enforcement of wage and employment laws among migrant workers should also not be done, because it's too tough to pay them legally.
Radwaste at October 8, 2015 11:07 PM
An earlier Reason piece by Elizabeth Nolan Brown:
https://reason.com/blog/2015/05/08/nail-salon-narratives#.5an72s:U8ac
Nir "makes the all-to-common and immediate leap to calling for stricter governmental scrutiny. It's a solution as seemingly simple as it is lazy: just send the government in to help! But when we're talking about communities of people whose very existence here has been deemed illegal, the government doesn't help, it fines and arrests and deports. The best way to actually help people in these communities is to help them help themselves."
More:
Amy Alkon at October 9, 2015 5:15 AM
I'd like to think that the massive outcry from salon staff against their self-appointed saviors may actually change minds a little
That's a nice thought and all, but it is also likely to lead to bitter disappointment. Remember, those self-appointed saviours don't care if they actually help or not, what they care about is that they did something.
Because they care, and are good people, and good intentions and all that. And if you lost your job, or had your hours cut back? tough cookies.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 9, 2015 8:25 AM
I wonder - who allowed the standards to be disregarded in the first place?
The bureaucrats who are supposed to enforce them, perhaps? because enforcement is an awful lot like work? and maybe because they knew that a significant portion of those standards were codified as a barrier to entry in the market place?
Sure, there could be health considerations, and that should be addressed. But we're talking about something women have been doing to themselves and each other for centuries without adult supervision...
I R A Darth Aggie at October 9, 2015 8:34 AM
Reagan was known for saying the most feared words in the English language are:
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
To that we should also add:
"I'm a Social Justice Warrior and I'm doing this for your benefit."
The same holds true for community organizers, limousine liberals, and all other nanny-staters.
charles at October 9, 2015 11:16 AM
Not so much tough cookies as not their fault. Your job loss is the fault of greedy corporations.
Good intentions can never cause bad results, right?
Conan the Grammarian at October 10, 2015 9:54 PM
Leave a comment