Should Child Labor Laws Be Amended? (wages, legal, solution, lobbyists)

[WouldLoveTo]

Originally Posted by markg91359

If the kids were really the ones choosing to work it might be a different thing. What is going to happen if we loosen the restrictions on child labor laws is some irresponsible parents will force their kids into getting a dangerous job instead of focusing on things like schooling and home work. It will be a windfall for the worst employers in this country who have trouble getting adults to fill a job because the pay and benefits are too low and the job is a dirty and difficult one.

There is no constitutional right to hire anyone you want for any job, employ them at any wage, and have insufferable working conditions at that job. Yet, that is the direction loosening child labor laws will take us.

That's why I said in my first post there should still be regulations as to what industries they can work in, how late they can work and how many hours per week. It does need some regulation.

[chirack]

Originally Posted by ncole1

That's still a regulation issue, because employers are supposed to train their employees on being careful, and if employees are still not careful, move them to another task or modernize the machine.

The other thing I don't get is the "respect your elders" mentality, whereby it is somehow permissible to impose a minimum age in the name of safety, but not a maximum age for the same reason. That's a double standard that seems to me to have no explanation other than an abuse-of-power over those who are not legally allowed to vote.

Modernizing the machine is a COST to employers. Training employees on being careful does not equal being careful and kids are no where near as attentive as adults. I know of people who have been injured in factory conditions. Also moving to another task isn't always possible.

There are maximum ages for somethings like commercial airline pilots, police officers, the military, and so forth as well as minimum ages for some things like driving and some political offices. I really don't think a 15 year old with a missing digit(due to feeding a machine) or slipping on the floor(many people) and getting very hurt is a good idea esp. when they can't legally make decisions for themselves.

[Threerun]

I couldn’t imagine a 13 or 14 yo working on any assembly line, particularly a mechanized one. They can barely look away from their smartphones for a minute without having withdrawal seizures. That’d be real safe.

[ncole1]

Originally Posted by KellyXY

It's for similar reasons why (for instance) there is a minimum age to drive, but not a maximum one. While some old people may have their physical and/or mental facilities diminished, others may reasonably be functionable for much longer. OTOH there is a fairly consistent distribution when it comes to youth maturing.

If you are comparing 4-year-olds to 25-year-olds, sure. But it isn't clear that this is the case for a 13-year-old vs. a 30-year-old.

In the same way, there may be a reason not to differentiate between 35-year-olds and 55-year-olds, but I have never heard of a 101-year-old that is fit enough to work in mining or roofing. Yet, it is still illegal to discriminate based on age.

So then the question becomes, why are the "extreme cases used to define the rule" for the young, but not similarly for the old? And worse yet, why is it a government mandate to discriminate against the young on just about everything, but also a government mandate to not do so on the old, for just about anything (barring being a commercial pilot)?

I suspect the real answer is that our society is actually ageist against young people, more so than older people. Youth are treated as demi-humans who simply aren't worthy of respect to begin with.

Originally Posted by KellyXY

Also, allowing minors (who legally if not in practice cannot make decisions on their own) to work in hazardous conditions or excessive hours will likely result in parents and employers exploiting them (just like historically before we did have child labor laws). There is no similarly analogous situation for the elderly.

There is no similar situation for the elderly? I dispute this. Adult kids refusing to help elderly parents and making them work as Walmart greeters happens all the time. If parents paid for a youth to go to college and they strike it super-rich, there is still no mandate to help out a dirt-poor elderly parent, even if the adult kid has a business worth eight figures.

So, I still submit that there is much less reason to treat old and young asymmetrically than you seem to think.

[ncole1]

Originally Posted by chirack

Modernizing the machine is a COST to employers.

Yes, but they are required to do so if needed to keep their employees safe from an unmitigated, serious hazard. If nothing else, they are still subject to OSHA's General Duty Clause. Child labor laws or not.

Originally Posted by chirack

Training employees on being careful does not equal being careful and kids are no where near as attentive as adults.

So, then if an adult has ADHD, should it be illegal for them to work in those occupations? If they can accommodate the disability, why not also accommodate the youth?

Originally Posted by chirack

I know of people who have been injured in factory conditions. Also moving to another task isn't always possible.

If moving to another task is not possible, the employer should anticipate that and always has the option of not hiring the individual to begin with (age discrimination laws not applicable to youth). But this doesn't justify an inflexible, blanket government mandate to not hire them. OSHA's General Duty Clause still provides the protection when it is needed, as well as industry-specific safety regulations.

Originally Posted by chirack

There are maximum ages for somethings like commercial airline pilots, police officers, the military, and so forth as well as minimum ages for some things like driving and some political offices. I really don't think a 15 year old with a missing digit(due to feeding a machine) or slipping on the floor(many people) and getting very hurt is a good idea

Of course not. But employers that allow multiple injuries without taking any sort of action are violating OSHA regulations as discussed earlier and thus it is simply not necessary to have extra regulations just for that. If OSHA regulations aren't being enforced, then it seems the issue is that you are trying to use one law to compensate for non-enforcement of another, which I submit is improper in a liberal democracy, unless it absolutely cannot be avoided.

Originally Posted by chirack

esp. when they can't legally make decisions for themselves.

A minor can get emergency medical treatment in all 50 states without parental consent.

[A New Day]

Maybe this depends on where one lives, but where I am, there are lots of “Now Hiring” signs at fast food establishments and similar jobs that teenagers typically do. My state allows under 16 minors to work, and I know of 3 or so food places that will hire them.

Two of my kids have worked under the age of 16. They taught classes at their extracurricular, did childcare at a church, cleaned a house for elderly, and babysat. It helps teach money management and responsibility. I don’t see what the problem is. None of my kids have worked more than 6 hours a week until senior year, so far. Some of my kids have not worked at all through high school, since they were busy with other things that didn’t pay money.

I think most kids that get jobs would work at fast food and such and not in dangerous fields.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by tijlover

From the current The Week magazine:

"Last month, the Gov. of Arkansas, eliminated a requirement for 14 and 15YO's to have a state permit to get a job. The move is part of a broader push to loosen child labor laws by conservative state legislatures. The Iowa legislature is considering a bill that would allow 14YO's to work in industrial freezers and meat coolers, and allow 15YO's to work on assembly lines moving items that weigh up to 50 lbs. In Ohio, there's a push to allow 14 and 15YO's to work until 9pm during the school year, in violation of Federal laws, while the MN legislature is debating letting the construction industry recruit 16 and 17YO's."

"We're talking about teenagers working in dangerous plants and factories like in the 19th century."

"With the current labor shortage, employers can benefit too. Besides, kids spent too much time on social media, and too little growing up so anything reasonable that a state can do to make them easier to work is welcome."

What do you think? Pro's and Con's?

Personally, I think it's a good idea!

A good idea? So kids will have the opportunity to "grow up"? Seriously? They can only "grow up" and learn to handle responsibility (vs. their android) by taking dangerous industrial jobs that would violate federal labor laws? Working for the local grocer or photocopy center or landscaping business is no longer enough to help kids grow up?

Maybe you should re-read your post. This is just another example of industry looking for a cheap labor pool to exploit. Apparently there aren't enough illegal migrants flooding the borders, so captains of industry now want to exploit children. (Just not their own.) Charming world we live in.

And btw, federal laws exist for good reason.

[markg91359]

Originally Posted by WouldLoveTo

That's why I said in my first post there should still be regulations as to what industries they can work in, how late they can work and how many hours per week. It does need some regulation.

I cannot help but believe that if exceptions are recognized to child labor laws that it will ultimately undermine the whole premise of these laws which is to protect a vulnerable group in society. It may also have effects like layoffs of older and more experienced workers who will not work for a pittance.

Sure, you can try to regulate the worst abuses. I think once you allow minors to work in these industries you've opened the floodgates and regulating it will become difficult. What exactly do we have to gain by allowing thirteen and fourteen year old's to work? The childhood years should be reserved for education and family activities. Some may claim that attitude is "paternalistic". I think protecting any group is unavoidably paternalistic. Its a value judgment that I make and most of society makes as well.

[ncole1]

Originally Posted by markg91359

I cannot help but believe that if exceptions are recognized to child labor laws that it will ultimately undermine the whole premise of these laws which is to protect a vulnerable group in society. It may also have effects like layoffs of older and more experienced workers who will not work for a pittance.

Sure, you can try to regulate the worst abuses. I think once you allow minors to work in these industries you've opened the floodgates and regulating it will become difficult. What exactly do we have to gain by allowing thirteen and fourteen year old's to work? The childhood years should be reserved for education and family activities. Some may claim that attitude is "paternalistic". I think protecting any group is unavoidably paternalistic. Its a value judgment that I make and most of society makes as well.

There are less paternalistic ways to regulate that still make abusive scenarios illegal. Why not push for those instead? Restricting everything just to prevent abuse is overkill. What the current child labor laws do is akin to banning basketball courts because sometimes people get hurt, or banning football fields because some people refuse to wear their helmet and get concussions over time.

You say that would "open the floodgates" - but this is speculation and not based on history or current economics. The egregious abuses of the past occurred at a time when protections for all workers were substantially weaker than they are now, in regards to workplace safety and wage/hour limits. They didn't occur simply due to an absence of age restrictions.

It is extremely disrespectful to young people to say work is off limits just because they might be abused. Address the abuse, not the work.

[Mike from back east]

We solved the abuses a century ago by forbidding child labor in most industries; fast foods gets a break because it's generally just a few hours a day, in a relatively benign environment, near home, and under the steady eye of a watchful manager. A 14-year old in a meat packing plant's reefer room is just plain nuts; it's just blatant greed of toxic capitalism. Worse is the me-too effect that surely will follow as one toxic industry after another pleads to hire kids to "stay competitive." We've heard these lies before about "we're big boys, we know how to run things, we don't need no regulation" and then wham, the Great Recession washes over us like a burst cesspool. Don't fall for it.

If ever there was a slippery slope this is it; we've been down this road before; we don't need to relearn the old bitter lessons. If we relax the law for one area we can expect a drumbeat for equal treatment and relaxing these laws for everyone. Kids need to stick to age appropriate endeavors to make a few bucks and not enter the world of serious adult labor at too young an age. Kids need to be kids, need to stay safe, need to mature, and above all need to put in the study time to get a decent education.