We got the gist of your argument. 
But at what cost?
It is way more complicated on one level, but easier on another.
The easy part is that they tend to be slow automatics powered by electric or gas engines. ( I am assuming that this forklift was not something like a Kalmar, which lift shipping containers )
The hard part is the use of the forks, which can go pretty badly. There are no end of forklift disaster movies on Youtube.
In my home country you need both certification and a specific driver’s license to operate one. They are really dangerous vehicles.
There is a reason why the driver is completely surrounded by steel roll-bars.
Yeah, cars today are pretty much stop, go, steer.
Adding the fork maneuverization, and the balance situation with loads makes forklifts more complicated. And sometimes they steer from the back friggin wheel.
You mean like this one?
More reports of child labor in Ohio at a poultry plant. I get they want to earn money, but not working in a place like that!
THAT!!!
plus … they were not working for free, they got 20min access to the jungle-gym and free “nosedrip” from the sundae machine!
(don’t you hate it when the mainstream media conveniently forget to tell the whole story???)
/s
it seems that the only real “burn” for businesses is getting (temporary or perm.) shut down …
so, shut them down, with the obligation to keep paying wages (or pay juicy severances) for as long as the investigation lasts …
Then ask for docmentation on AB and C … and a week later for DE and F …
THAT will make it pretty certain that this “employment error” will not occur again - EVER!!!
Guilty until proven innocent!
Not sure where you’re getting that from.
Shutting down a business for an investigation seems punitive. Once an investigation finds wrongdoing, by all means shut them down.
The investigation has found wrongdoing. They were hiring children.
I read Al128 as speaking in hypothetical terms for this sort of situation. If he’s talking about the specific case under discussion, then you’re right, my comment makes no sense and I withdraw it.
I kinda think is does. Punishing someone during an ongoing investigation is putting the cart before the horse and tossing out the whole “innocent until proven guilty” rule of law.
well once you have “enough preliminary evidence and in flagrante delicto (10 y.o. flipping burgers at midnight)” to warrant further (more drastic) steps and a more in-depth investigation … and keeping it closed during the investigation.
Kindalike a McD getting shut down when rodent’s feces or e-coli are found in the kitchen by an inspector. Make sure you stop any immediate “danger” right now, and then you have the time to investigate in more depth and ask for more information and mitigation during a “due-process”.
is there human-trafficking going on with the 10 year olds? any further abuse for the kids? is there an organized network of child-trafficking involved? any health-related risk for patrons (assuming the kids did not come with a health-clearance and might come from El Salvador and might have TBC, covid and hepatitis ) …
meanwhile, cooperate with the investigation and by shutting them down (flagrant danger) you might get better rapport / turnaround / mitigation activities that help guarantee that such breaches of policy and law will not ocur in the future.
And of course you can then slow-walk the main investigation within reasonable timeframes.
Oh, yes. on evidence, sure. Investigations sometimes startvwith allegations, though, which was how I read the post.
True about presumption of innocence, but that has a different application in a regulatory context, especially regulations aimed at safety. Labour standards and workplace safety officials generally have the power to come in, to inspect and to make immediate orders to rectify unsafe conditions or violations of workplace laws. That doesn’t have to wait for a court prosecution and ruling; the goal is to remedy the unsafe conditions right away, as @Al128 says. If the food inspectors discover unsanitary food conditions, they can shut down the restaurant right away. Often the matter never goes to court.
Child safety is a big issue (or at least I would have thought so, but I guess not in the US). Labour standards and child protection agencies should have the power to stop an employer from breaching child safety laws, and if that means shutting down the workplace to ensure they’ve found all the children, and all the records of who the children are and where their parents are, so be it.
Child safety can be a big issue in the US. I have friends whose child was taken away by child protective services until the investigation found they were not at fault. There was never a trial.
(They had two kids. One died, suddenly and unexpectedly, of a seizure. While they were in shock over that, armed police took their other child. That child, also in shock, could not be hugged by his parents, he was held in foster care. After the autopsy determined they’d done nothing wrong, their child was returned home. Understandable, but pretty damn upsetting to all concerned.)
I was not trying to be glib. The news accounts of legislators wanting to get rid of child labour laws does make me wonder if child safety is a protected value in the US.
People seem to think that the only children working are the lost ones anyway. Undocumented and children of the poor.
There’s a huge backlash among some segment of the population against the idea that “academic” education is important for all. There should be more “practical” education. There’s a post with hundreds of comments on our town Facebook page deriding teenagers who can write haikus but not change a tire, and the “education industry” is copping at least some of the blame.
If you’re going to be mounting tires anyway, you should start as an apprentice at 14, not screw around with algebra homework.
In other words, the ones who most need the protection.