Just think of family farms and businesses. I thought liberals liked these. They certainly come up a lot in their speeches. Yet businesses like this are hard to fully square with child labor laws. Even if children aren’t actually working at the businesses in question they are frequently there.
I have often seen children studying at back tables of family owned restaurants, or even sleeping in the booth. This would surely fall afoul of the final section:
I notice that nobody seems to be jumping up to defend this one.
What frequently happens is that a lot of work gets done for families unreported to and unmolested by authorities, and a lot of other work is similarly done in the shadows. The work authorizations that are being defended here are probably largely ignored anyway.
And again, none of this is required by the federal government, and the federal government has its own regulations when actual abuse of child labor is going on. They also have their own people to punish it.
Were it up to me, I wouldn’t be gung ho about eliminating regulatory responsibility - but I would want to loosen up some restrictions. An absolute ban on children under the age of 14 working is wrong and unnecessary. Smart restrictions of their labor is a better way to go.
Since when? Those are things I hear much more about from conservatives, not liberals. Conservatives love to pretend that some tax break or subsidy that is aimed at huge corporations or the ultrawealthy is actually going to help Ma and Pa on their family farm instead of MegaHugeAgriCorp Inc.
Does this law actually have any support in the legislature? I mean, so far, it looks like all that’s happened is that the senator introduced the bill and it got referred to the appropriate committee. It’s possible no one in the legislature supports the bill except for her.
Honestly? I think kids should be entitled to sleep in their own beds and study in peace in their own rooms, even if their folks have a family business or farm. I think kids should be free to focus on their education and it’s the parents’ responsibility to run their own business. I think parents who see their kids as free labor are one of the main reasons we need laws like this.
That’s certainly the weakest part of the current child labor laws. If Cunningham’s bill just removed that line, she’d be on stronger ground, imo. But it doesn’t. And taken in light of her other changes, I think it’s clear that she’s trying to create an environment where business owners can be safe to exploit children for cheap labor.
Doesn’t mean that Missouri’s laws and enforcement team are unnecessary. Clearly, the federal regulations & inspectors didn’t prevent the overtime violations last year.
First off, if you’d read the article I cited three times now, it contains quotes from Missouri’s Department of Labor that says the current laws allow children to have casual jobs like raking leaves for a neighbor. It would only be if the child wanted to work formally for a lawn management company that the laws would kick in. So there’s already no “absolute ban”.
Here’s the cite again - http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=406876
Secondly, let’s be honest here - there’s no groundswell of tweeners begging to work longer hours or wanting to negotiate their own hours & terms with management. You know who that negotiation between boss & child will benefit - the one with the power and the experience.
This bill is all about letting businesses hire children as cheap labor and gutting the local oversight.
People who voted for Republican state senator Jane Cunningham should be ashamed of themselves. But probably aren’t, I’m guessing. I’m sure she’s not.
Probably not a ton of support, especially after it hit the national talk show. However, one might note that the appropriate committee happens to be one she chairs, IIRC.
If that were the case, then there wouldn’t need to be repeal of all the hour limitation provisions and work permit provisions, just a amendment which exempted children employed by businesses where the proprietors are members of their immediate family.
And when some scuzzball takes advantage of the opportunity presented when a 13 year old knocks on his hotel room door saying “housekeeping” because her parents decide to lay off a maid and make her do the job during her summer vacation, that prohibition on young kids working in places like hotels will have looked like a pretty damn smart law.
Precisely. And parents shouldn’t be able to see their young teens as a household income source, either. But eliminate caps on hours worked per week and the acceptable after-school hours and there will be kids who will not be given any choice but to work, and work as many hours as their employers will schedule them, and if schoolwork suffers, so be it.
It’s not the role of children to be in paid employment.
We should start calling these efforts “Campaign Laws”. They are using the government’s time and money to reach the fringe elements for support, although they know that the proposed legislation has no chance of passing. Anytime you see proposals that are too partisan and/or cannot pass constitutional muster, it isn’t really a proposed law-it’s a campaign ad.
I don’t think this is accurate. Sec. 294.040(1-14) lists places where a child under sixteen is not permitted to work, including a catch-all “place of employment dangerous to the life, limb, health, or morals of children under the age of sixteen.”
Query whether that includes the state legislature.
While there’s something to be said for this viewpoint, might I suggest that having the government become this intrusive into how people run their lives is really not consistent with having a free and pluralistic society. I’m not a fan of the idea of someone working their kids long hours at the family store either, but it’s also none of my damned business what chores my neighbours give their kids to do. There is a limit to how much good parenting you can legislate.
Saving kids from sweatshops is one thing; sticking your nose into the business of how the Smiths raise their children to learn the value of work is quite something else.
Society has a right to demand that all parents provide a minimum level of education to their kids. Parents who force their kids to work in a fashion that prevents their education I think society has a right to stop.
Other than that I am unaware that kids, under the current law, can’t work if their parents want them to. Every kid who grows up on a farm probably helps around the farm. Kids whose parents may own, say, a corner market probably have the kids help out there too (sweeping floors or something).
Can you point to cases where parents wanted to put their kid to work but were unfairly prevented from raising their kids as they see fit because an onerous child labor law got in their way?
If there was a problem here by all means point it out.
I’m still in shock over the fact that Mr. Moto is saying that the Federal Government is at least as well suited to protect children from unfair labor practices as is the Great State of Missouri.
From here to his advocating for single-payer UHC, a small step…
What if the kid doesn’t want to work but Mom and Dad insist they will (at, say, the family restaurant). In the absence of inspection (which this law removes), what prevents this behavior?
I have known more than a few classmates whose parents strongly urged (to the point of demanding) that they spend every moment outside of school helping out the family business. This was not a good thing from the point of view of their education - but then again the parents didn’t care because the idea that their kid would go to college instead of taking over the family store was anathema.
The only thing discouraging this behavior, or worse, is the threat of inspection.
Yes. And currently it has laws that limit the hours and how late they can work in order to ensure an environment in which they can do well in their studies.
This is not new-age hippy stuff - child worker protection laws have been around for a long time, and were instituted in response to real problems and abuses. Federal statutes that limit the number of hours a child can work during a school day have been around since the 30s.
