What is your opinion about the trend to loosen child labor laws?
A little reminiscing for fun . . .
My first job was when I was in the 5th & 6th grades (Age 10 & 11 - 1965 & 1966). I was a paper boy where the route was the enlisted housing for USMC Nebo base. I was up before 5am rolling and rubber banding the papers. Those were packed into a bag with a front and rear pouch carried on my shoulders. The bag was almost as big as I was.
Then close to 5am I headed out making two trips to get the route done by walking. I was done by 7am, so about 2-1/2 hours of work. School started at 8am and I walked to it. Sundays it took three trips because of the comics and advertisements making the rolled papers thicker. It took longer to complete the route.
I worked seven days a week, no holidays, and no vacation over those two years rain or shine. It amounted to a somewhat over eighteen hours per week. I don't know if my parents acquired a work permit or even if they were around then.
I was paid a quarter for every subscription/customer I collected from. So, if someone did not pay I didn't get paid for that customer. I did get tips and was almost customary.
Peeking at today's California Child Labor Laws I would have broken some regulations. Oh no! What did it do to me? Was I abused? Next is today's regulations for a paper boy. Remember I was 10 & 11 when I did it.
Newspaper and Magazine Sales
Twelve is the minimum age that minors may be permitted to work in or in connection with the occupation of selling or distributing newspapers, magazines, periodicals or circulars. Nothing prohibits a minor engaged in the delivery of newspapers to consumers from making deliveries by foot, or bicycle, public transportation, or from an automobile driven by a person who is at least 18 years of age or older. [LC 1294.4]* News carriers
are exempt from occupational restrictions governing door-to-door sales. [8 CCR 11706.2] News carriers who are at least 14 years of age do not require work permits, whether or not they are self-employed. [EC 49112 (d)] News carriers are except from all work hour restrictions, except that they may not work more than 8 hours in a day. [EC
49112 and 49116, LC 1391 and 1392] Employment as news carriers does not exempt minors from compulsory school attendance requirements, and their work activities must be performed outside of school hours. News carriers’ exemption from the federal FLSA is explained in Chapter 12 of this digest.
As far as labor laws goes there are federal and state. From reading California's they are detailed, extensive, and thorough. They spell it out for the big picture then goes to age groups and then type of work for those.
California Child Labor Laws
https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/ChildLaborLawPamphlet.pdf
Federal Child Labor Laws
https://www.worker.gov/child-labor-wages/To add to a little reminiscing for fun . . .
I had the same newspaper story. Only two details vary, I was eleven and I only did it for a year. The rest mirrors my own experience. Then I went on to grass-cutting around the neighborhood for two summers. My first real summer job was at 14. I got a job cutting grass at a town graveyard. My first real paychecks.
GALet's reminisce,
I had my first paper route in 1968, delivering the Rocky Mountain News, in Denver. Stacked papers on cloth sacks on the front of my bike. Learned to throw papers like a pro, right on the front porch, not whacking the front door or falling short in the snow or flower beds. I learned about profit and loss early. I had a lot of deadbeats on my route, I barely broke even each month. The little old lady deadbeats offered me a piece of cherry pie and milk in exchange for allowing them to pay the $2.25 a month, later. That was a lot of work at ungodly hours, and having to go to school on top of that.
I got my first salary job as a high school student working as a janitor for an airport concession stand at what was formerly known as Stapleton International Airport in 1971. That $1.60 an hour was burning a hole in my pocket. This was just before all the hijacking and the resulting enhanced security requirements.
Them were the days....
In Colorado, Minors could not work for a "paycheck" if they were under 16, so I chomped at the bit to get my first "real job".I smiled at your post, remembering all the deadbeats on my paper route. How could you deceive an 11 year old over a few bucks a month? I felt sorry for them at the time but looking back I cannot believe there were so many who would not pay.
I got out of the "16 and older" law by doing farm labor. It is probably different now, but I dont think I ever met a farmer back in the day that asked for ID. If you had the stregth to buck a bale you were old enough to work.So, you too, huh, Doc? People just aren't no damn good. Who would stiff an eleven year old for a few dollars? It got so bad with me that at accounting time, I had more scraps of paper with IOU written on them than actual currency.
I will share a funny story about a paper route, excuse me if you have heard it already.
My great Auntie V (1899-1992) had an unpleasant encounter with a paper boy. Fast forward to the early 1980s, I was engaged in a little elder care as Auntie was wheelchair bound after suffering a stroke a few years before. She was alone as her husband had passed. She could tell stories about life under the Administrations of Calvin Coolidge, Woodrow Wilson and Warren Harding, she was a child of the Roaring Twenties and I was always riveted by her life experiences.
This paperboy kid was sloppy, always throwing the paper in her exquisitely maintained rose garden. Auntie was always kind of feisty and outspoken, so the latest offense from this paperboy was the last straw. The kid rang the doorbell to collect for the paper. Auntie told me to wheel her to the front door as she had more than a few bones to pick with this kid.
I opened the front door, the kid said, "collecting for the Denver Post". Auntie had deliberately reduced his payment to nickels and dimes waiting for the confrontation. She did a "Sandy Colfax" and threw all of the change into the front lawn, pennies too. I did not know that she still had it in her. She said, "there, now you go get it, how many times do I have to tell you to put my paper on the porch"? The kid looked back at me as I was standing with her all I could do was shrug my shoulders to keep from laughing out loud.
She had a classic line referring to the Teapot Dome scandal during the Harding Administration, circa 1922-23. She said, "back then they store thousands, now they steal millions" I said, "no Auntie, its billions, now.
Hard to say without real specifics. There were a few in the link, but not enough to make a real decision.
However, I do support allowing children to work. It has become increasingly difficult for kids to find meaningful, useful employment as they are barred from almost everything out there. It is important for these people to gain experience and an understanding of what holding a job means, far more important that sitting in front of a TV screen with a video game controller in their hand.
As a foreman and supervisor in the construction industry as well as a factory assembly line environment, it is pathetic and pitiful to see what we were getting as full time employees. Young people that simply did not understand what holding a job means, and that had no idea how to behave in the workplace. We do our kids no favors by withholding that kind of experience from them.I worked at 16 in a retail setting at my first job. I do not support the idea of 14 and 15 year olds working in factories or even 16 or 17 year olds working in the construction industry. There are plenty of photos of early 20th century exploitation of child labor and while labor for minors relaxation of current laws could prove harmless, appropriate limits are required and I really do not want to see certain lines crossed. Are conservatives taking us back to the future with this idea that seems to be spreading like wildfire through red states?
There is a reason that 12 year olds are not allowed to drive or obtain licenses even though they may be physically able to operate a car.
Kids should be in school, I support compulsory school attendance. As the greatest example of child abuse is denying that child an education to facilitate his or her survival in the world. And from my perspective that is more important than the conservative emphasis on work ethic.School is imperative. It is important to teach our kids that girls are boys, that an imaginary ET gave us the 10 commandments to follow and that 20 million illegal aliens in the country cost us nothing.
And so we get kids that don't know how to read a ruler, don't know how to add 1/2 + 1/4, cannot read the directions on a medicine bottle and doesn't understand one should show up for work at the scheduled day and time.
All the education in the world will not help when the person cannot hold a job and cannot support themselves. Although I guess they can claim disability and go on welfare with the rest of Democrat voters..."Although I guess they can claim disability and go on welfare with the rest of Democrat voters..."
WOW. Generalize/ stereotype much?A little poke at Credence, who is infamous for doing that. "And from my perspective that is more important than the conservative emphasis on work ethic.", as if only conservatives recognize that the ability and willingness to support ones self, and that it is somehow bad to understand that.
"Welfare with the rest of the Democratic voters". Such a dog whistle, I hear it and I know what you intend to say.
If a kid cannot read or write, how are they to support themselves today? There are priorities and they need to be considered first. Education is more than about the ability to work, but I don't expect conservatives to acknowledge that except in the case of the elite. These poor plebs are getting educated as slaves so they can function in your piecework factories, while the son of Thurston Howell never gets his hands dirty in comparison. I will resist such outcomes, always....
Your opinion is hardly the gospel for many of us, WildernessYes, I get it. It is far more important to be indoctrinated by liberal idiots that will then support the kid for the rest of their life off the efforts of someone else.
How about we both educate AND teach the lessons of life outside the classroom? Personally, I find that both are necessary to get by today regardless of liberals that find no value in actually producing something of value.
Far too many of our children are entering adulthood, after 12 years of school, totally unable to support themselves. The reason is not lack of knowledge, it is mostly an almost total lack of responsibility and almost no understanding of the world outside of the classroom.
You may find differently, believing that people are ingrained with that responsibility and understanding while in the womb, but I believe it is learned, not built into our genes. And it can only be learned through experience, not through some teacher explaining that their future employers must use the proper pronouns when addressing their new employee.You generalize about "liberals" so much. As if all of these people believe the same thing. I seriously doubt that many people call themselves liberal or conservative in their everyday lives. They kind of just believe what they believe. I know it's more comforting for people to lump all of humanity into either one or two groups. I don't really think this is the way it works though in reality. It's sad to think that society has devolved so much that people can only think in terms of black and white and cannot see any shades of Gray. Where has all the critical thinking gone?
Of course it's not how things work. But if you look at the post I replied to it is full of the same kind of thinking about conservatives; the writer believes he knows what conservatives think and what they believe, and they are all evil and wrong.
I replied in kind, just as I did before when you made the same general complaint about my comment.
Another of the same old tired refrain. "Education is a source of liberal indoctrination"
School is a place of independent thinking and inquiry, a concept alien to the cadence of the drumbeat that conservatives prefer. Lie about the truth, and replace it with irrelevant patriotic dogma. Don't want people to
think too much, or be disturbed about the truth, as they just might ask questions that the Rightwingers just as soon not have asked.
I am not against some kind of vocational education blended with the classic reading, writing and arithmetic.
Stop blaming liberals for the fact there have been educational deficit found in our schools. The world has changed, Wilderness, Ozzie and Harriet no longer apply.
Yes, we learn by experience, but kids still need to go to school. Does your idea of "experience" mean that 13 year olds work in factories? It certainly did during one savage period in our past."School is a place of independent thinking and inquiry..."
If only that were true! But the refusal to allow conservative speakers on campus, the demand that the university and it's students be liberal and PC gives a lie to that statement.
Yes, vocational training to give a saleable skill set to kids is valuable. But that still does not instill a work ethic or understanding of what it means to actually have a job.
I get that you want to instantly say (because it came from Republicans) that we would go back 150 years, but there is no truth in that. No, 13 year old's should not be in a heavy industry factory (my daughters shirt printing business is another matter), and no, working conditions for ALL employees are a far cry from that distant past. OSHA has done a great deal of good, even though some of it's actions were over the top.
Quit living in the past, Cred - we are not the middle ages and things have changed radically in just the last 100 years, let alone since the times you want to claim we are reverting to."If only that were true! But the refusal to allow conservative speakers on campus, the demand that the university and it's students be liberal and PC gives a lie to that statement."
How often has that actually, happened, I mean, really?
-------
What would it take for you to give kids this work ethic beyond the influence of parent and family? Having them working at sweat shops, underage, is certainly not the answer.
No 13 year olds in factories? I would not have expected that opinion from a conservative.
What working conditions that have improved came no thanks to conservatives who were always dragged along kicking and screaming into the 20th and 21st centuries. I know that when OSHA was introduced, conservatives in the interests of protecting capital would say that it was government overreach at its very conception. Now.. you acknowledge that they have done a great deal of good.
------
"Very quickly, strong industry opposition to OSHA developed through such organizations as the Business Roundtable, the John Birch Society, and lawsuits challenging the right of OSHA inspectors to enter private workplaces without warrants.39 Soon, OSHA’s efforts to reform the workplace were undermined by lawsuits, industry-funded scientific studies, challenges to the evolving science of occupational safety and health, and an enormous propaganda campaign associating regulatory actions as a threat to business growth and prosperity.40 Beginning in the 1980s with the ascent of Ronald Reagan to the presidency, business groups pushed an antiregulatory program. OSHA was a particular target as Reagan appointed Thorne Auchter, an executive in the construction industry, to head the agency. As Charles Noble describes his tenure, Auchter “withdrew [OSHA’s own] booklets on cotton dust, acrylonitrile, health and safety rights, and vinyl chloride because they were too one-sided.”41 Opposition continued through the 1990s and early 2000s. During the Clinton administration, OSHA worked with labor unions to pass new ergonomic standards, but their efforts were quashed by the Republican Congress and George W. Bush, who in March 2001 signed a joint resolution to reject it.42
-------
Pure Republicanism, absolutely pure.....
My point is that what is safe for an adult cannot be used as an identical standard for 14-15 year old. Being in the "minority" age wise is a protected class for reasons that we should all appreciate. The current actions of the Red legislatures certainly brings to mind the past. I don't live in it, but I make it my business not to lulled into complacency by forgetting it.
What exactly are the Child Labour Laws in the USA?
In the UK children cannot work under the age of 13.
And from the age of 13 to 16 children are restricted to work as follows:
1. Children aged 13 to 16 are not allowed to work during school hours.
2. Children aged 13 to 16 can only work for a maximum of 2 hours on a school day or a Sunday, but up to 5 hours on a Saturday.
3. During school holidays children aged 13 to 16 can work up to 5 hours a day Monday to Saturday, but no more than 2 hours on a Sunday.
Obviously, in the UK someone under the age of 18 (the legal drinking age in the UK) cannot serve alcohol.
In the UK, over the age of 16 you are essentially an adult in most respects, and can then work full time.US child labor laws are essentially the same as your listed UK rules. Some details vary but basically, the guidelines are similar.
As has been noted, developing a work ethic is an important part of growing up. A good work ethic will be a foundation stone for building a good life.
Preventing the abuse of young workers is a good thing. Denying them the education and character-building that comes from developing a work ethic isn't. I think the criticisms of the offered article are off-base and its recommendations hurt minors more than help.
GAYep, absolutely, “developing a work ethic is an important part of growing up”. Part time work isn’t the only option; schools and home (parents and teachers) can jointly play a role in the kids’ education of work ethics. Plus all the other after school activities like the Scouts and Guides etc., and of course the Duke of Edinburgh Award, open to anyone between the age of 14 and 25.
The Duke of Edinburgh Award https://youtu.be/ctfn4BeI38c
Giving consideration to GA's comments, I add the fact that it is about more than just the hours minors are able to work. In my opinion, school must comes first. It also it important to look at the kinds of work minors should be engaged in. Working in factories around dangerous machinery between 13-16 should be prohibited. Working in construction with its dangers should be restricted to those over 18.
The exploitation of the young and their abuse as part of a labor pool is not commensurate with what I would expect for any level of civility within this society.Absolutely, school must come first: That’s why under UK law children are prohibited from working during school hours, and restricted to just working for 2 hours on school days.
And again, absolutely, it is important to have restrictions on what type of work children can have: Again, that’s why in the UK the law is very specific; as detailed below:-
In the UK a child aged 13 to 16 cannot be employed except in light work in one or more of the following specified categories:
• agricultural or horticultural work
• delivery of newspapers, journals and other printed material
• shop work, including shelf stacking
• hairdressing salons
• office work
• in a café or restaurant
• in riding stables, kennels and catteries
Prohibited employment for all children under the age of 16
In the UK no child of any age may be employed:
• in a cinema, theatre, discotheque, dance hall or night club
• to sell or deliver alcohol, except in sealed containers
• to deliver milk
• to deliver fuel oils
• in a commercial kitchen (includes the kitchen of any hotel, cook shop, fried fish shop, eating house or refreshment room)
• to collect or sort refuse
• in any work which is more than three metres above ground level or, in the case of internal work, more than three metres above floor level.
• in employment having harmful exposure to physical, biological or chemical agent
• to collect money or to sell or canvass door to door
• in work involving exposure to adult material or in situation which are for this reason otherwise unsuitable for children
• in telephone sales and canvassing
• in any slaughterhouse or in that part of any butcher’s shop or other premises connected with the killing of livestock, butchery, or in the preparation of carcasses or meat for sale
• as an attendant or assistant in a fairground or amusement arcade or in any other premises used for the purpose of public amusement by means of automatic machines, games of chance or skill or similar devices
• in the personal care of residents of any residential care home or nursing homeFrom my American perspective, your list is an apt example of good intentions gone wrong. There may be details that are different in the UK, and that I wouldn't know much about, but . . .
What's the issue with delivering milk? What about dishwashing in commercial kitchens, isn't that allowed?
Is there something about garbage collection, beyond the physical strenuousness, that is harmful to teenagers? If not, shouldn't that factor be a measure the teenager decides?
The fairgrounds and amusement centers item is also a puzzler. With the caveat that your description doesn't seem to apply only to gambling facilities, what's wrong with teenagers working at fairs (and their like)? The teen jobs that come to mind, with some direct experience, range from manning concession stands and booths to being litter-pickers and trashcan changers.
Rather than debate the specific item, consider the concept behind the specific restrictions of the item. The possible reasons that come to mind all seem to be things the teenager and the parents should decide, not the state.
GAI don’t see it as “good intentions gone wrong”; on this side of the pond I see it as good intentions that help to protect the child’s ‘health & welfare’.
To answer your first question:
“What's the issue with delivering milk?”
FYI, in the UK milk is delivered overnight, so that people have milk for breakfast when they get up first thing in the morning, and Looking at the restrictions on child employment on the Government’s website: In the UK-
• Children cannot work before 7am or after 7pm, and
• Children cannot work for more than 1 hour before school.
Therefore, it should be obvious that delivery milk is unsuitable for children.
To give brief summary background info to milk delivery in the UK:
in the UK milk used to be delivered to the doorstep each morning before 7am; and a milk round would almost certainly be more than an hour: Milkmen use to start work in the early hours of the morning, and finish at 7am, so that when people got up in the morning the milk would be there on their doorstep for breakfast.
Milk delivery to every home in the UK (in glass bottles) started in the 1950’s (post war), but died out in the mid-1990s because supermarkets could sell milk in plastic bottles a lot cheaper than the milk companies could deliver milk to the doorstep.
However, in a twist of events, the milk companies have partnered with small local dairy farms and are fighting back; so within just the last few years there’s been a popular revival of milk being delivered to the door step in glass bottles every morning.
Life as a Home Delivery Driver for Milk Deliveries to the Home UK: https://youtu.be/SkGjjX-y-JI
Likewise, children working in commercial kitchens (including dishwashing) will be banned for similar good reasons; I can’t think of the specific reasons off hand, but under the UK Laws “In general children may be employed for light work only”, Light work to quote:-
“…..is taken to mean work which on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves at the particular conditions under which the task is performed is not likely to be harmful to the health, safety or development of children and is not such as harmful to their attendance at school or their participation in work experience in accordance with section 560 of the Education Act, or their capacity to benefit from instruction received.”
Today’s Child Labour Laws in the UK stem from the ‘Children and Young Persons Act 1933’ which was modified by the ‘Children and Young Persons Act 1963’, the ‘Children and Young Persons Act 1969’ and the ‘Children and Young Persons Act 2008’.
As regards refuse (garbage in American); that I thought should be obvious. Obviously children helping with litter collection in a hired Local Community Hall after a child’s birthday party wouldn’t be an issue; but in refuse collection you don’t know what hazards other people have thrown away in the bin, for all you know it could include discarded used needles from a drug addict, and the last thing you want would be a child accidently get a contaminated needle stuck in his/her hand as he/she was emptying a rubbish bin.
As regards the fairgrounds and amusements arcades, if you read the statement fully, it did go on to state “….used for the purpose of public amusement by means of automatic machines, games of chance or skill or similar devices”; in other words ‘gambling’. So in simple terms, its any premises where there is gambling, where children are prohibited from working.
As a Brit/European, I disagree in principle with your last statement. In my view, in matters such as this, the teenagers themselves and or their parents should NOT be able to decide Carte blanche what work that child can or cannot do; if left to child and parents to decide there will be those who make decisions that is harmful or endangers the child.Lordy. Lordy, nathanville. Your response triggered the [C]onservative mule in me. Point by point my first thoughts read like Rightwinger mantras and talking points. And that means they need a little filtering.
But, let me have just one, just to get it out of my system. And it is humorously offered:
See, that's what I mean, you guys would rather have government make decisions for you than make them for yourself. You are too willing to trade personal responsibility and control for personal comfort.
That's the gist of all those first thoughts.
For instance, your milk explanation: that was what our paper routes were all about. Up at 5 or 5:30 am - done by 7 am (or so) and onto the school bus at 7:45 am. My parent's made the decision to allow it, and I was allowed to decide if the work was too hard. For my generation that is such an 'as it should be' normalcy that having government say no would be silly — and none of their damn business.
When I was 15 I got a work permit to be a 'helper' on a Pepsi-cola delivery truck as a summer job. It was hard work with hand-truck loads of full soda cases, navigating curbs, steps, and stairs. It allowed me to earn the money for my first car when I turned 16.
My parents didn't even think about disallowing it because it was dangerous, and I was the one that decided if the work was too hard for me. The government has no business making those decisions for me.
To the garbage truck thing . . . and the rubbish collected from homes (this issue doesn't seem to include large commercial business rubbish collection) would more likely be common household trash, not needles, knives, and razor blades. It is one type of effort to try to protect against probable danger, but another one entirely when the effort is to protect against any possible danger.
The fairs and games of chance example might be a misunderstanding. The 'fairs' (and such) I think of have the games of chance you mention, but they're not casino-type stuff. The 'gamble is for tickets or prizes—not money. Yes, you pay a dollar to throw a ball, a dart, or a hoop and you are 'gambling' to win a prize but to claim that as support is so technically limp that using it highlights the silliness rather than justification. Once more, good intentions went wrong by going too far.
Of course, I'm just presenting a perspective, not trying to persuade you. I do think your culture's degree of acceptance of government control of personal decisions is wrong, but I can't claim they are wrong just because I think they are.
But I'm still right. ;-)
GA"It is one type of effort to try to protect against probable danger, but another one entirely when the effort is to protect against any possible danger."
For the standard rightwinger, conservative types, there is no difference.
I like provisions in England a lot more than I do the ones here.
There, those damned progressive instinct coming to fore, once again.....Your standard right-winger thought is malarky. Of course conservatives recognize the difference between probable and possible.
It's possible for a newspaper route to hurt a kid's academic and social prospects and performance, but it's not probable.
It's possible that an employer will abuse young workers, but within our labor laws, it's not probable.
It's possible a kid might get an unwanted needle jab while collecting trash but it's not probable.
It's possible that a shielded childhood can lead to a resilient and productive adult, but it's not probable.
GAWhere you say:
“It's possible that a shielded childhood can lead to a resilient and productive adult, but it's not probable.”
Just keeping kids safe from potential harm by not permitting them to do hard labour, work long and unsociable hours, and work environments that in accordance with ‘risk assessment’ have dangers, are not shielding children from life.
Children are fully aware of life from TV, the Internet, their parents and teachers, and their peers; and there are plenty of other ways to ‘character build’ and prepare children for adult life other than exposing them to an unsuitable work environment.
So yes; with the proper education, and support and encouragement from their parents, it is highly probable that a child shielded from doing potentially harmful work can become a resilient and productive adult.
Yeah, we Brits (as Europeans) are more willing to trade personal responsibility and control for personal comfort (health & safety and wellbeing) than Americans; and in my view, we are all the more better off for it.
Wow, you were “Up at 5 or 5:30 am - done by 7 am (or so) and onto the school bus at 7:45 am.”
In Britain it is illegal for children to start work before 7am, the newspaper rounds are about an hour long (the maximum a child can legally work before start of school), and most schools don’t start until from between 8:30am and 9am (depending on the school). Therefore, ample time for a kid to get up to start a newspaper round at 7am, have breakfast at 8am, and be ready and dressed for school in plenty of time.
To me, expecting kids to get up so early in the morning as 5am to deliver papers before school risks the child being overtired at school and not being able to concentrate properly on their lessons; which to be sounds irresponsible?
Working hard, and no doubt long hours, delivering soft drinks when you were a kid obviously worked for you; but accidents do happen, and who is going to be prosecuted for negligence and manslaughter in the event of an accident to a kid helping out, and what about the grieving mother who has lost her kid from a work’s accident, for work that he shouldn’t be doing in the first place?
You may not take ‘Health & Safety” seriously, but in Britain we do; not just Government, but the Industry itself. The link below is from the ‘British Soft Drinks Association’ (a UK industry lobby group, representing UK producers of soft drinks); the link below is to their ‘Safety in Soft Drinks Delivery’ (a guide to a dynamic risk assessment’) which they provide to all UK Businesses involved in the delivery of soft drinks. And in that document they state that “Over r 60% of accidents in the drinks industries result from manual handling, slips, trips and falls from height – all hazards particularly relevant in drinks delivery” – And you want to put kids in an environment like that, where at some point, some kid is going to have a serious accident; causing stress, anxiety and grief to the mother?
https://www.britishsoftdrinks.com/write … livery.pdf
As regards rubbish collection; below is a similar ‘risk assessment’ on ‘waste handling and collection’ from the Croner Group; the Croner Group (Established in 1941) is a British company that is active in the four areas of human resources, health and safety, procurement, employment and education law.
Domestic waste can be hazardous (you just don’t know what people put in their bins) e.g. aerosols (with the risk of exploding), leaking batteries etc. And besides, bin collection is heavy manual work that you would (or should) never expect a kid to be doing.
Although the ‘risk assessment’ report below is 10 years old it is still relevant in that it does highlight the risks of accident and death; and again, what about the grieving mother if their kid was killed in an accident while collecting domestic rubbish.
https://app.croneri.co.uk/feature-artic … collection
As regards gambling at fairgrounds and amusements arcades; even adverts on TV promoting any form of gambling, including bingo are banned before the 9am watershed to help protect children – A responsible attitude I think.
As you mentioned your ‘Conservative Mule’; I was interested to see which Governments were in power in the UK when the key Acts of Parliament covering ‘Child Employment’ was passed; and interestingly, it’s not been passed by Socialist Governments, the Conservatives have had a hand in it too – as follows:-
• 1933 – the ‘Children and Young Persons Act 1933’ was passed by a ‘National Government’
• 1963 - the ‘Children and Young Persons Act 1963’ was passed by a Conservative Government.
• 1969 and 2008 the ‘Children and Young Persons Act’s’ were passed by Labour (Socialist) Government.
FYI: A National Government (mentioned above) in the UK is a non-partisan government, which in Britain is formed with the agreement of all political parties during times of ‘National Crisis’ e.g. where all political parties work together as a single entity to focus on the crisis rather than politics; such as during the Great Depression of the 1930s, and again during the 2nd world war.
As regards my personal experiences:-
The only paid work I did when at school was in my last year at school, when I was paid a full adult wage for typing addresses on 1000 envelopes per week, to send out circulars.
While my son, in his last three years at school he worked 5 hours a week on a Saturday at a local Garden Centre; which gave him a good income, and good knowledge e.g. he is now very knowledgeable on plants, and helps me to plan our landscape gardening – and he knows all the Latin names of most plants off by heart.If the effort needed to do a newspaper route did harm school work it would be irresponsible to continue it. As it would be if the effort is too much for the kid's stage of development. Those decisions shouldn't be the government's to make. Every decision government makes for you is robbing you of the reward of personal responsibility growth.
As for work accidents (the soda delivery job), your first thought of who to prosecute for an accident is one that might prove the point of personal responsibility.
If I safely pulled the hand-cart over 20 curbs and steps and broke an ankle on the 21st should I be the one 'prosecuted' for being less attentive than I should have been, or should the company be prosecuted for allowing me the opportunity to be inattentive?
My view is that I'm to blame if I was inattentive (or even worse - goofing around), and no one is to blame if it 'just happened'. That's what accidents are, unintentional events.
*Obviously, this is a matter of degrees determined by degrees of negligence. My context is this example of child labor.
Maybe my generation will be the last to believe in the old 'be your man' adages. Stuff like, 'a soft life makes a soft man' (as in strength of character and ability). Or that isolating kids from learning to deal with (at a kid level) situations they will face throughout their lives will make them less able to deal with them later in life.
As for the 'Conservative mule' thing. That's an ideology, not a conservative vs. liberal political position. I would disagree with a conservative pushing your perspectives (your listed conservative government acts) just as I do the liberal's pushing your (generic, of course), perspective.
Everything about a kid's development is about problem-solving and the growth that comes from that. If they are isolated from those growth opportunities now, they won't know how to deal with them later. That growth responsibility is not the government's, it belongs with the parents and their children.
In anticipation . . . how to deal with bad parenting?
GAI disagree that “Every decision government makes for you is robbing you of the reward of personal responsibility growth.” In the UK you may not be able to do work that is considered unsuitable for children; but there are plenty of other jobs to choose from that can help with your “reward of personal responsibility growth”, and or other activities to help with your personal development, including (but not exclusive to) Scouts, Cadets and the ‘Duke of Edinburgh Award’ scheme.
Although my son went to Cubs he didn’t go onto Scouts, instead he went to the ‘Air Cadets’ and got his Solo Glider Licence at age 16, and while at secondary school did his ‘Duke of Edinburgh Award’; and as a school child worked in a Garden Centre for five hours on a Saturday for three years.
As for work accidents (the soda delivery job), in the UK a child is considered too young to have that sort of “personal responsibility”; the responsibly under British law are the guardians of that child e.g. parents, teachers and employer etc. Therefore, under British law, if a child was crippled for life or killed in a work’s accident, it would be the employer and parents who would be prosecuted; and if the accident resulted in the child’s death, following an inquiry and based on the coroner’s report, the employer could be facing manslaughter charges for ‘negligence’.
Negligence in British law is comprised of five elements: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) cause in fact; (4) proximate cause; and (5) harm.
1. Duty: negligence law assesses human choices to engage in harmful conduct as proper or improper.
2. Breach: is self-explanatory e.g. an employer skipping on the ‘Health & Safety’ Rules/ Cutting Corners etc.
3. Cause of Fact: a cause-and-effect relationship between the negligence and the harm.
4. Proximate cause: Whether there is a reasonably close connection between the employer’s wrong (poor judgment) and the child’s injury e.g. should the employer have expected the child to carry a heavy crate of drinks across the road, when the road was dangerously slippery from ice (during the winter months).
5. Harm: self-explanatory.
Restricting kids from doing work that is unsuitable for kids does NOT “isolate kids from learning to deal with situations they will face throughout their lives”; as I stated above, there are plenty of other jobs deemed suitable for children, and plenty of other activities, such as Scouts, Cadets and the ‘Duke of Edinburgh Award’ that will help to make kids more “able to deal with situations they will face throughout their lives.”
Yep, absolutely, as you say “Everything about a kid's development is about problem-solving and the growth that comes from that. If they are isolated from those growth opportunities now, they won't know how to deal with them later.” But not allowing kids to do paid work that is considered unsuitable for kids does not isolate them from “problem-solving” and other “growth opportunities”; there are plenty of other avenues for children to develop their problem-solving skills and other growth opportunities including, but not exclusive to:
• Paid work that is deemed suitable for children.
• School Education.
• Voluntary work.
• Scouts
• Cadets
• Duke of Edinburgh Award
• Home e.g. parents can and should play a major role in the child’s development.
In my view it’s not an ‘us and them’; the child’s ‘growth responsibility’ should be a shared responsibility between parents, teachers and the government; as it is for example in the UK.
Although the child employment laws may well be tougher in the UK than in the USA; there are plenty of other areas where there is far less government interference in the UK than in the USA, and where in the UK children are giving far greater freedom of choice than in the USA; for example:-
From the age of 16 in the UK, if you become homeless then you are entitled to help with money, housing, education, training and support from the government (Welfare State). Also, in the UK, from the age of 16 you are free from parental control, can leave home, can legally have sex, get married (in parts of the UK), start work (full time employment), pay taxes, and join the Army, and drink alcohol at home. In fact, in the UK there is very little that a 16 year old can’t legally do that an adult can do.
SOME OF THE SPECIFICS:
Drinking Laws across the UK:
• In England, Wales and Scotland, children can legally drink from the age of 5 at home.
• In England, Wales and Scotland, children can legally drink alcohol in public from the age of 16 provided it’s with a meal, and provided someone over the age of 18 buys the drinks.
• Across the whole of the UK you can buy and drink in public from the age of 18.
• In Northern Ireland, a child can legally drink from the age of 15 at home.
When Should You Let Children Drink Alcohol (UK)? https://youtu.be/pc-YN5P-9D8
Voting Age:
• 16 in Scotland and Wales
• 18 in England and Northern Ireland.
Marriage:
• 16 in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
• 18 in England and Wales.
Military:
In the UK you can join the Military from the age of 16: The UK is the only country in Europe which routinely recruits people under the age of 18.
Britain's youngest trained soldier says 16 not too young to join Army https://youtu.be/wNILbVcCa8c"Every" was a lazy choice. It should be 'most' or 'many.' Also, the context was intended to be 'generally', not specifically to this 'children' working issue, which is more accurately framed as minors working instead of the implied younger-aged 'children.'
As an example, your use of "child" and "children" doesn't convey the image of teens and preteens, yet at the top of those minors is the 16-year-old that you accept as old enough to make adult life decisions (as you listed).
That's not criticism, it's an important connotation for the discussion. The levels of a 5 to 9 or 10-year-old (children) are not the same as 11 to 15-year-olds (minors).
The 'starting points' (good intentions) of both sets of child labor laws make sense as being appropriate. It is the 'ending point' that is the difference. As in good intentions gone wrong by going too far. Consider, your 15-year-olds can't legally help on soda delivery trucks, but at 16 they can get married and join the army. That's one big leap for one year of age.
As for the other opportunities you mention, the issue, so far, is about the life experience of and from kids working. Both of us have those other opportunities available.
GARight from the start of this forum I made it clear that in the UK only children between the age of 13 and 16 can legally do paid work in the UK - in the UK it is illegal for children under the age of 13 to do paid work; and in the UK at 16 you can legally work full time e.g. in the UK, from 16 you are legally, in almost all respects an adult: So your first three paragraphs seem to be little more than just deflection from the real issues?
Also, in reading back from comments made by others in this forum, it seems that the legal age that children can work in the USA seems to be from the age of 14 to 17 – if I’ve correctly understood what others have said? If that is a case then it seems that the UK is more progressive in child labour in that respect than the USA e.g. children can start working a year earlier in the UK than the USA, and children are deemed adults a year younger in the UK than the USA!
Yep, a 15 year old in the UK has far fewer rights than a 16 year old; but there has to be a division line somewhere – which in the USA seems to come much later than in the UK e.g. in various parts (or the whole) of the UK (dependent on the point in question) kids can legally leave home and work full time at 16, vote at 16, have sex at 16, marry at 16 and join the Army at 16; and start drinking alcohol from the age of 5. Yet in the USA kids can’t do most of those things until they are 18; and can’t even start legally drinking until they’re 21. It seems to me that basic rights are held back for young people (stripping them from their freedom to choose) for much longer in the USA than in the UK.
And besides, having fewer rights at 15 than at 16 in the UK just seems a natural progression. I didn’t find it a problem. I left school and home and got a full time job when I was 16; and it was a culture shock to me because school had spent the previous two years preparing me for it, so it just seemed a natural progression. And of course, having left home at 16, and in full time employment; I was able to enjoy my teenage life going out to pubs and nightclubs drinking with my friends – something which you miss out on in America because it is illegal to drink in America under the age of 21.
And another legal right children have in the UK, which you don’t have in the USA, is the Gillick competence (juridical law passed in the Supreme Court in 1985) which gives children of any age in the UK the legal right to see their doctor without their parents knowledge and or consent, provided the child can demonstrate to his/her doctor that he/she is competent enough to understand the issues. The Gillick competence ruling is typically used by children as young as 13 to get contraceptive pills (for free) from the NHS without the parent’s knowledge and consent.
So it seems to me that on balance kids, especially at 16, have more rights and freedoms in the UK than in the USA!
As regards your last paragraph; there are plenty of jobs for kids to choose from that are deemed suitable for kids, so what’s the big deal; besides, kids working is only a part of the kids development, it’s not the whole; so it needs to be put into perspective of the wide spectrum of all ‘those other opportunities available” and the role that school and home play in the development of the kid.
Arthur,
This is what I mean by unwarranted and the paragraphs below provides the Republicans explanation. This, as an example. It draws scrutiny from labor and child advocacy group as well as myself.
-----
The Iowa Legislature is currently considering a bill that would allow exceptions to state law prohibiting children aged 14 to 17 from working in more dangerous industries, such as roofing and mining, among other provisions that have drawn scrutiny from labor and children advocacy groups.
“We got a bill that’s written by industry groups and multinational corporations that are looking for cheap labor out of our kids, and it’s really disappointing,” said Charlie Wishman, the president of the Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO.
But Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, said there’s valuable experience to be gained as teens work in business and learn communications skills, as well as the importance of showing up for a job on time. “It, you know, teaches the kids a lot, and if they have the time to do it, and they want to earn some additional money, I don’t think we should, you know, discourage that,” she said.
The article linked below goes into the topic a bit more
https://missouriindependent.com/2023/04 … -industry/Yep, you’ve hit the nail on the head there e.g. kids can learn “valuable experience … as teens work in business and learn communications skills, as well as the importance of showing up for a job on time” and “It, ….teaches the kids a lot, and if they have the time to do it, and they want to earn some additional money…” by taking on work that is deemed suitable for kids. There are plenty of jobs deemed suitable for kids to choose from to achieve, without the need for kids to do jobs that are deemed unsuitable for kids to do.
Therefore, the right-wing Republicans wanting kids to do work that’s deemed unsuitable for kids is just exploitation for profit.
To collect money? That means that kids in the UK are not allowed to have paper routes?
That is racist and ageist.If you look at the first list (jobs kids are permitted to do), it clearly states:-
"Delivery of newspapers, journals and other printed material".
So yes, kids can have paper routes e.g. in the UK the homeowner orders the papers from their local shop (newsagent), the local shop give the kids the papers to delivery the homeowner, and then periodically the homeowners pay the local shop the money for the deliveries.Okay, thanks, I did not see that. I think that paying the shopowner is actually a good idea, as when I was a kid with a paper route sometimes people would make a lot of excuses not to pay so I ended up spending a lot of time on that part of the job.
Lawmakers (Republicans) in several states are embracing legislation to let children work in more hazardous occupations, longer hours on school nights and in expanded roles including serving alcohol in bars and restaurants as young as 14. Yes In Wisconsin, lawmakers are backing a proposal to allow 14-year-olds to serve alcohol in bars and restaurants.
The efforts to significantly roll back labor rules are largely led by Republican lawmakers to address worker shortages and in some cases run afoul of federal regulations.
Republican Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed a law in March eliminating permits that required employers to verify a child's age and their parent's consent.
In Iowa, Republicans dropped provisions from a version of the bill allowing children aged 14 and 15 to work in dangerous fields including mining, logging and meatpacking. WOW.
"The consequences are potentially disastrous," said Reid Maki, director of the Child Labor Coalition, which advocates against exploitative labor policies. "You can't balance a labor shortage on the backs of teen workers."
Lawmakers proposed loosening child labor laws in at least 10 states over the past two years, according to a report published last month by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. Some bills became law, while others were withdrawn or vetoed.
Legislators in Wisconsin, Ohio and Iowa are actively considering relaxing child labor laws to address worker shortages, which are driving up wages and contributing to inflation. Employers have struggled to fill open positions after a spike in retirements, deaths and illnesses from COVID-19, decreases in legal immigration and other factors.
Bringing more children into the labor market is, of course, not the only way to solve the problem. Economists point to several other strategies the country can employ to alleviate the labor crunch without asking kids to work more hours or in dangerous settings.
The most obvious is encouraging immigration,
Republicans would rather solve our worker shortage with child labor than actually come to the table and work on sensible immigration?
Almost everything the Republicans advocate for these days seems to be reminiscent of the 1800s.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/s … r-shortage
Related Discussions
- 39
Do On To Others Not Us --- We Just Care About A Green Planet Not Kids
by Sharlee 16 months ago
Look here not there...Biden turns to country with documented child labor issues for green energy mineral supplies: 'It's egregious'The Biden administration opened the door to financing mining projects in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Zambia to bolster the global green energy supply...
- 142
What is your opinion of President Obama, the President, not the man?
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
It has been almost a year since he left office. Though he seems to stick around DC and make his comments occasionally about policies...The question I have for all is this - what is your opinion of this President in his 8 years in office...?Overall, has he been good or bad for America?Please use...
- 14
Do you support or oppose the Child Labor Farm Regulations proposal?
by Heidi 12 years ago
Do you support or oppose the Child Labor Farm Regulations proposal?In addition to preventing children from being able to work family farms, the new regulations, first proposed August 31 by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, would also revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification...
- 246
Are Republicans/Conservatives less intelligent ?????
by steveamy 12 years ago
“Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.”~John Stuart MillThere has also been some recently published research to suggest that this is true--- so what do you think??
- 30
Slavery - More are Enslaved Today than at any time in History
by Ken Burgess 2 years ago
40 million people are estimated to be trapped in modern slavery worldwide:1 in 4 are children.Almost three quarters (71%) are women and girls.The data, released during a United Nations General Assembly back in 2017, showed that more than 40 million people around the world were victims of modern...
- 70
why should boys be educated than girls
by alhaji bayoh 5 weeks ago
i would like to know what u think of the above topic