EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
States Attempt to Instill 'Work Ethic' by Rolling Back Child Labor Protections
It’s been a long time since the engines of American industry were driven by tiny fingers. So when Newt Gingrich recently proclaimed, “Young people ought to learn how to work,” and suggested that children could develop a strong work ethic by working as janitors in their own schools, many Americans probably missed the throwback to the early twentieth century, when hundreds of thousands of children toiled in factories. But after decades of campaigns against youth exploitation, the right is rekindling vestiges of the sweatshop era with legislation aimed at rolling back child labor laws.
While they didn’t go so far as to recruit tweens back to the factory floor, throughout 2011 state legislators pushed bills to erode regulation of youth employment. Maine Republicans sought to ease protections for young workers with amicably named legislation to “Enhance Access to the Workplace for Minors.” The original bill, introduced by State Representative David Burns, would remove some limits on working hours for teenagers and expand the number of days a youth under 20 could work for $5.25 an hour—to about half a year. That would be a bargain for employers, who pay adult Mainers a minimum wage of $7.50. Last summer, a more limited teen labor bill passed, which only eased restrictions on working hours.
Dismissing his bill’s critics in a Press-Herald commentary, Burns argued the purpose was simply to provide job-seeking youth valuable opportunities, since many “have no experience, and perhaps no work ethic, and don’t merit the minimum wage until they learn a job.” As for government safeguards against abuse, he added, “We have usurped the responsibility of families to make intelligent decisions and transferred that responsibility to school officials and the state.”
Meanwhile, Wisconsin’s legislature, following a vicious battle with unions over protections for collective-bargaining rights, repealed regulations on the hours that 16- and 17-year-olds could work during the school week and breaks.
In Missouri, Republican State Senator Jane Cunningham proposed removing restrictions on hiring kids under age 14 and on the hours and times of day that teens can work. Touting the policy as “common sense,” Cunningham argued last February, “We’re not doing students any favor by telling them, ‘You cannot work.’ ”
Though changes in laws would not trump the overarching restrictions in federal labor regulations—which generally set 14 as a minimum employment age, with exceptions for agricultural work and some other types of jobs—advocates say state-level rollbacks undermine critical protective standards. “Kids in these states can now be made to work longer hours, later into the night,” Anne Thompson, a policy analyst with the National Employment Law Project Action Fund, told The Nation. “This is part of coordinated efforts by conservatives across the country to use the economic crisis to shred critical worker protections.”
Paralleling an anti-regulatory movement in federal and state politics, lawmakers who have challenged child labor restrictions say they’re an unneeded barrier to exposing youngsters to old-fashioned discipline and rigor of the workplace.
In a public lecture posted to YouTube, Senator Mike Lee of Utah challenged federal child labor laws on constitutional grounds. Citing a 1918 Supreme Court decision that struck down anti–child labor legislation as an unjust encroachment on state authority, Lee contended, “as reprehensible as child labor is, and as much as it ought to be abandoned—that’s something that has to be done by state legislators.”
Lee’s legal rationale traces back to the debate surrounding the Keating-Owen Act of 1916, which would have curbed the employment of children had the Supreme Court not blocked it. Full-scale anti–child labor policies weren’t firmly implemented until the Great Depression. Backed by New Deal advocates and an emboldened labor movement, the federal government finally pushed through age and work-hour regulations for child workers in the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act.
The slippery slope on child labor has intersected with the presidential campaign trail, too. Speaking at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government last November, Newt Gingrich promoted quasi-vocational programs for poor school children, to offer “work experience in the cafeteria, in the school library, in the front office.” Besides, he said, “middle-class kids do it routinely. We should give poor kids the same chance to pursue happiness.”
This bootstraps ideology is neither novel nor limited to the Republican Party. The meme of the shiftless, dependency-prone poor shaped the fictive image of Reagan’s “welfare queen.” It also formed a pillar of the Clinton administration’s welfare reforms, which downplayed structural social barriers and aimed to “train” poor people of color through “welfare-to-work” labor programs.
Gingrich’s philosophy on child labor complements Dickensian statements about child welfare during his tenure as House Speaker; he suggested placing children of dysfunctional parents in orphanages, removing them from their parents’ negative influences.
Many children who “pursue happiness” through labor have dismal options. Common gigs for youth—like construction, hospitality and restaurant jobs and farming—often come with major hazards. According to a federal analysis of emergency department data, compared to workers 25 years and older, workers aged 15 to 17 suffer far higher rates of work-related injury.
Farm work is uniquely dangerous, leaving roughly 3,400 children and adolescents injured in 2009. Far from the bucolic ideal of the yeoman family, much of this sector today involves impoverished Latino migrant families. Farms can currently hire kids as young as 12 with parental consent. According to a 2010 Human Rights Watch report, threats facing child workers include pesticides, heat stress, accidents, employer abuse and massive school drop-out rates.
The right’s fight against child labor laws coincides with a small push in the other direction from the Obama administration. Following years of pressure from advocates, the Labor Department has proposed new farm labor rules that would bar children under 16 from handling certain hazardous equipment and engaging in “agricultural work with animals and in pesticide handling, timber operations, manure pits and storage bins.” Activists praised the initiative, but said it was only a small step toward addressing child exploitation in agriculture.
Separately, advocacy groups have pushed for the more comprehensive Children’s Act for Responsible Employment, which would extend existing child labor regulations for other industries to agriculture. But the bill has languished in Congress.
Even the Labor Department’s modest proposed reforms to farm work rules provoked backlash. A group of senators sent a letter of protest to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis in December, warning that tighter regulation could have “significant adverse economic impacts on rural employers” that rely on teen labor “to meet seasonal employment needs.”
The right-wing canard of “tradition” versus worker protection might not portend a full-scale Oliver Twist redux. Nonetheless, recent debates around child labor have dusted off old arguments against government “overreach” dating back to a much crueler economic era.
“It seems that conservative politicians are trying to take us back to the nineteenth century—a time when children went to work instead of school and toiled under dangerous conditions for little pay,” said Justin Feldman of Public Citizen. Though some regulated work experience may be considered educational, he added, patterns of abuse and injury show that “children need more protection from these hazards, not less.”
The phrase “child labor” suggests grainy photographs of waifish mill girls, or images of kids trapped in faraway sweatshops. But when US politicians grumble at basic protections for the youngest, most vulnerable workers, they reveal that the Industrial Revolution’s legacy of unbridled capitalism still haunts the country’s political arena.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
32 Comments so far
Show AllThis is a very slippery slope. And we all know that legislators have a very hard time standing on slippery slopes. Especially when "special interests" are pushing them down it.
The corporations and the politicians they own have been dismantling FDR's New Deal for the past forty years. Abolishing child labor laws is the latest assault on the New Deal. The forty hour work week will be next.
"The forty hour work week will be next."
That already died in white collar businesses during the 1990's, when work weeks went to 50+ hours for many, and it's still rising. The new business "manager" has no knowledge of the experience of the 1950's, when output actually rose as the work week dropped to 35 hours. Happy workers sent productivity soaring. Now they equate hours of work with "ambition" ...
The repugs are trying to wrap this argument in a noble cause by saying it will establish the work ethic in Americas youth. The reality is an inexpensive labor force that is easily intimidated and will undoubtably take jobs from others that need them. The slave mind set needs to be ingrained early so as to avoid uprisings. I believe that congress are ones who need their work ethic shored up. Some of the laziest, most arrogant humans on the planet. How fun would it be to supervise Newt cleaning the bathrooms.
No worries! it's part of their cunning plan, to compete with China and India where children working as soon as their big enough to reach the table is a long held tradition....
>^^<
Absolutely spot on! Except the politicians are doing a lot of work, for their campaign donors. Just not the voters. Who the Hell is voting for these people anyway? Maybe I'm the dumb one but, do these dopes actually think there is such a shortage of workers that we need to put children to work? At least it will give our overlords another reason to drive down wages.
"... we all know that legislators have a very hard time standing on slippery slopes. Especially when 'special interests' are pushing them down it."
_______________________
And especially when the legislators just happen to be wearing skis.
“Enhance Access to the Workplace for Minors.”?
Coming soon : Enhanced access to prison, the morgue, etc. etc....
They are just human resources so what's the problem? Resources are resources, and corporations have a God given right to exploit all of them with equal opportunity. Business, like science, has no room for sentimentality, and besides, what's a childhood worth anyway?
This might actually be "good". In this sense...
Somewhere along the line, crazed right-wingers push too hard. And then the house of cards falls, for a time.
Think the Army-McCarthy hearings, and "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?"
People are distracted; people are propagandized. But people, at long last, *do* care about their kids.
Maybe this is the kind of thing that will cause people to finally vomit out the right.
Children have enough trouble growing up without being turned into slaves. The Puritan work ethic may have been useful at one time. Now it is among the most pernicious of all right wing propaganda. The challenge now is to find a way to distribute wealth equitably regardless of what or how much work an individual does.
Machines do most of the work now. With a little imagination machines could do 90% of all necessary work. Why should the richest 1% reap all the benefits of a mechanised society when they do less work than anybody? The greatest discoveries were not made for profit. People enjoyed doing that work. The Wright Brothers made bicycles, Leeuwenhoek was a janitor, and Priestly was a preacher. Most scientists were rich enough that they did not need to work. The same is true of most writers, philosophers, and real states persons (not the opportunistic hacks who run for office now).
A better world is possible. Google "The Zeitgeist Movement"
I can hear the likes of the fat Grinch right now pontificating on 'idle hands' ; 'work builds character' and the like. These pre-twentieth century shibboleths still hang around our necks like antique law books. They sap our creativity and are applied almost exclusively to immigrants, the poor, and now children. The Newt has no callouses on his hands. He apparently thinks his character is already exemplary. A more objective observer might question this, considering his marital history.
This is an attack on the idea of a minimum wage (never mind a "living" wage) by using the old meme that the "inner city poor" (we know who they mean) are lazy and have been "coddled" by welfare and food stamps and need to "learn how to work."
I don't see why they'd bother surely theres plenty to do being lookouts for drug dealers, collecting on bets and loans. Who in their right mind would work for sub-min wage when they can make thousands a week. selling drugs.
Once again Newt is behind the times... He really needs to be put away in a home with the rest of the civil war vets... where they can regale each other with tales of the good old days,
>^^<
Did it ever occur to any of you that there are teenager's that would like to work? Need to work?
I did work/study in High School. You were in school half a day and. worked half a day. They called it Distributive Education. D.E. for short. Kids under current law cannot do this.
And no, you can't bring in a Teenager and pay the same as you pay your regular employee's.
I know it's popular to attack this as "slave" labor or some kind of Right Wing trick and it CAN be a slippery slope, however it is not wise to throw the baby out with the bath water. This may be a time when both sides are right and need to meet in the middle.
Is it that hard to understand that you do need to learn how to work? That there is not a built in guide about how to get or keep a job? That it may not be the best idea to start looking for work or learning how to work in your mid-twenties? That kid's aren't that much different today, they simply don't have the opportunities for various reason's?
Anybody who would like to work should work at whatever she considers interesting and useful.
Why does everybody NEED to learn to work? Why is it necessary for everybody to get and keep a job?
We need to get rid of the holy gospel according to the 1%. Nobody should have to work FOR somebody else. We should work toward the goal of nobody having to work who does not want to. Incidentally, I have never met a person who wanted to do absolutely nothing. But to make food and shelter contingent on working FOR somebody who will keep a large portion of the fruits of that labor is immoral.
Most people dislike doing the work they do. They shouldn't do it. They are probably doing a poor job anyway. Robots make better cars at a lower price. That should mean that cars cost less. It doesn't.
Thank you! There is a big difference between having to sweat your life out getting money so you can have necessities, and doing actual needed work that brings useful and beautiful things to us all. Most people I know groan in the morning when the alarm clock goes off, and spend their days around people they would never choose to have in their life, and have NO time for family, friends, and whatever gods or gifts that they need to attend.
Nietzsche
Please note I said "want to", not have to.
And as you well know you don't just go to work, you learn how to get and keep a job. No one has to work for someone else in our country. It is one of the greatest differences between our country and most others.
Food, shelter, medical care have never been free nor are they likely to be. Someone has to get up in the morning and provide them. No matter the system, you cannot provide a Eloi community without dirty old Moorlocs.
We have a society now where there is no requirement that you work. And I totally agree with you that if you don't like what you do, do something else. But in the end, there never has been a free lunch and likely never will.
I forgot to say I agree with you, I have met few folks that wanted to do nothing. But I have met many that wanted to be paid a lot more than they returned.
Enjoy reading your posts.
I agree with you here, bittymouse. I feel a lot of the comments are casting an unnecessarily harsh dichotomy on the issue. I grew up working. Both because I wanted to, and also to some extent needed to. I helped my dad on the jobsite doing cleanup and gophering tools since I was able to be useful, and when it got dangerous my "job" became to "stay out of the way". My first outside job was at 14, stripping a factory of salvageable scrap and materials before it was demolished. It required some parental release form. This was Texas, mid-nineties. I made $30/day peeling tar off acres of roof in July, + a lunch. Roughly $3.50/hr. It was hot, nasty, dangerous, and possibly toxic. It wasn't "fun", but I found a deeper satisfaction in staying with it, and working along side "the men" (mostly drifters and "illegals"). Between that and the yards I mowed, I had saved over $1,000 before I started highschool. I went on to other after school jobs, janitor, landscaper, dry cleaners, etc. By the time I graduated I had over $10,000 saved, which allowed me to travel around the country, "summit hopping" at many of the major anti-globalization protests that came out of Seattle.
Of course my parents didn't like me doing this out of worry, but I had the determination and agency to use my resources in that way, because I had earned it.
The work ethic (and why does the author feel the need to put this term in quotes, "work ethic"... as though it doesn't have a reality in someone's life/skill set outside of a right-wing meme?), ahem, the work ethic I developed in my pre-teen and teen years is one of my greatest strengths.
Today I own a small business, and provide employment to over 20 people. I had to bust major ass to get to this point, and occasionally still have to work crazy hours to maintain the company, but I have a responsibility to the people who work for me and with me to keep it going, especially in these tougher times. Without the experiences of my upbringing, yes, my "access to employment", I would not have the skills, drive, and discipline to create the business and opportunities that I have.
I consider myself a progressive on most issues. I've been a near-daily reader of this site for close to a decade. This is my first post. I had to respond because, while I feel that the particular assumptions and stereotypes behind Newt's proposal (kid janitors in schools, etc) are wrong and rather disgusting, indeed the baby should not be thrown out with the bath water.
Hard work at a young age can teach skills and instill confidence, as well as bring in potentially vital income to a family, or for a young person to use to better their situation. Their is a difference between hard work and exploitation. Defining that line should be the crux of the related policy decisions. But simply barring younger people from employment altogether will bring harmful ramifications in some situations. I just think it is ideologically driven and intellectually dishonest to view this issue in such stark and polarizing contrasts.
Although I wasn't involved in any work-study program in high school, our high school did have one, which a number of kids who I knew were involved in. A (controlled and voluntary) high school work-study program, where kids who need to work part time in order to help bring home money for the family, and teaches kids something about becoming independent. This is not the same as forcing all underage kids to work against their will.
The fact that certain politicians are really considering removing all protections and mandatory child labor here in the United States really does indicate that we're headed back into the Dark ages, for sure!
If they could dig coal mine shafts that were two feet shallower millions if not billions of dollars in EXPENSES could be saved by mining companies.
These extra profits will ensure more investment back into the economy thus creating more jobs and creating prosperity for all. There was a very good reason children were employed by the millions in textile factories. They were small enough so as to be able to crawl in amongst the machinery to remove obstructions or lubricate areas on the looms and machinery that less nimble adults could not get to.
This helped ensure profits could be maximized thus allowing many millions more for the Investors who then created Jobs all across the United States of America.
The nanny state is not needed. Why should the State look after the "welfare" of Children when it clearly not in the Constitution as one of their duties. ? It is clearly unconstituional! This should be the personal responsibility of the Child and the parent in a free society and is what Liberty is all about.
The Child and the employer should be able to enter into a contract as to what duties each will have and if either party decides the arrangements not in their best interests they can terminate the relationship and look elsewhere for opportunities to enrich themselves. This is the very essence of Liberty and Freedom. The freedom to CHOOSE without State Interference! The alternative is Godless Socialism.
The Free market is the proper place to determine the value of a childhood or the worth of ones fingers or lungs and the state should not be interfering with how such value is set in the marketplace.
GW,
Very good. Who needs government getting in the way of "freedom".
Thomas Gilbert-
This is a hoot, but unfortunately some people actually believe it.
GwNorth
Great post! Sarcasm spelled out! Unfortunately I must agree with another poster, there are people that actually believe this like the Ron Paul folks and a mindless minority.
Please, everybody, memorize the following axiom.
"Atrocity begins with euphemism." - - Ken Adachi
As Caucasian Canadians stole everything they owned, the family of Ken Adachi was =relocated= from Vancouver to the Interior. Husbands and fathers were separated from their families, and told they could re-join them after one year of good behavior, while performing forced labour on roads, to pay for costs of detaining their families. This axiom comes from Ken's book: "The Enemy that Never Was".
Newt Gingrich should crawl on padded knees to Tulane University to return his doctoral credential. Failing that, it should be rescued from his possession by a commando team like the one that crashed the Olympic games in Munich.
Trylon
Thanks, I copied this in my notes
“Enhance Access to the Workplace for Minors.”
Let's re-brand soylent green as the "Enhance Access to the Rapture" program for republicans. While they would have to be highly processed to be made palatable, republicans would finally serve a useful purpose. Nobody must know the true workings of the program however. Otherwise, the admittedly poor nutritional cakes would be impossible to swallow.
It must keep lawmakers up nights thinking up new ways to make more money for their benefactors. I am curious about Newt's plan to replace all school janitors with kids. What happens when all of the laid off janitors go to draw unemployment? I just read recently how many janitors have PHD's. Amazing! If they can't find a job in their field, have to settle for janitor work, just where will they go to find another job? I wonder if Newt has really thought this plan of his completely through. It is a stupid idea and certainly has the distinction of teaching class warfare at an early age. Or is that the real idea anyway? Work ethic transparency should begin at the top where money is funneled around and around without a lick of work ever being done. Newt is a prime example of a lousy work ethic. I certainly wouldn't use him as an example of a fine work ethic to any child.
And we didn't see this coming when the Koch brothers decided to break the public unions in Wisconsin and Ohio and Florida and many other states? Child labor laws, minimum wage laws, women's rights, everything is for sale in America.
If Michelle has her way, she will import all the unemployment and poverty she can from Mexico so we will have to institute child labor.
during all my many years as a public school teacher, i taught about child labor, showed Lewis Hine's photos to thousands of kids, explained how 19th century mill owners liked little kids in he factories because they have small fingers that were good for manipulating the textile machines. Child labor laws were presented as a great social advance, one of the reasons they were now in school. But this was history! Nobody ever advocated for the return of child labor! talk about losing your moral compass...wars of aggression, imprisonment without charges, torture....wake me when it's over.
her'e a verse i use with Hine's pictures of mill workers
the golf links lie so near the mill
that nearly every day
the children hard at work can see
the men outside at play
In the State of Indiana, kids in high school can work 40 hours per week on top of their hours at school. They must be 16 yrs old or older. It was originally allowed so that children of Farmers could work during the harvest season or at planting or in a Family business like a produce stand. Used to be that kids in Indiana had to get the permission of their school, had to work limited hours on weekends and it all depended on their grades.
Welcome to third world America!