Barbers and Cosmetology, Board for; employment prohibition, children 16 years of age or older.
HB1667 amends Virginia’s child labor law to create a specific exception allowing children age 16 or older to work in barbershops and cosmetology salons under the Board for Barbers and Cosmetology. The bill adds that these minors may serve in such establishments if they are registered apprentices, are participating in an approved work-training program, or have already obtained a barber or cosmetology license. In effect, the measure carves out a targeted pathway for older teens to enter the barbering and cosmetology workforce while remaining subject to the Board’s regulations and existing apprenticeship or training requirements.
The bill also fits within the broader structure of Virginia’s restrictions on hazardous employment for minors. It leaves the general prohibitions on child labor intact, including limits on dangerous machinery, mining, demolition, logging, and other hazardous occupations, while adding barbershop and cosmetology work to the list of occupations that 16- and 17-year-olds may perform under specified conditions. The measure therefore modifies state employment law by narrowing the scope of prohibited work for a limited class of minors without changing the overall framework of child labor protections.
HB1667 amends Code of Virginia § 40.1-100, the state’s child labor statute, by adding a new exception in subsection D for 16-year-olds and older in licensed barbershops and cosmetology salons. It affects the Board for Barbers and Cosmetology, registered apprentices, work-training programs, and licensed minors, and it may expand workforce entry opportunities in the barbering and cosmetology fields for teenagers who meet the statutory conditions. The bill does not broadly relax child labor rules, but it does create a new statutory carveout that employers and regulators must follow.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It advanced through subcommittee, committee, and both chambers with unanimous or near-unanimous votes, including 8-0, 22-0, 97-0, 14-0, 38-0, 39-0, and 95-0. The voting history suggests general agreement that the measure was a limited, practical adjustment to existing employment restrictions rather than a major policy shift.
No significant opposition is reflected in the available record, and there are no committee transcripts indicating substantive debate. The only likely policy issue is the balance between youth workforce opportunities and child labor protections: supporters appear to have accepted a narrow exception for older teens in a regulated profession, while the bill preserves safeguards by limiting the exception to apprentices, approved training programs, or already licensed minors. Because the measure was amended and substituted during the process, the main legislative discussion likely centered on the precise conditions under which minors could work in barbershops and cosmetology salons rather than on whether such work should be allowed at all.