Child labor laws by canttakesky

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Child labor laws

POSTED BY: CANTTAKESKY
UPDATED: Thursday, February 24, 2011 08:54
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1414
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, February 21, 2011 7:41 PM

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/15/missouri-child-labo/

Quote:
This act modifies the child labor laws. It eliminates the prohibition on employment of children under age fourteen. Restrictions on the number of hours and restrictions on when a child may work during the day are also removed. It also repeals the requirement that a child ages fourteen or fifteen obtain a work certificate or work permit in order to be employed. Children under sixteen will also be allowed to work in any capacity in a motel, resort or hotel where sleeping accommodations are furnished. It also removes the authority of the director of the Division of Labor Standards to inspect employers who employ children and to require them to keep certain records for children they employ. It also repeals the presumption that the presence of a child in a workplace is evidence of employment.

Any thoughts? Frem?

I believe this would make it a lot easier on street kids.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 21, 2011 8:26 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I think this is potentially problematic, I don't like it. I think there should be a limit on how many hours a child under 15 can work in a day, at least in regards to employment as specified here. This new law doesn't seem like something I like. I don't have a big problem with kids helping with jobs in the summer, my dad and his siblings used to berry pick and they're glad they had that early work experience, what concerns me is the hours, this wants to take away a limit on hours worked and that could be abused. I also worry a bit about proper records not being kept on kids' employment, it says that they don't have to keep the same kind of records that they do now, I don't know how important that really is, but it gives me pause. Anyone know more about the ramifications of this. I hate how in new laws they lump a bunch of things together. One might be okay with thing A but be worried about thing B and one might feel like thing C is atrocious, but they're all lumped together, the royal we thinks its a bd thing to lump like that.

Also, the royal we has some potentially major hesitations/problems with this law

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 21, 2011 11:17 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

How is this even remotely a good thing?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 22, 2011 12:39 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Pure exploitation, a downright gimme to sucker them in and then do whatever, cause THIS line jumps out at me..

Quote:
Children under sixteen will also be allowed to work in any capacity in a motel, resort or hotel where sleeping accommodations are furnished.

And followed up by that no-inspections thing just plain flat out screams of a deliberate encouragement to pimp kids.

I guess Erik is too busy with his New Rhodesia plans down in Somalia to pick up Abramoffs slack and maybe the kidhumpers are running short of new victims...

Look at the very *specific* way it's written, and I know you don't wanna think about it (and why it slipped right past most folk) but think about WHY it's written JUST THAT WAY, what *business* would benefit directly and specifically from those things, and only those things ?

It's a sop to the freaks, and you follow the money trail, I guarantee you'll find one of the freak fronts on the other end.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:01 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
How is this even remotely a good thing?

I generally support relaxation of child labor laws because legitimate jobs for street kids would allow them to escape black market exploitation. Jobs would allow them to get off the streets earlier, or escape abusive homes.

Imagine if women were not allowed to work. How hard would it be for them to escape abusive husbands?

Whenever there is a prohibition on a type of labor, the labor still exists. It only forces the labor to go underground where the laborers are exploited horrifically. I generally support lifting of labor prohibition, be it in children or prostitutes or illegal immigrants.

In this case though, Frem makes some good points about the way this particular bill is worded. Red flags for sure.

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 22, 2011 4:18 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
How is this even remotely a good thing?

Missouri is a farm state. They are trying to allow a family to make use of children in running family farms and businesses.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 22, 2011 4:37 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
How is this even remotely a good thing?

Missouri is a farm state. They are trying to allow a family to make use of children in running family farms and businesses.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

Hello,

Children have always served on family farms, regardless of legal restrictions. I find it hard to believe that this law is designed to allow children to work on their parent's farm.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 22, 2011 5:35 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I find it hard to believe that this law is designed to allow children to work on their parent's farm.

Esp when they don't use the word "farm," but DO use the words, "hotel," "motel," and "resort."

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 22, 2011 12:11 PM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Wow. They're just attacking all the rights of the organized worker, aren't they?

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:19 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Ew, I didn't think of the whole pimping-kids-at-hotels thing, I guess I was just picturing them cleaning etc. But I still knew their were problems with this/it was a bad idea. But now its an even worse idea.

I've always assumed that children are allowed to work for family businesses without many labor limits. Farms, resturants, companies, I've known people whose under age kids help run such things and I always thought that was fine, that there weren't any hard and fast rules about it, unless its obviously overkill and someone reports it.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 7:06 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Oh it's worse than that, since the fulltext of the bill includes certain provisions right up front for "modeling" and "entertainment", and you know damn well what those are euphemisms for, people.

The bitch went cheap, too, a mere $15,000.00 USD.
Funneled through the front company of AHP Enterprises in the person of one Barry G Conner, who's listed address is a PO Box and appears on the board of multiple front companies, all of which appear to have fronted similar donations for either stuff like this or sweetheart real estate deals, usually involving hotel/motel/resort property.

Always, always, follow the fucking money.
Hell, usually they do a better job of hiding it, but I guess at the state level in a state populated mostly by morons they didn't see the need.

It is what it is, only thing which makes this different than any other attempt is they didn't hide it so good.

-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 24, 2011 1:31 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh it's worse than that, since the fulltext of the bill includes certain provisions right up front for "modeling" and "entertainment", and you know damn well what those are euphemisms for, people.

Ewwwww.

Thanks for figuring this out, Frem.

ETA: Just went and read the full text of the bill. Honestly, my mind wouldn't have gone in that direction, but now that you mention it, I don't know why I didn't see it before. Weird, huh?

-------
"It is not my thorns that defend me. It is my perfume," says the rose. -- Paul Claudel

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 24, 2011 5:53 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Honestly, my mind wouldn't have gone in that direction, but now that you mention it, I don't know why I didn't see it before. Weird, huh?

No one is immune to Bigfoot Effect, doll.
See Also: This thread, for a more detailed explaination of what that means.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=46723

Even someone like me who determinedly looks beyond conventional perceptions at EVERYTHING, can be caught out by the simple desire to not believe - were it not for a combination of the realization I could no longer read street signs at point blank range, and Wendys ever present mockery about my age, I woulda never fully realized how bad my eyesight had gotten, since working in the dark is a whole different type of visual processing, you see.

Got my new specs yesterday, and the damn things look like the bottom of friggin coke bottles, which is seriously embarassing - imma hafta talk to Doc Haddad about the laser, and oh won't THAT be fun since I have an epic freakout when anything comes near my eyes... this is gonna take a whole lotta tranqs, hoo boy.

-Frem

PS. Haddad comes highly reccommended by me, he did for my ex after twenty docs told her it was impossible, and is something of a rocketjock mad scientist type, VERY cocksure of himself and with every right to be.
http://www.lasereyeinstitute.com/vision_correction.aspx

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 24, 2011 8:54 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I'm with Lili. Between this (the excuse for which I don't buy, for the same reasons others have mentioned...the use of the terms and the lack of the term "farm", as well as the fact that children have worked farms, so why the need to change the law?), and the efforts to break the unions, it's all pretty predictable if you think about it.

Simple fact: The right doesn't want ANY restrictions or regulation on businesses' power. They're working to attain that goal.

Frem,

Quote:
Hell, usually they do a better job of hiding it,

They don't need to anymore. They're seeing how easily the public is being manipulated to allow them to get away with things, so why hide it anymore unless you're dealing with a THINKING public? It's all of a piece, and if, as you say, one follows the money, it's easy to see where all this is going. People just don't think beyond their TV screens.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE