More backsliding: Some states want to relax restrictions on child labor.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/02/11/child-labor-iowa/
Solution to worker shortage: Put the kids to work.
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
Just remove the regulations altogether. Get the brats back down the coal mines.
TheGoldcountry
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2011
- Messages
- 8,382
This will be quickly followed by "We shouldn't have to pay them a decent wage, they're just kids, not real workers!"
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
That's actually the main point, just they are too cowardly to say so. Paying a kid newspaper route money to do a day of mens' work.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The real lesson here is that modern 14 year olds are incapable of doing useful work.
You'd think that a kid who could reliably mow the lawn could reliably do similar work for a living wage, but I guess the modern 14 year old shouldn't be relied on to mow the lawn, either.
You'd think that a kid who could reliably mow the lawn could reliably do similar work for a living wage, but I guess the modern 14 year old shouldn't be relied on to mow the lawn, either.
Nosi
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,164
Foster kids would be excellent grist for this mill.
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
As with most things, I'm in multiple minds about this.
On the one hand, we have the weird current system where people are still counted as 'children' when they are under 21.
(Against a historical background where people were married at 12).
Then we see the statistics that show that boys shouldn't really be allowed to drive until they're 21 (because their risk-taking behaviours as teenagers are reflected in accident statistics).
And finally, the real killer for me, the people who seem to talk about this stuff the most, seem to have a lot of creepy overlap with paedophillia...
However, I started with a paper round when I was eight, and was working as a kitchen hand before my fifteenth birthday, and neither of these things seem to have killed me.
On the one hand, we have the weird current system where people are still counted as 'children' when they are under 21.
(Against a historical background where people were married at 12).
Then we see the statistics that show that boys shouldn't really be allowed to drive until they're 21 (because their risk-taking behaviours as teenagers are reflected in accident statistics).
And finally, the real killer for me, the people who seem to talk about this stuff the most, seem to have a lot of creepy overlap with paedophillia...
However, I started with a paper round when I was eight, and was working as a kitchen hand before my fifteenth birthday, and neither of these things seem to have killed me.
Where I live children can’t leave school without the approval of the school until they are 16, however nothing prevents them from taking part-time jobs from 14 years 9 months, which all my children did. They were paid good wages for school kids. Seems to work well.
As always before the discussion gets dragged into pure semantics and pedantics and broad to the point of meaningless philosophical discussion.
Anyone who plans to spend the next 20 page arguing for 14 years old to work. Say now what problem this is solving or what this is improving.
A world where a 14 year is better because (provide reason now, not later.)
Anyone who plans to spend the next 20 page arguing for 14 years old to work. Say now what problem this is solving or what this is improving.
A world where a 14 year is better because (provide reason now, not later.)
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
It's solving the problem of older people not wanting to work even though modern medical advances mean they're healthier longer, because they'd rather someone else work for their extended retirement upkeep.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
But won't putting children to work make their meat tough and stringy? If anything we should be making sure they relax more.
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
It is pure politics that will not solve a real problem.
1. The number of children cf the total workforce is small.
2. Few of these will be employed. Youth employment is not very high.
Be much better to encourage the older population to work longer before retiring.
1. The number of children cf the total workforce is small.
2. Few of these will be employed. Youth employment is not very high.
Be much better to encourage the older population to work longer before retiring.
That’s certainly happening in Australia. Firstly there is not a set retirement age. Secondly, when people work past pension age as I did (between 65 and 67 depending on when you were born) you earn a work bonus. This means that part of your wage can be ignored when calculating your pension. Also, you continue to attract superannuation no matter how long you work.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
The ostensible reason, at least according to all the news articles I've read about these bills, is to "address the labor shortage" in these sectors.
I think it can be considered a generally accepted fact that there are labor shortages nationwide in certain sectors, and I think it's also well understood that these shortages aren't due to any lack of available adults able to fill them but rather that people simply don't want to take those jobs for what they consider the insultingly low wages and poor working conditions the employers tend to offer.
The idea that making children eligible to work in these specific industries will fix the labor shortage, then, has...implications. If the problem is that adults don't want those particular jobs, child workers being the answer means that the people in charge must believe either that children WILL want those particular jobs (personally I feel this is unlikely, big-picture wise), or that - unlike the adults - the children won't have the option to refuse them. I think a valid interpretation here is they expect parents to compel their children to take the jobs and not allow them to quit.
That's pretty awful in itself; but there is another angle here, which is that the jobs we're talking about aren't jobs for white people.
Yes, I know some are rolling their eyes right now, and that's fine. But, it doesn't escape my notice that the specific kinds of industries mentioned - construction, mining, meatpacking, and assembly-line work - are industries that, within the US, make large scale use of immigrant labor. This is just as true in the midwest as elsewhere; whole media thinkpieces have been dedicated to it. As part and parcel, some of that labor is child labor.
For one example, at the end of last year, one company that used largely immigrant labor to staff meatpacking plants in Iowa and Minnesota (one of the states wanting to eliminate child labor restrictions) was sued by the Federal government after a Department of Labor investigation found out they were using minors, some of whom had been injured while working. That staffing company lost contracts as a result, leaving some plants scrambling to find another labor supplier.
In this light, these moves by midwestern states to reduce child labor restrictions can be seen as defensive. They're not trying to create a new labor pool, they're trying to protect an already-existing illicit one from being disrupted by the Feds and other busybodies. Notice for instance that the Iowa legislation would also indemnify employers if children are injured or maimed on the job. They want to cover every angle of possible attack.
We have a thread now about working conditions in agriculture that was split from the Half Moon Bay shooting. These companies get away with treating adults like animals and it has been well known since forever.
This needs to be stopped, not expanded to include children. These people have no shame. Anything to make a dollar. I don't even need to look to know this is Republican backed.
What's stopping kids from getting jobs? Get a waiver if you have to. I worked when I was 14 at my parents cabinet shop, washed dishes at 15-16. I wanted a car so I worked. When I was 18 I had a choice...work and pay rent, go to college, or move out.
I don't see a movement by kids demanding they be able to work LOL, just adults. Disgusting and stupid too, as usual.
Must be weird to belong to a political party that wants to use child labor to keep from paying an honest wage.
This needs to be stopped, not expanded to include children. These people have no shame. Anything to make a dollar. I don't even need to look to know this is Republican backed.
What's stopping kids from getting jobs? Get a waiver if you have to. I worked when I was 14 at my parents cabinet shop, washed dishes at 15-16. I wanted a car so I worked. When I was 18 I had a choice...work and pay rent, go to college, or move out.
I don't see a movement by kids demanding they be able to work LOL, just adults. Disgusting and stupid too, as usual.
Must be weird to belong to a political party that wants to use child labor to keep from paying an honest wage.
Last edited:
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
Casual jobs like these? Nothing. Kids can still get them, just as they always have.
The midwestern bills specifically want to eliminate prohibitions on children working in hazardous jobs, and also apparently allow jobs to take priority over schoolwork.
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
More than anything, it is about wage cost. Workers under a specific age, usually 18, get paid a LOT less than older workers for doing essentially the same jobs. And in many situations, no mandatory deductions or package benefits apply - they are paid and protected the same as kids with pocket-money jobs. They are a source of cheap, exploitable labour.
Not to mention workplace safety and representation, apart from pay.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,324
That's coincidental.
I'm actively involved in setting up a program to encourage kids of 15 to leave school and work instead of wasting their time learning idiotic crap they don't need and will never use.
We have a massive problem of disengaged youth in NZ, and I'm hoping getting them earning a wage early might change that.
Not here - age doesn't matter and they'll be paid at least minimum wage.
An alternative view is that, by making it easier to pull poor kids out of school, you remove one of the key mechanisms for economic mobility by retaining an under-educated underclass.
That's great.
Unfortunately in the UK, the minimum wage is much lower for young people.
For those over 23 it's £9.50 an hour
For those under 18 it's £4.81 an hour
There's a real financial incentive to hire children if they're capable of similar productivity. Children are also IMO more likely to be exploitable than adults.
Last edited:
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
Obviously if you trap them early in a menial futureless job and specifically deprive them of the means to ever skill themselves out of it, they will indeed never need or use any of the "idiotic crap" you have rescued them from.
If this is the strategy one wishes to use, it is certainly best to get them into the menial futureless job as early as possible, before they have had a chance to be exposed to other options and possibly decide for themselves whether they might actually want to do some other kind of work for the next forty years of their lives.
Exactly. This is not the situation in Australia. As I said earlier in this thread, children under 17 need the school’s approval to leave school, and this happens if the child has a decent job to go to. For apprenticeships and traineeships, this approval is pretty automatic.
For younger children the Education Department becomes involved and approval is harder.
Why does this happen? Because the best indicator of post-school success is the level of school completed, and year 12 completion gives children more options.
As I also pointed out earlier, children can get part-time jobs while at school, including part-time apprenticeships, which are growing like crazy. Children can leave school with their Higher School Certificate (or equivalent) and a full year of an apprenticeship (there are over 1000 different apprenticeships) under their belt. This is one of the solutions for the skill shortage problem.
By the way, the UK copied the school-based apprenticeship idea from Australia. The US (Department of Labor) didn’t even want to talk about it.
Carrot Flower King
Janitor of Lunacy
It's all well and good folk talking about older people "choosing" to leave the work force, but until the very real and high levels of age discrimination are tackled nothing will change. Not to forget years of being told to leave jobs to make way for up and coming young folk...
I'm not entirely clear what else I was to do other than take early retirement after my employer did away with my job, with a "no redundancy" policy in place, during an austerity induced fit of getting rid of older and more expensive staff, as there are no other employers of folk with my qualifications and specialised background and experience within any reasonable travelling distance.
Ill health took over anyway after a few years, so I would have had to go then anyway, but my employer could have had those extra years out of me if they'd wanted...
I'm not entirely clear what else I was to do other than take early retirement after my employer did away with my job, with a "no redundancy" policy in place, during an austerity induced fit of getting rid of older and more expensive staff, as there are no other employers of folk with my qualifications and specialised background and experience within any reasonable travelling distance.
Ill health took over anyway after a few years, so I would have had to go then anyway, but my employer could have had those extra years out of me if they'd wanted...
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Under Tory administrations, who knows? There may be laws in place that aren’t enforced.
But it certainly should be illegal. As I pointed out earlier, older workers are generally seen as an asset in Australia, but even if they weren’t, an employer who blatantly discriminates against older workers (unless they settle, and many do) can expect court appearances and even worse. Adverse publicity.
I suppose it depends on how it plays out and how they do away with the role.
If you feel that you've been discriminated against then it's up to you to bring a case (as you did yourself). If you lack the resources and/or confidence to do so then the employer does get away with it - which is where unions should come into play but union membership is at low levels at the moment.
20 years ago the role I was performing was made redundant and I felt that I had been "constructively dismissed". I was able to employ an employment lawyer and obtain significantly enhanced terms. Someone less well heeled or less well informed likely would not have done so.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Oh, I don't see menial labor jobs lasting another forty years, not with advances in robots and AI.
Depends on how cheap the people are and/or expensive the robots.....
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 5,964
I guess it depends on how you look at it and what you actually present.
There is a group of children that is pretty unsuited to learning by sitting in the classroom and listening, but who are very good at learning by actually doing things.
Pulling them from a standard school and into apprentice type education for things like electrical engineer or plumber etc where they still get an education but also learn trough work can be very successful and reach students that are often described as troublesome in a regular class.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I'd imagine a lot of jobs have gotten a lot safer since the original prohibitions were put in place. And a work-study program might actually be more beneficial for older teens, in terms of giving them useful skills and education.
Not everything is some nefarious scheme to do evil.
Donal
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 8,860
Unless you are pulling them out of school to do these jobs, this makes no sense. You will be replacing a large demographic of full-time workers with an extremely small demographic of part-time workers.
From the 14 year old's perspective, it solves the problem of not having enough money.
From the 14 year old's future 18 year old self's perspective, it may solve the problem of getting adequate experience working to get a better paying job.
Carrot Flower King
Janitor of Lunacy
No: they had a fictional internal relocation scheme which had been signed off by staff side (who didn't discuss this with the membership), which was supposed to guarantee that you would have first dibs on any available jobs at the same grade, preferably similar area and location.
They covered the consultation with staff that way and then there was no external monitoring of how or even if the relocation scheme worked. In my case I was not even informed of the 1 appropriate job of my grade, expertise and specialism within my geographical area and they tried to persuade me that a job in a speciality I'd never worked in, which bore no resemblance to my actual skills and was an unreasonable distance away was it...
Oh, supposedly re-training was to be offered, but it wasn't. Well, I was told there were not enough people who might need what I might need for them to offer it.
They skirted around the not very good rules easily, partly because the DoH wanted them to do so in order to save money on the more expensive staff.
Carrot Flower King
Janitor of Lunacy
An interesting, and possibly relevant, piece from today's Graun about why some folk do not find it financially worthwhile to work full time - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/13/full-time-part-time-work-no-longer-pays-uk-economy
Carrot Flower Queen, from her payroll days, was well familiar with these sorts of things. ETA And in her IT days she retired and went back part time and found she was coming out with the same money for 3 days work as she was paying less tax and NI and her travel costs were hugely reduced.
Carrot Flower Queen, from her payroll days, was well familiar with these sorts of things. ETA And in her IT days she retired and went back part time and found she was coming out with the same money for 3 days work as she was paying less tax and NI and her travel costs were hugely reduced.
Last edited:
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,324
That's utter bollocks, because the other choice for these kids is a life on the dole.
Starting a job as menial as collecting trolleys at a supermarket exposes them to good work habits and future career prospects.
Like I said, that's irrelevant to NZ.
Kids here will be earning the same $22-70 an hour as their granddad who does the same job. Living at home and getting >$650 a week in the hand seems a pretty good idea to me.
They can support their family, save money, and in NZ's case, will be contributing at least 3% of their pay to their personal superannuation scheme, which will be available to help them buy a house if they choose to do so down the track.
I'm finding it hard to see any negatives.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,324
16 here, with minimum age of 15 to be allowed to leave.
Teachers and principals I've dealt with are positive about the idea, so as long as they're going into work, approval won't be an issue.
I don't know if Aussie has the same underclass of youths not in work or training as NZ, but it's a serious issue here.
You can't expect nuance from a skeptics forum. Just look at the op, this conflates being a lifeguard with working at a meat packing plant.
Jesus, what kind of third world dystopia do you live in? (sarcasm)
https://www.payscale.com/career-adv...-successful-adults-according-to-recent-study/
You're probably right about it not having much impact on the job market, but there is evidence that it benefits teens future selves to have a job.
Encourage old people to keep working, like increase the retirement age or reduce SS benefits?
Anyrate, there's nothing wrong with teens working after school and in the summer. Its probably a good thing depending on the job of course.
Last edited:
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,398
Yes, please make sure to gloss over this by pretending that we’re talking about kids taking jobs as babysitters and delivering newspapers as opposed to working in meatpacking plants, and in the mining and logging sectors.
A discussion about inhumane conservative policies wouldn’t be complete without a disingenuous conservative telling everyone that they’re being dramatic.
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,398
There is something a bit Dickensian about allowing 15-year-olds to work as lifeguards?
Yes, because the policy is just about 15 year-olds working as lifeguards and absolutely nothing else. Another well-argued point from a conservative not at all trying to provide cover for garbage conservative policies.