Child Labor may return in one state. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Mild necroposting has been permitted because it has always been mild but since it is growing into a bane it will no longer be tolerated.

Moderators are therefore advised to initially move necroposts into stand-alone threads and for repeat offenders to hand out official warnings if said posters continue the practice.
Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13631508
In Missouri
SB 222 – This act modifies the child labor laws. It eliminates the prohibition on employment of children under age fourteen. Restrictions on the number of hours and restrictions on when a child may work during the day are also removed. It also repeals the requirement that a child ages fourteen or fifteen obtain a work certificate or work permit in order to be employed. Children under sixteen will also be allowed to work in any capacity in a motel, resort or hotel where sleeping accommodations are furnished. It also removes the authority of the director of the Division of Labor Standards to inspect employers who employ children and to require them to keep certain records for children they employ. It also repeals the presumption that the presence of a child in a workplace is evidence of employment.


http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_Web ... ID=4124271
By AnnoyingConservative
#13631512
SB 222 – This act modifies the child labor laws.


Why do you need to?

It eliminates the prohibition on employment of children under age fourteen. Restrictions on the number of hours and restrictions on when a child may work during the day are also removed. It also repeals the requirement that a child ages fourteen or fifteen obtain a work certificate or work permit in order to be employed. Children under sixteen will also be allowed to work in any capacity in a motel, resort or hotel where sleeping accommodations are furnished.


I suppose of school is costing to much.. put your kid to work?

It also removes the authority of the director of the Division of Labor Standards to inspect employers who employ children and to require them to keep certain records for children they employ. It also repeals the presumption that the presence of a child in a workplace is evidence of employment.


That part makes my hair stand up on end a little bit. You have to insure kids aren't working in hostile environments somehow.
User avatar
By The American Lion
#13631534
AnnoyingConservative wrote:Why do you need to?

I suppose of school is costing to much.. put your kid to work?

That part makes my hair stand up on end a little bit. You have to insure kids aren't working in hostile environments somehow.


You know all that extra bureaucratic mess just hurts the poor kids you know?
Image
By AnnoyingConservative
#13631536
So you are advocating not making sure that children are in healthy working environments?

If you are trying to be sarcastic, a bit of hint would be nice because no one can read a tone of voice.
By grassroots1
#13631549
Right, if these pesky regulators would just get out of the way, the economy would improve and then everyone would be rich. All inspections do is raise costs and then the workers suffer.

:knife:

What a fucking society.
User avatar
By Rancid
#13631585
I'm thinking this is being done to take advantage of the immigrant children.
User avatar
By ThomasNewton
#13631604
I stumbled across an old thread in the Economics forum literally just minutes earlier where someone was advocating this. I thought "Oh, that crazy guy is always saying stuff like that."

And then this happened.

Are there federal regulations on child labor? If so they would supersede any state law so this matter could be irrelevant. Otherwise I'd just as soon assume that this isn't going to pass, just like everyone over 21 won't be forced to buy a gun in South Dakota-people submit these ideas all the time, it's only when one has a lot of support behind it that anyone need worry.

Thanks for posting the article anyways, American Lion.
By grassroots1
#13631613
I know, you think that it's crazy and then it actually happens and you realize that some of these ridiculous ideas are actually gaining traction. And it's worse than that, the ideas are gaining traction among the people who these changes would most harm...

It's an incredible feat of disinformation.
User avatar
By ThomasNewton
#13631619
The point is, media sources that report these things are just trying to galvanize people into over-reacting.

There are Federal Child Labor Laws. This won't pass, even if it did it would do nothing/federal law supersedes it.
By grassroots1
#13631622
I don't know, I think the point is that these ideas are actually gaining traction, and that they are represented in our government. That's why people are reacting (in my opinion, not over-reacting) to this bill.
By KPres
#13632132
We already FORCE children to work for zero pay. We force them to go to school, which is absolutely a form of work. And that environment, which we subject every one of them to, is far more psychologically traumatizing than most modern occupational environments I can think of, which is why suicide is the third leading cause of death among 10-14 year olds.

The idea that if we allowed children to work, they would be slaving away in smokey sweatshops is false. Anything resembling what you see in those photos could only happen in developing countries, where the general quality of life of the average person is much, much lower. In the 19th century, real poverty (as opposed to modern, western "poverty", which isn't poverty at all) was widespread, and the children you see weren't experiencing anything worse than they would have had they stayed at home. Without that employment, they probably would have gone hungry, and resorted to begging on the streets, where they would have been exposed to all kinds of horrors far worse than a dirty face.

But the growth of industry and technology changed all that, raising the general standard of living to the point that child labor became unnecessary, as people could afford to raise children without needing them to generate additional income. Only as a consequence of that does society's ideas about the ethics of child labor change. That's why poorer countries to this day still engage in the practice and don't find anything particularly immoral about it.

Child labor has, in fact, been the standard for most of human history, eradicated only by the growth of widespread prosperity that accompanies industrialization and capitalism. Government decrees only follow those changes in attitude, which would undoubtedly remain in place in absence of said decree. The only difference would be that those few children in special circumstances that could benefit more from employment than being subjected to the public school system (or selling drugs on the street as some do now) would be allowed to do so.
By grassroots1
#13632190
The growth of industry is what brought about unacceptable working conditions to begin with. The labor movement and regulations exactly like those against child labor brought an end to it. I completely agree with Ash Faulkner when he said in the other thread...

Ash Faulkner wrote:Have you ever stopped to wonder why you don't see these things anymore? Do you think the nineteen-hour day just magically vanished? Do you think all the child labourers were whisked off to the Robber Baron Academy for Underprivileged Children and taught to be doctors? There are no cosmic laws that say 'it's the twenty-first century, there will be no child labour' or, 'it's the twenty-first century, there will be an eight-hour day' or, 'it's the twenty-first century, there will be unemployment protection'. No, these things didn't just blossom into existence, they are the product of decades and centuries of struggle and conscious movement for political change. They are neither inevitable nor permanent. The reason we consider the nineteenth century so backwards today is not because there is anything particularly twisted about the number '18', it's because people who were around then sweated blood to ensure that people around today do not have to go through the shit they did.

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=128270&p=13631681#p13631681

That's not to say these regulations don't limit the economy, because they very well might, but to get rid of them entirely could potentially return us to the kind of situation we saw in late 19th century US. I'm not sure why that's all of a sudden unattainable. Because this is Amurrica? What we need in this country is universal health care and education, and in my opinion the government should take responsibility for providing housing and sustenance for those who don't have these things. In that situation, maybe we can begin to talk about ending social security and medicare, or even minimum wage. After all, these things only exist to provide those basic necessities in a roundabout way. Anyone have thoughts on that idea?
User avatar
By Rancid
#13632195
Yea, this can't be a good thing.

What you will see is poor families getting their kids to drop out of school and get jobs. This will only set back poorer communities even more.
By eugenekop
#13632448
What you will see is poor families getting their kids to drop out of school and get jobs. This will only set back poorer communities even more.


Yet it is their decision, not yours. If they prefer a higher standard of living by having the kids pay for themselves, they should be free to choose that. As KPres said there is nothing immoral about child labor. It is how humans have always lived. Each community should have their own standards for child labor. A New-Yorker who enjoys a lavish lifestyle has no moral right to tell the people of Minnesota what to do with their children.
User avatar
By The American Lion
#13632452
From:
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... i_bill.php
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... d_labo.php
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 2bc8b.html

​Senator Jane Cunningham believes losing restrictions on child labor will bring responsibility and help poor families.

"My aim is to put back some common sense,'' Cunningham told the Beacon. "We're not doing students any favor by telling them, 'You cannot work.' "

""Right now the present law puts a government official in charge of our children. I think it's important for us to make sure that parents are in charge."
Of cases wherein parents might not have their children's best interest in mind, Cunningham said, "I think you cannot write a law for every extreme situation. We just have to write the best law we can that has common sense in it.""
User avatar
By The American Lion
#13632456
eugenekop wrote:Yet it is their decision, not yours. If they prefer a higher standard of living by having the kids pay for themselves, they should be free to choose that. As KPres said there is nothing immoral about child labor. It is how humans have always lived. Each community should have their own standards for child labor. A New-Yorker who enjoys a lavish lifestyle has no moral right to tell the people of Minnesota what to do with their children.


Yet we don't live in the age of raising a family of 6 anymore. Where 4 of the kids work with the father's company, so one kid can go to college. Do you really want to live in the age again. Where 11-14 years old work 40 hour shifts?
By KPres
#13632462
The growth of industry is what brought about unacceptable working conditions to begin with.


No, the growth of industry brought about conditions that were superior to the slavery and serfdom that had existed before. There is a distinct upward progression in worker conditions over time, meaning your idea of what's "unacceptable" is irrelevant and biased toward your modern sensibilities.
By eugenekop
#13632464
Yet we don't live in the age of raising a family of 6 anymore. Where 4 of the kids work with the father's company, so one kid can go to college. Do you really want to live in the age again. Where 11-14 years old work 40 hour shifts?


I don't live in Minnesota, and I am not familiar with their economic constraints. I definitely wouldn't want my children to work 40 hour shifts. Not because I think that's hard (its not hard at all, and it does teach responsibility), but because I believe a school will prove to be better for their future. But I have the money to pay for school and for kids, so my situation is entirely different.
User avatar
By Zagadka
#13632468
It also removes the authority of the director of the Division of Labor Standards to inspect employers

Immediate fail.

I don't have a problem with kids under 16 working (though I don't know why getting a permit is such a dictatorial demand), but this is retarded.
Immigrants or Invaders?

I suppose you mean " cynical " Cynica[…]

^Yep, and when the union dissolves Scotland (and p[…]

Reading about the history of British Far Right C[…]

Not relevant to what? :eh: My opinions matter t[…]