I guess child labour wasn't that bad

[Nessus]

Missouri Senator Wants to Eliminate Child Labor Laws, Really
[T]here isn’t much that surprises me anymore, let alone shocks me. Well, today, I’m shocked. Missouri State Sen. Jane Cunningham (R) has introduced a bill to minimize child labor laws. I could find all kinds of colorful words and descriptions to show just how crazed and outrageous is S.B. 222. But let’s just use the official summary of the bill from the Missouri state Senate website and if you don’t believe me, click here and read it yourself.

• 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.

This is absolutely insane.

I recall arguing several times that mandating education for children, instead of having them in the coal mine/factory for 12 hours a day, was at the same time an extremely authoritative move on part of government, and one of the greatest societal improvements in recent centuries. It seemed to me as a given (how often have I gone wrong there) that we could all agree that teaching kids is a goodness, and having them weave baskets full-time at age 12 would severely hinder them and deprive the society at large from what potential they might have had.

It seems the Pubbies now disagree with that, too. Poe's law is becoming more apt by the day. What happens to the rest of the world as the US steadfastly heads back to the 19th century? Or beyond.

[Hazir]

Like we really need those laws on the books any longer in a society where children don't actually have to work. These laws were useful in the transition of the late 19th and early 20th century. But today, in modern society, they are as sensible as keeping a law on which material a top hat may be made of on the statute books. Dealing with the abuse of children can be taken care of in ways that do not involve having a law on the books prohibiting their employment.

Laws that are no longer relevant just clutter the system.

FYI; in Missouri there is compulsory education up to the age of 16.

[GGT]

Hazir, those kids also have weekends and summers off school. Or they can be Homeschooled. I think you over-estimate the benevolent or ethical nature of employers, or the need for some kids in poor families to work. Let alone the efficiency of our social services monitoring child abuses.

[Hazir]

No I don't over-estimate the benevolence of employers. I do not under-estimate the powers of child protection agencies either though.

[Dreadnaught]

I agree the laws are effectively useless, but at face value this seems like a bad idea. It's great for teenagers to learn the value of work, but when they're fourteen?

Except it looks like the summary of the bill is pretty poor. Read the full bill-

http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/pdf-...ntro/SB222.pdf

It seems to be geared towards permitting and regulating the hiring of child actors/entertainers. And then specifically prohibits anyone under the age of 14 from doing basically anything else.

You're reading the AFL-CIO blog, Nessus?

[Nessus]

You're reading the AFL-CIO blog, Nessus?

You know those things in your sig? It works for other sites, too.

[Dreadnaught]

Just curious how you stumbled-on it.

[Nessus]

First you want to keep tabs on my social life and now my net behaviour too. Tut tut.

[LittleFuzzy]

I recall arguing several times that mandating education for children, instead of having them in the coal mine/factory for 12 hours a day, was at the same time an extremely authoritative move on part of government, and one of the greatest societal improvements in recent centuries. It seemed to me as a given (how often have I gone wrong there) that we could all agree that teaching kids is a goodness, and having them weave baskets full-time at age 12 would severely hinder them and deprive the society at large from what potential they might have had.

It seems the Pubbies now disagree with that, too. Poe's law is becoming more apt by the day. What happens to the rest of the world as the US steadfastly heads back to the 19th century? Or beyond.

I have no idea why she's proposed that, and it seems fairly nonsensical to me. Acknowledging my ignorance though, when you see this really odd "local jurisdiction" legislation crop up, there's usually at least a semi-reasonable rationale, based on local conditions or events. Need more info.

[Nessus]

I have no idea why she's proposed that, and it seems fairly nonsensical to me. Acknowledging my ignorance though, when you see this really odd "local jurisdiction" legislation crop up, there's usually at least a semi-reasonable rationale, based on local conditions or events. Need more info.

What kind of local condition short of starvation and chaos would you accept as a reasonable time to re-mandate child labour?

[LittleFuzzy]

What kind of local condition short of starvation and chaos would you accept as a reasonable time to re-mandate child labour?

. . . it doesn't mandate child labor. Kindly limit the hyperbole to discussions with Lewk.

First common reason? Someone got sued/fined/jailed for their kid providing some manual labor assistance in a Mom & Pop store. Most contrived conditions for this would be in urban residential/commercial districts where the domicile is on the top floor and the shop is on the bottom floor so there's no real difference between helping around the house and "laboring" in the store.

Hmm, but then it would be statistically more likely the sponsor of the bill would be a Democrat. This is an evil "Pubbie" out to destroy society. So we need a statistically more Republican local environment. Ah. 15 y/o kid doing just about any chores on the family farm/dairy/orchard/plantation.

[Nessus]

. . . it doesn't mandate child labor. Kindly limit the hyperbole to discussions with Lewk.

First common reason? Someone got sued/fined/jailed for their kid providing some manual labor assistance in a Mom & Pop store. Most contrived conditions for this would be in urban residential/commercial districts where the domicile is on the top floor and the shop is on the bottom floor so there's no real difference between helping around the house and "laboring" in the store.

English isn't my first language.

How many mom and pop stores are there? Anywhere, in the U.S? And why would any state legislature bother to cater to the whims of one mom and pop? That's absurd, given what this kind of legislation could open. Emphasis on could.

[LittleFuzzy]

English isn't my first language.

How many mom and pop stores are there? Anywhere, in the U.S? And why would any state legislature bother to cater to the whims of one mom and pop? That's absurd, given what this kind of legislation could open. Emphasis on could.

I edited to provide an alternative, more Republican, environment. And you don't have a state legislature catering to the whims of one family. This is proposed legislation. You have one legislator trying to cater to the whims of one family. As for why, because constituency-service is the second most important job a legislator has, after fund-raising to be reelected. They wrote a letter outlining the terrible injustice done to them. Even better, they may have contributed to the state senator's campaign.

[Nessus]

I edited to provide an alternative, more Republican, environment. And you don't have a state legislature catering to the whims of one family. This is proposed legislation. You have one legislator trying to cater to the whims of one family. As for why, because constituency-service is the second most important job a legislator has, after fund-raising to be reelected. They wrote a letter outlining the terrible injustice done to them. Even better, they may have contributed to the state senator's campaign.

Fair enough. So why are gays having such a hard time in the U.S. if one letter can have such an impact?

And there's no need to deride me for using the word Pubbie, given how much the word socialist resembles cockroach when uttered by some Americans.

[LittleFuzzy]

Fair enough. So why are gays having such a hard time in the U.S. if one letter can have such an impact?

What impact? This is proposed legislation, not passed legislation. Our letters prompt tons of proposed, gay-friendly legislation in the states and in Congress. Like most proposed legislation, it generally doesn't get passed into law.

And there's no need to deride me for using the word Pubbie, given how much the word socialist resembles cockroach when uttered by some Americans.

I wasn't deriding your use of Pubbie, I was deriving your demonizing behind it. And I should excuse poor behavior out of you because someone you don't like, say Lewk, engages in similar behavior? Two wrongs make a right now?

[Nessus]

What impact? This is proposed legislation, not passed legislation. Our letters prompt tons of proposed, gay-friendly legislation in the states and in Congress. Like most proposed legislation, it generally doesn't get passed into law.

It's just my personal bias here, but I would consider the term "child labour" to be about on par with "gang rape" or "killing spree", on a moral level. That's volumes of depravity beyond saying gays are bad because some thousands of years old book told me so. But that's just me. So I found this thing to be horrific. I'm sorry if my reaction offended your sensibilities.

I wasn't deriding your use of Pubbie, I was deriving your demonizing behind it. And I should excuse poor behavior out of you because someone you don't like, say Lewk, engages in similar behavior? Two wrongs make a right now?

Derivating demonizing might produce angels! Depends on how you look at the concept of sin.

You shouldn't excuse poor behaviour on my part, but you might want to re-consider trying to discuss issues with little shits.

[LittleFuzzy]

It's just my personal bias here, but I would consider the term "child labour" to be about on par with "gang rape" or "killing spree", on a moral level. That's volumes of depravity beyond saying gays are bad because some thousands of years old book told me so. But that's just me. So I found this thing to be horrific. I'm sorry if my reaction offended your sensibilities.

You should be even sorrier considering your knee-jerk reaction is apparently just inaccurate.

[Nessus]

You should be even sorrier considering your knee-jerk reaction is apparently just inaccurate.

Have fun while the Pubs cut funding from most of research, education and public service. I'm sure it'll be all better because some phrasings chosen were inaccurate

[Steely Glint]

There's nothing wrong with demonising demons.

[Nessus]

There's nothing wrong with demonising demons.

It's the same thing as with Hitler; they're not demons, they're just horribly awful human beings. The word "demon" carries with it a supernatural element that divorces them from the "rest of us", which isn't fair or right. They're just as much human as we are, and they should own up to gutting the NIST and NIH and Cthulhu knows what else.

[Steely Glint]

Demons are in many ways just personifications of our own darker impulses and natures, given a life and personality of their own by the world's various religious. Thus, I think the term is fully appropriate.

[Nessus]

Oh, it's certainly appropriate, but we must remember that atheists are a diminishingly small minority, most people have some level of cognitive baggage to associate with that term.

[Steely Glint]

Not where I live, and not where I post either.

[Nessus]

Fine for you to say guarding a light-house in the middle of the Arctic

[Steely Glint]

Someone's gotta keep an eye on these cold, bleak wastes.

[GGT]

But there are already "exclusions and regulations" for child actors, children relatives working in Mom 'n Pop shops or on family farms, and for minor migrant workers. Since this is just proposed legislation in one state, it's not worth talking about child labor laws?

[Dreadnaught]

Once again, read the legislation. It seems very clearly geared towards child actors/entertainers. It seems reasonable to believe something happened that inspired this (or someone lobbied for it).

[GGT]

Yeah, read it again. This time from the angle of Housekeeping (maids) or Food Service workers in those m/hotels and resorts. Doesn't matter who it's geared toward, or whether you think it will pass. It's pretty clear how this could be abused to exploit under-age workers.

[Steely Glint]

Dread is the master of explaining why things that actually seem really bad aren't with explanations that don't actually make the thing he was trying to explain that much better at all. "hey guys, it's ok, it only intends to make it easier to exploit kids when they work in entertainment. also, someone lobbied for it" yeah, thanks dread. that really put my mind at ease.

[GGT]

Be sure to watch out for these things during your State and County Fair, when the Circus comes to town, who's grooming that golf course, or grooming those rodeo horses.