Children and Child Labor laws

[Gem]

Corplinx started this in the "Do businesses have a right to discriminate" thread

Back in that fabulous decade called the 80s, my brother worked _illegally_ after school at a grain and feed store on the way home from school every day for 3 hours. He got paid less than minimum wage. He basically swept the floors and helped the elderly sole proprietor out (who couldnt afford to hire a minimum wage part time worker).

Was my brother abused? overworked? injured? No. He loved it. I think child labor laws should at least be "tweaked" so that what he did isn't illegal.

It got me thinking about child labor laws. I'd like to know what everyone would think about changing this out-dated law.

My opinion is that part-time jobs should be open to children. Part-times jobs have the benefits of working, but no downside of missing school or college.

Then there's the issue of whether we should remove the laws altogether, and if the government should mandate a minimum wage.

I'd like to hear your opinions.

Gem

[Mr Manifesto]

No, I think corplinx's idea is a great one. Let's leave the door wide open to child exploitation.

[corplinx]

I think we should at least experiment with "child labor". I think in most states the minium age to work is around 16 with special allowances for a few years younger.

Can a 12 year old not sweep the corner store on his way home from school?

I don't think anyone is advocating putting 5 year olds in chimneys though.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by corplinx

I don't think anyone is advocating putting 5 year olds in chimneys though.


I advocate this; not to clean them, but rather to stop those draft's and wild-men in red suits coming down the chimney.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by corplinx
I think we should at least experiment with "child labor". I think in most states the minium age to work is around 16 with special allowances for a few years younger.

Can a 12 year old not sweep the corner store on his way home from school?

I don't think anyone is advocating putting 5 year olds in chimneys though.

As soon as you find a mom and pop corner store and a kid that walks to school in this day and age we will talk.

Will the kid be wearing a Davy Crockett cap? :p

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Suddenly


As soon as you find a mom and pop corner store and a kid that walks to school in this day and age we will talk.

Will the kid be wearing a Davy Crockett cap? :p

Back in the 90's when I was 14 I use to have a job illegally I was delivering flyers (those annoying papers you get with advertising for the local pizza place). I got $15 a day (which was like 2-3 hours) and a pizza with all the soda I could drink. Back then it was more than enough for me and the job was extremely easy to do.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Back in the 90's when I was 14 I use to have a job illegally I was delivering flyers (those annoying papers you get with advertising for the local pizza place). I got $15 a day (which was like 2-3 hours) and a pizza with all the soda I could drink. Back then it was more than enough for me and the job was extremely easy to do.

I'm not completely up on the labor laws, but I could swear that is is OK for 14 year old kids to have jobs, just with strict regulations as for the number of hours. That is Federal, of course, so the state may differ or be stricter.

[Ranb]

I started working as a paperboy when I was 12 in the 70's, then a cook when I was 15. My parents were poor, I earned my own spending money and learned the value of good day's work. Nothing wrong with kids doing some work.

Ranb

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Back in the 90's when I was 14 I use to have a job illegally I was delivering flyers (those annoying papers you get with advertising for the local pizza place). I got $15 a day (which was like 2-3 hours) and a pizza with all the soda I could drink. Back then it was more than enough for me and the job was extremely easy to do.

Fourteen is the minimum age to work outside of a family farm. And $15 per 3 hours was $5 per hour. What year were you fourteen? The wage increased to $5.25 an hour during the mid nineties.

What was illegal about your job, anyhow?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by dmarker


Fourteen is the minimum age to work outside of a family farm. And $15 per 3 hours was $5 per hour. What year were you fourteen? The wage increased to $5.25 an hour during the mid nineties.

What was illegal about your job, anyhow?

Well it was regardless of how many hours it took, sometimes it was 4 so there went 5.25. The illegal part was that it was all for cash I guess, though I am pretty sure it wasn't legal for some other reason, I could be wrong though. I'll research California labour laws.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Well it was regardless of how many hours it took, sometimes it was 4 so there went 5.25. The illegal part was that it was all for cash I guess, though I am pretty sure it wasn't legal for some other reason, I could be wrong though. I'll research California labour laws.

Generally one needs a permit to work when younger than 16. And paying cash under the table is illegal wherever you are (though fairly common).

Of course, many times the laws aren't enforced. You don't see law enforcement cracking down on babysitting rings.

[richardm]

Back in that fabulous decade called the 80s, my brother worked _illegally_ after school at a grain and feed store on the way home from school every day for 3 hours. He got paid less than minimum wage. He basically swept the floors and helped the elderly sole proprietor out (who couldnt afford to hire a minimum wage part time worker).

Was my brother abused? overworked? injured? No. He loved it. I think child labor laws should at least be "tweaked" so that what he did isn't illegal.

Thing is, the child labour laws weren't instituted to stop a small boy helping an elderly man sweep his floor; they weren't put in place to stop kids delivering a few leaflets or newspapers.

They were put in place to ensure that kids didn't end up working great, long shifts at an age where you might argue that a schoolday is an adequate length of time to work already.

Whether they entirely succeeded or not and whether they might be tweaked is a different issue, but I'd urge people not to think that just because they had a good experience that everyone would have a good experience.

[shanek]

Originally posted by aerosolben
Of course, many times the laws aren't enforced. You don't see law enforcement cracking down on babysitting rings.

Unless, of course, a politician hired the babysitter and the opposing party is trying to bring him down.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by aerosolben



Of course, many times the laws aren't enforced. You don't see law enforcement cracking down on babysitting rings.

Babysitters "on a casual basis" are exempt from federal child labor laws.

http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/screen75.asp

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Babysitters "on a casual basis" are exempt from federal child labor laws.

http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/screen75.asp


What about taxes?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tony



What about taxes?

Isn't there a minimum income on which you must pay taxes?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Suddenly


As soon as you find a mom and pop corner store and a kid that walks to school in this day and age we will talk.

Will the kid be wearing a Davy Crockett cap? :p
OK. A few months ago here there was a case where a child (~10 years old) would stay at grandma's store after school until his parents came home from work. Grandma gave the kid a few bucks to wash the windows. Somehow the state found out about this and came down hard on grandma. I think this was ridiculous.

Last summer there was also a problem in the suburbs where a little league paid some 13 year old kids to umpire the games. Again, the state came down hard, but I think the legislature got involved in this one and made an exception so the kids could umpire the games.

[gnome]

Agreed that a distinction can be made... so what guidelines should apply?

So far we have: Less than full time

We need to be more specific, or else we'll see kids employed for 39 hours a week...

How about this: child must be self-employed.

[Tmy]

I worked in violation of CL Laws when I was 15. By violation I mean I worked way past the hrs allowed.

I think the worry is that the children may be exploited by their handlers (parents) and they will ignore/damage their education. Just like there are rules limiting the amount of practice time for High School sports athletes.

Plus why have kids stealing jobs from hard working illegal immigrants!:p

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by WildCat

OK. A few months ago here there was a case where a child (~10 years old) would stay at grandma's store after school until his parents came home from work. Grandma gave the kid a few bucks to wash the windows. Somehow the state found out about this and came down hard on grandma. I think this was ridiculous.

Last summer there was also a problem in the suburbs where a little league paid some 13 year old kids to umpire the games. Again, the state came down hard, but I think the legislature got involved in this one and made an exception so the kids could umpire the games.

I'd agree that this is silly, but it does sound like a state thing rather than federal. What's up with the Illinois legislature? They've been taking a beating here lately.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by gnome
Agreed that a distinction can be made... so what guidelines should apply?

So far we have: Less than full time

We need to be more specific, or else we'll see kids employed for 39 hours a week...

How about this: child must be self-employed.

The fed restrictions seem reasonable:

The permissible jobs and hours of work, by age, in nonfarm work are as follows:

Youths age 18 or older are not subject to restrictions on jobs or hours;

Youths age 16 and 17 may perform any job not declared hazardous by the Secretary, and are not subject to restrictions on hours;

Youths age 14 and 15 may work outside school hours in various nonmanufacturing, nonmining, nonhazardous jobs under the following conditions: no more than three hours on a school day, 18 hours in a school week, eight hours on a non-school day, or 40 hours in a non-school week. In addition, they may not begin work before 7 a.m. nor work after 7 p.m., except from June 1 through Labor Day, when evening hours are extended until 9 p.m. Those enrolled in an approved Work Experience and Career Exploration Program (WECEP) may work up to 23 hours in school weeks and three hours on school days (including during school hours).


http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/guide/childlbr.htm

[Luciana]

Originally posted by Suddenly
The fed restrictions seem reasonable:
http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/guide/childlbr.htm


Here, the minimum working age is 14. The teenager earns half the minimum age and can work up to 20 hours a week in a health environment. They also must prove they're studying: employing a child out of school is illegal.

That doesn't stop child exploitation in the rural areas, though. :( But then it's another problem, the laws aren't being followed. Truth be told, in the 90s, the number of illegal child labor has dropped dramatically.

I have a friend, an accomplished journalist, who was born in a farm in the Amazon. His family was dirt poor. He started working in the sugar cane fields when he was 7, with his father and brothers. He said he was the proudest little boy in the world, because he knew he was helping. He loved to imitate his older brothers. His father made him study hard also. He was very tired in the end of the day, but at least they all had enough to eat. His was a loving family. Because he never gave up his studies, he had the chance of breaking that cycle of poverty.

He tells this story with pride. He doesn't feel abused in any form. However, he says that he doesn't reveal his story to the general public because he would be deeply offended if someone, a total stranger to the story, accused his father of child exploitation.

Child exploitation is despicable. But then I think most people overreact to that thinking that any child labor must be exploitation. Such is not the case. Actually, overprotecting children might not be the best way to prepare them for adulthood.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
Here, the minimum working age is 14. The teenager earns half the minimum age and can work up to 20 hours a week in a health environment. They also must prove they're studying: employing a child out of school is illegal.

That doesn't stop child exploitation in the rural areas, though. :( But then it's another problem, the laws aren't being followed. Truth be told, in the 90s, the number of illegal child labor has dropped dramatically.

I have a friend, an accomplished journalist, who was born in a farm in the Amazon. His family was dirt poor. He started working in the sugar cane fields when he was 7, with his father and brothers. He said he was the proudest little boy in the world, because he knew he was helping. He loved to imitate his older brothers. His father made him study hard also. He was very tired in the end of the day, but at least they all had enough to eat. His was a loving family. Because he never gave up his studies, he had the chance of breaking that cycle of poverty.

He tells this story with pride. He doesn't feel abused in any form. However, he says that he doesn't reveal his story to the general public because he would be deeply offended if someone, a total stranger to the story, accused his father of child exploitation.

Child exploitation is despicable. But then I think most people overreact to that thinking that any child labor must be exploitation. Such is not the case. Actually, overprotecting children might not be the best way to prepare them for adulthood.

Wow...that is probably the most rational position I have yet to hear on this issue! Nicely done, Luciana!

[Tmy]

This is sort ogf off topic but theres always somthingthat botherd me about child actors. When you have babies in movies etc.. and they are crying and upset (as the scene calls for) isnt that child abuse?? Making the poor kid cry for the camera.

[Luciana]

Originally posted by shanek
Wow...that is probably the most rational position I have yet to hear on this issue! Nicely done, Luciana!

:confused: Was it something I said? :D Anyway, thanks.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
This is sort ogf off topic but theres always somthingthat botherd me about child actors. When you have babies in movies etc.. and they are crying and upset (as the scene calls for) isnt that child abuse?? Making the poor kid cry for the camera.

Trust me, you do not have to do ANYTHING to make a baby cry. I imagine the hard part is finding times they're NOT crying to choose the scenes that require it.

Babies cry, or they sleep. Sometimes you have some in-between time, but it's not all that much.

[The Don]

Originally posted by shanek

Babies cry, or they sleep. Sometimes you have some in-between time, but it's not all that much.

If that's the case, you're doing it wrong. Maybe the Libertarian approach to raising children (just leaving them to get on with it - if they need feeding they'll get a job, buy formula and make it, or perhaps hire a wet nurse) is not conducive to happy kids.

Babies, in my experience spend a terrific amount of time eating, sh!tting, smiling and staring at their environment.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by The Don


Babies, in my experience spend a terrific amount of time eating, sh!tting, smiling and staring at their environment.

Damn, my life really hasn't changed that much at all.

[Ed]

Originally posted by dmarker


Fourteen is the minimum age to work outside of a family farm. And $15 per 3 hours was $5 per hour. What year were you fourteen? The wage increased to $5.25 an hour during the mid nineties.

What was illegal about your job, anyhow?

The flyers were really for a local strip club:D

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Don
If that's the case, you're doing it wrong.

If that's the case, then just about every parent is doing it wrong.

Maybe the Libertarian approach to raising children (just leaving them to get on with it - if they need feeding they'll get a job, buy formula and make it, or perhaps hire a wet nurse) is not conducive to happy kids.

:rolleyes:

Can't we have just ONE thread without me getting flamed by anti-Libertarian bigots?

Babies, in my experience spend a terrific amount of time eating, sh!tting, smiling and staring at their environment.

Before they eat, they cry to let you know they're hungry. After they mess their diaper, they cry to let you know they've done it. They get sleepy, they cry. Yes, they do a lot of laying around, smiling, and staring at their environment, but compare that to the amount of time they do the rest.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by shanek

:rolleyes:

Can't we have just ONE thread without me getting flamed by anti-Libertarian bigots?


Well, it's not like you are entirely innocent of hijacking totally unrelated threads and steering them into "anti-government bigotry". ;)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Valmorian


Well, it's not like you are entirely innocent of hijacking totally unrelated threads and steering them into "anti-government bigotry". ;)

He might inject his point of view, but I don't see how talking about baby crying has anything to do with political ideology.

[aerocontrols]

The permissible jobs and hours of work, by age, in nonfarm work are as follows:

Youths age 18 or older are not subject to restrictions on jobs or hours;

Youths age 16 and 17 may perform any job not declared hazardous by the Secretary, and are not subject to restrictions on hours;

Youths age 14 and 15 may work outside school hours in various nonmanufacturing, nonmining, nonhazardous jobs under the following conditions: no more than three hours on a school day, 18 hours in a school week, eight hours on a non-school day, or 40 hours in a non-school week. In addition, they may not begin work before 7 a.m. nor work after 7 p.m., except from June 1 through Labor Day, when evening hours are extended until 9 p.m. Those enrolled in an approved Work Experience and Career Exploration Program (WECEP) may work up to 23 hours in school weeks and three hours on school days (including during school hours).


Geez, it's a wonder I survived my childhood.

My stepfather is a housing contractor, and I began working for him when he married my mother (I was 8). Initially, I worked for $1 per hour. I regularly worked illegal hours (before 7 am or after 7 pm) especially at 10pm or 11pm to help him spread straw and a tarp over curing concrete if it became obvious that otherwise it was going to freeze and crack. My limit of hours per week was 20 (a number I rarely reached, which was set by my mother - typical values were about my age / week) whether school was in session or not. I feel quite certain that aspects of work that I performed would have been considered hazardous by the Secretary, so I suppose I broke that law as well.

By the time I was 15 I was making something over minimum wage, but I told my stepfather that he wasn't giving me enough hours and that I was going to find another job, likely fast food. I wanted to buy a car. He responded by getting me a job for $6/hr as a helper for his framing contractor. In the summer time, I worked at least 40 hours a week every week - during the school year, I worked 8 hours a day on every school holiday that wasn't Thanksgiving or Christmas. I regularly used circular saws and nail guns and all other manner of equipment for which it is impossible to insure a 15 year old to use. I worked on the roof of 2 story buildings in violation of OSHA rules about being tied off (we all broke this rule as well as many other rules) For this I was getting paid a couple of dollars more than minimum wage, about a dollar less than my boss was paying his 30 year old work-release helpers. I also kept working part time for the stepfather, which added about another 10 hours a week year-round.

I learned a trade - by the time I was 20 or so, I could be left alone or with a helper and work all day without guidance at just about any stage of the job if necessary, which it sometimes was. I switched contractors once because I knew a guy who would pay me and treat me a little better.

By the time I quit to take an internship at an engineering company, it was necessary for me to take a substantial pay cut from the (very nice) money I was making in construction.

I'm glad that none of my employers ever got caught or prosecuted for hiring me. It would have been nice, however, if they had been able to purchase insurance to protect me against work-related injury. Since they were in violation of the law, of course they could not. I believe that it should be legal for a child to work as much as I did when he or she is a child, and for a teenager to work as much as I did when he or she is a teen.

So yeah, I think the laws should be changed.

MattJ

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
Well, it's not like you are entirely innocent of hijacking totally unrelated threads and steering them into "anti-government bigotry". ;)

Hey, this was a PERSONAL ATTACK! My points at least have to do with the subject at hand and I'm just introducing an element no one has yet discussed. This was a PERSONAL SLAM on me and a slam on my parenting. It was INEXCUSABLE.

[shanek]

Well, since we're interjecting personal stories, starting when I was about 10 I helped my uncle on the farm during summers and over holidays. It was good, hard work, bailing hay and transporting it back to the barn, or cutting and loading lumber in the sawmill. I might work 6 hours a day and get paid $10 for it. That's less than the $2/hour that the examples in the other thread end up being after you adjust for inflation. I guess I was an exploited, abused child, huh? Didn't seem that way to me. I was out in the open air, doing good, hard work, I learned a lot and built character and discipline, and that helped me a lot when I went to get my first "real" job.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by shanek


Trust me, you do not have to do ANYTHING to make a baby cry. I imagine the hard part is finding times they're NOT crying to choose the scenes that require it.

Babies cry, or they sleep. Sometimes you have some in-between time, but it's not all that much.

My eldest two children as infants rarely cried. In fact both were very happy babies from day one.

I think my concern with infants, is yes babies cry, but some movies/TV shows allow the infant to become very, very upset to the point they are red with screaming. That is my biggest problem. No infant should be allowed to cry that much.

Of course, I was never of the "let them scream" school of thought (not that I am suggesting you are. Some babies can be screamers). Babies need to be held, cuddled, coddled, loved and given whatever they desire.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by shanek
Hey, this was a PERSONAL ATTACK! My points at least have to do with the subject at hand and I'm just introducing an element no one has yet discussed. This was a PERSONAL SLAM on me and a slam on my parenting. It was INEXCUSABLE.

Looked like a joke to me. Haha, Libertarians tell babies to get jobs, get it?

Perhaps you should sue for emotional damages. Especially since he's dressed as Santa, which leads you to believe he's kind and loving.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by shanek


Hey, this was a PERSONAL ATTACK! My points at least have to do with the subject at hand and I'm just introducing an element no one has yet discussed. This was a PERSONAL SLAM on me and a slam on my parenting. It was INEXCUSABLE.

And we all know how innocent you are of personal attacks. I wonder how many "idiot bigots" you're up to now?

You might want to remove that log from your own eye. ;)

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Grammatron


He might inject his point of view, but I don't see how talking about baby crying has anything to do with political ideology.

I was more amused at his immediate counter attack of "Libertarian Bigotry". As if such a comment was serious. Did he REALLY think the comment of having babies hiring their own wetnurses was said in seriousness?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
I was more amused at his immediate counter attack of "Libertarian Bigotry". As if such a comment was serious. Did he REALLY think the comment of having babies hiring their own wetnurses was said in seriousness?

"I was more amused at his immediate counter attack of "racial Bigotry". As if such a comment was serious. Did he REALLY think the comment of reproducing like uncontrollable animals stealing each others' eggs was said in seriousness?"

The "he was only kidding" defense has been used to excuse the racist comments of racists...by other racists.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek


"I was more amused at his immediate counter attack of "racial Bigotry". As if such a comment was serious. Did he REALLY think the comment of reproducing like uncontrollable animals stealing each others' eggs was said in seriousness?"

The "he was only kidding" defense has been used to excuse the racist comments of racists...by other racists.
Come on shane? Getting all precious now are we? How about we just call this "inexcusable personal attack" as quits against one of your "inexcusable personal attacks" or should we run a poll to see if you are the pot or the kettle?