California Massage Therapists

Comment

Comment by Carl W. Brown on May 26, 2010 at 3:37pm

Keith,

I think that one of the problems is that California does not define massage. I think that it should be defined as:

“Any service that uses any form of the words ‘massage’, ‘masseur’ or ‘masseuse’ to describe the service or the person administering the service or any touch based service that is performed on a person is not dressed in a manner suited for public places such a wearing street clothes, gym outfits or dance costumes.”

Thus it would exclude things such as stretching at the gym, dance training, most forms of energy work, forms of bodywork including chair work if they do not call it “chair massage” as well as shaking hands at a political rally.

It would exclude things that are not associated with prostitution and at least take that part of the industry out of the gun sights.

Carl

Comment by The Rev on May 26, 2010 at 11:07am

There won't be a difference between the old and the new EXCEPT the 500 hour banner will be required in many more municipalities if the CAMTC is adopted. I wonder how many 1000 hour arenas (San Diego, Huntington Beach) have reduced their bar

As Keith pointed out, the bill is being rewritten, so, it will be interesting to see what they come up with. Hopefully, it won't be picked up for this term making it a two year bill.

I am a card carrying Massage Envy patron. I had a discussion with the franchise owner of the store in Alameda on my last visit. He was in a battle with the city because they have not adopted CAMTC and he had a few applicants that had CAMTC papers that he could not put to work unless they did the local level stuff. .

btw... I am opening up a retail store front with massage within the next two weeks. I breezed through the Berkeley stuff for the massage arena because we are now considered healthcare. Because of the small amount of space I have dedicated to massage, I did not even have to provide parking, one of the healthcare provider hoops. For my doing the work, it was a simple no free transfer of an existing license.

Onward and upward...

The Rev

Comment by Carl W. Brown on May 26, 2010 at 10:03am

Keith, If AB 1822 passes what with be the differences between the old city licensing practices other that you must still have the state certification to use the title? What will happen to cities that currently do not require any licensing?
It seems like whenever anyone pushes for state control the cites push back harder. Is there a lesson to be learned?

Comment by Keith Eric Grant on May 21, 2010 at 10:31am

I put up a new blog post last night on AB 1822. "Where's Joe Friday When We Need Him?"

Comment by Emmanuel Bistas on May 19, 2010 at 9:38am

So, if I am understanding this correctly... AMTA had paid Lovell to help with the passing of SB 731... After it passed, AMTA hired Lindsay.. and there was money flowing from Lovell to Lindsay?? why would that be? I don't understand that part...

So, now Lovell who helped pass the SB 731 is lobbying for the people who oppose CAMTC... very interesting...

I recall reading somewhere in Massage Today that Lovell was selected by AMTA because of his relationship with the organization of the police chiefs... Who recommended Lovell to AMTA in the first place? Did AMTA go out looking for him?

Comment by The Rev on May 18, 2010 at 6:59pm

The new lobbyist was hired on the 15th of March according to state records. It's interesting. http://tinyurl.com/2c8cojr shows the amount of money Amta payed Lovell to get their bill through. Amta CA was done with Lovell at the end of 2008 and then recruited Steven Lindsay of The Institute for Government Affairs and Public Policy LLC probably highly recommended by Lovell seeing as Lovell payed Mr Lindsay a huge chunk of change reflected here: http://tinyurl.com/277svzb Boy could I do some speculating. Since I am only observing and making comments, I won't.

Since when has it been necessary for any political campaign to be truth based? I have never believed it a truth that even a 250 hour standard is required to do massage, never mind, legally.

Comment by Keith Eric Grant on May 18, 2010 at 8:51am

Massage Pundit: Laura Allen points to the mendacity and need for accountability from the AB 1822 proponents.

Comment by Keith Eric Grant on May 18, 2010 at 1:42am

Rev,

It's likely too recent for such a lobbying report in the opposition to AB 1822. AMTA-CA has contracted with Aaron Read & Assoc, LLC.

Lovell was used in the final lobbying for SB 731 after Mark Rakich quit lobbying. The choice, to my knowledge, was made because Lovell had contacts with the League of Cities that would facilitate negotiation with that organization. That effort was apparently successful, because the League of Cities supported SB 731 and appointed Rick McElroy as it's representative to the board. McElroy has, in fact, turned out to be an invaluable resource to and advocate for CAMTC.

Since Lovell's campaign against CAMTC is not truth-based, familiarity seems to be a moot point.

Comment by Keith Eric Grant on May 18, 2010 at 1:25am

A sampling of letters opposing California's AB 1822 sent via Massage Today's email form. Keep them coming.

Comment by The Rev on May 17, 2010 at 6:35pm

I find it interesting the AMTA-CA did not report spending anything on lobbying against AB1822 in defense of the CAMTC. http://tinyurl.com/kw8syy is where you can see the Amta-CA lobbying efforts over the years. They have spent quite a chunk of change advocating licensing and certification including a big chunk of money to the very lobbyist being used by the Chiefs of Police and other law enforcement agencies to advance AB1822. .

John Lovell is an interesting character. Checking his site, I can see he does not have the Amta-CA listed as a previous client in spite of having received a minimum $23000 in payments from them. I checked only one year of Amta-CA lobbying expenditures. The Amta-CA is not even mentioned in any of his war stories. http://www.johnlovell.com/index.html Googling John Lovell brings up lots of information.

I remember reading somewhere the reasoning for hiring Lovell to advance the Amta cause but, for the life of me, cannot remember where it was. .

Hopefully Lovells familiarity with his "opposition" will not make it easy for AB1822 to advance.

Thanks for the link Keith, it made it easy to write in opposition to the bill.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page