Perspective: Paycheck protection passes the House

Jay Barnes
Jay Barnes

Perhaps the greatest sign of the difference between this year and last in the General Assembly came with the relatively quiet passage of House Bill 251, frequently referred to as "paycheck protection," this week. Sponsored by Rep. Jered Taylor, HB 251 requires public sector unions to obtain annual written or electronic authorization before withholding money from members' paychecks for political contributions.

To me, the bill should not be controversial. I compare political contributions from union dues to the Missouri State Employee Charitable Campaign, an event through which state employees can donate to charity, but for which there is an annual drive that encourages employees to either make a single donation or to withhold a certain amount via payroll deduction for a year.

The bill does not erect any significant barriers to political contributions for union members. It merely requires the union to obtain authorization for political withholding at least once a year. Simple Rule: if someone's going to deduct money from your paycheck for something that's not a direct benefit to you, they should have to periodically ask for your permission to keep doing it. (This bill makes it an annual requirement.)

Last year, the paycheck protection bill was a main event. The legislature passed it after lengthy and heated debate. Gov. Nixon vetoed it. The House engaged in protracted efforts to garner a veto-proof majority and eventually voted to override the veto. But the bill came up a one vote shy of override in the Senate.

This year? The opposition mostly held its fire. The House perfected the bill this week in less than an hour. On Thursday, there was a little more action, but we finished before noon. The bill now heads to the Senate for consideration.

Hair braiding freedom next week

Pop quiz: which requires more hours of study - a law degree or a cosmetology certification?

Two points if you said cosmetology. Seriously, section 329.040.3(3) of Missouri's statutes requires cosmetologists to complete a "course of study" of "no less than 1,500 hours." To get a law degree from Mizzou, you must complete 89 credit hours of law courses. With 15 weeks of class per semester, the total classroom hours for a law degree is 1,335 hours.

For Missourians who want to braid-hair, it's worse. Those 1,500 study hours for a cosmetologist (or 1,000 hours if you merely wish to become a barber) often do not include any instruction for hair-braiding. And yet, an entrepreneur wishing to open a hair-braiding shop would have to pay thousands of dollars for an education that has nothing to do with their actual profession.

Next week, the Missouri House will consider House Bill 230, sponsored by Rep. Shamed Dogan, which removes hair-braiding from the barber and cosmetology regulations. 

If passed, Missouri would become the twenty-second state in the country to de-regulate the practice. (Last week, South Dakota became the twenty-first state.)

State Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, represents Missouri's 60th District.

Upcoming Events