Merged Where the Women Are Strong, the Men Are Good-looking, And All of the Children Are Working Second Shift at the Plant.

[laughing dog]

They can wait until after graduation to learn the skills of otherwise banned workplaces.

Didn't read the bill, did you?

I did. Clearly you don't read posts because I wrote that earlier.

 

[Oleg]

I've read it. If it was such a good deal, there'd be no need to loosen legal remedies for negligence.

FFS. You cannot sue your employer for the negligence of the employer or fellow co-worker. When workplace accidents happen, the worker makes a claim for workers compensation. But there is no employer immunity for gross negligence or willful misconduct. This is true for every state in the union. The Iowa legislature did not do anything new here.

 

[laughing dog]

I've read it. If it was such a good deal, there'd be no need to loosen legal remedies for negligence.

FFS. You cannot sue your employer for the negligence of the employer or fellow co-worker. When workplace accidents happen, the worker makes a claim for workers compensation. But there is no employer immunity for gross negligence or willful misconduct. This is true for every state in the union. The Iowa legislature did not do anything new here.

FFS yourself. If your claim is true, then the bill would not need those carve outs.

 

[Oleg]

They can wait until after graduation to learn the skills of otherwise banned workplaces.

Didn't read the bill, did you?

I did. Clearly you don't read posts because I wrote that earlier.

Clearly you missed this part:

This provision shall not be construed to provide immunity for a student or business for civil liability arising from gross negligence or willful misconduct.

 

[Oleg]

I've read it. If it was such a good deal, there'd be no need to loosen legal remedies for negligence.

FFS. You cannot sue your employer for the negligence of the employer or fellow co-worker. When workplace accidents happen, the worker makes a claim for workers compensation. But there is no employer immunity for gross negligence or willful misconduct. This is true for every state in the union. The Iowa legislature did not do anything new here.

FFS yourself. If your claim is true, then the bill would not need those carve outs.

What carve out? Workers compensation has been the law for about 100 years.

 

[laughing dog]

I've read it. If it was such a good deal, there'd be no need to loosen legal remedies for negligence.

FFS. You cannot sue your employer for the negligence of the employer or fellow co-worker. When workplace accidents happen, the worker makes a claim for workers compensation. But there is no employer immunity for gross negligence or willful misconduct. This is true for every state in the union. The Iowa legislature did not do anything new here.

FFS yourself. If your claim is true, then the bill would not need those carve outs.

What carve out? Workers compensation has been the law for about 100 years.

So? We are talking about children who are granted exemptions from otherwise banned work. For some unexplicable reason, you don't seem to think children deserve extra protection.

And that assumes that worker compensation laws are adequate.

 

[Oleg]

I've read it. If it was such a good deal, there'd be no need to loosen legal remedies for negligence.

FFS. You cannot sue your employer for the negligence of the employer or fellow co-worker. When workplace accidents happen, the worker makes a claim for workers compensation. But there is no employer immunity for gross negligence or willful misconduct. This is true for every state in the union. The Iowa legislature did not do anything new here.

FFS yourself. If your claim is true, then the bill would not need those carve outs.

What carve out? Workers compensation has been the law for about 100 years.

So? We are talking about children who are granted exemptions from otherwise banned work. For some unexplicable reason, you don't seem to think children deserve extra protection.

Go ahead and attack that strawman. My point, which I made earlier, is that it's a good idea to let young people get work experience while in high school. If you diagree with that, say so.

 

[Jarhyn]

I've read it. If it was such a good deal, there'd be no need to loosen legal remedies for negligence.

FFS. You cannot sue your employer for the negligence of the employer or fellow co-worker. When workplace accidents happen, the worker makes a claim for workers compensation. But there is no employer immunity for gross negligence or willful misconduct. This is true for every state in the union. The Iowa legislature did not do anything new here.

FFS yourself. If your claim is true, then the bill would not need those carve outs.

What carve out? Workers compensation has been the law for about 100 years.

So? We are talking about children who are granted exemptions from otherwise banned work. For some unexplicable reason, you don't seem to think children deserve extra protection.

Go ahead and attack that strawman. My point, which I made earlier, is that it's a good idea to let young people get work experience while in high school. If you diagree with that, say so.

Your point doesn't speak to your intent to apologize for the law. The law does not serve experience in highschool, the old law already served that.

The special thing this serves, the new thing, is limited employer liability and relaxations of workplace safety laws for children.

This means your "point" is raised in bad faith.

 

[laughing dog]

I've read it. If it was such a good deal, there'd be no need to loosen legal remedies for negligence.

FFS. You cannot sue your employer for the negligence of the employer or fellow co-worker. When workplace accidents happen, the worker makes a claim for workers compensation. But there is no employer immunity for gross negligence or willful misconduct. This is true for every state in the union. The Iowa legislature did not do anything new here.

FFS yourself. If your claim is true, then the bill would not need those carve outs.

What carve out? Workers compensation has been the law for about 100 years.

So? We are talking about children who are granted exemptions from otherwise banned work. For some unexplicable reason, you don't seem to think children deserve extra protection.

Go ahead and attack that strawman

It is not a straw man. Your argument explicitly treats those otherwise exempted teenagers as adults.

. My point, which I made earlier, is that it's a good idea to let young people get work experience while in high school. If you diagree with that, say so.

If it is simply work experience of any type, then there is no need for this law. If it is work experience in a dangerous job, waiting until graduation will not be an impediment to career advancement in those professions.

Moreover, it is pretty obvious that the intent behind this bill is to get more bodies into those workplaces, not for people to "gain experience".

Your argument fails on the facts and reason.

 

[Oleg]

The special thing this serves, the new thing, is limited employer liability and relaxations of workplace safety laws for children.

Holy fucking shit. No it does not. Just fuck a fucking duck. The student-worker actually has more protections than the adult. Can no one here read?

 

[Oleg]

If it is work experience in a dangerous job, waiting until graduation will not be an impediment to career advancement in those professions.

What dangerous job? Working in a office? Preparing food? Retail? You claim to have read the bill, but it's hard to believe you.

 

[laughing dog]

If it is work experience in a dangerous job, waiting until graduation will not be an impediment to career advancement in those professions.

What dangerous job? Working in a office? Preparing food? Retail? You claim to have read the bill, but it's hard to believe you.

I know I have read the bill. There is little evidence that you have read the bill with even a moderate level of comprehension because the law allows the director of workplace or department of education to grant exceptions to the banned work activities (which include things like logging and mining). It also allows the labor commissioner to reduce or waive civil penalties to employers for violations.

 

[Jarhyn]

The special thing this serves, the new thing, is limited employer liability and relaxations of workplace safety laws for children.

Holy fucking shit. No it does not. Just fuck a fucking duck. The student-worker actually has more protections than the adult. Can no one here read?

Yes it does limit employer liability.

The law is in every way still more lax on liability than the old law.

The fact that they kept just a little bit of protection left is not the defense you think it is.

It is an unmitigated L for child labor laws.

 

[Worldtraveller]

It's honestly hard to take Emily seriously right now. She's in here claiming a repeal of child labor and safety laws is a good thing, and in another thread claiming that they deserve no right to make counseled medical decisions to receive medications they have been fully appraised of the effect of!

ThInK Of ThE ChIlDrEn (except when it actually means keeping people from taking advantage of them)

You're just now coming to this conclusion?

 

[Emily Lake]

Honestly, you guys should read the bill itself. It's not nearly as bad as it's being made out to be. It tightens restrictions on children in some age ranges, and it allows for very specific exceptions to the existing prohibitions in cases where the work is explicitly related to education and training. There are a lot of hoops that need to be jumped through in order for a position to be recognized as such.

It really is worth reading the actual proposed legislation before forming a conclusion based on a narrative presented to you with an obvious intention to provoke an emotional reaction.

It was linked in the original post, but I'll relink it here:
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=SF167

I've read it. If it was such a good deal, there'd be no need to loosen legal remedies for negligence.

That was the part I found confusing. It reads as if someone thought there was something that made sense, but it seems like opportunity for loopholes.

 

[Emily Lake]

Honestly, you guys should read the bill itself. It's not nearly as bad as it's being made out to be. It tightens restrictions on children in some age ranges, and it allows for very specific exceptions to the existing prohibitions in cases where the work is explicitly related to education and training. There are a lot of hoops that need to be jumped through in order for a position to be recognized as such.

It really is worth reading the actual proposed legislation before forming a conclusion based on a narrative presented to you with an obvious intention to provoke an emotional reaction.

It was linked in the original post, but I'll relink it here:
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=SF167

Well, McDonalds would be well pleased with this bill.

What? This bill has exactly zero impact on McDonalds. None at all.

I cannot see any benefit for persons of school age in this bill. The types of work experience most are likely to gain would only allow them to continue to work low wage jobs where workers are treated as disposable. This comes at a cost to their education and future. Provisions which have been stricken were there for good reason.

I'm really not sure what you mean here. It provides an avenue for some people in specific educational endeavors to learn skills that generally require apprenticeships. Most of those aren't low wage jobs. Seriously, do you think so poorly of skilled trades?

I've actually worked in some of the types of jobs described as suitable for workers aged 14-16, albeit when I was much older than that: 19-21. Teenage workers and those who work in jobs which are mostly held by teenagers are treated extremely poorly. They are paid low wages, and are not actually allowed to make use of worker protection laws that an actual adult would be apprised of and have an idea of who to contact for violations of their rights. It is very easy to see how children can and will be physically exploited but also sexually exploited.

These jobs do not provide an opportunity to gain valuable work experience. They provide employers a source of cheap labor that is too young and unsophisticated to complain about exploitive work conditions.

The changes in this bill do not in any fashion address the kinds of jobs that you're referring to. And the jobs with risks of sexual exploitation are absolutely NOT something this bill would support in any way.

Seriously people, read the actual fucking bill.

I think it needs work on the liabilities section, but there genuinely isn't anything evil or dastardly about the rest of it. I don't even know where you're getting this "sexual exploitation" bullshit from, Toni.

 

[Emily Lake]

I've read it. If it was such a good deal, there'd be no need to loosen legal remedies for negligence.

FFS. You cannot sue your employer for the negligence of the employer or fellow co-worker. When workplace accidents happen, the worker makes a claim for workers compensation. But there is no employer immunity for gross negligence or willful misconduct. This is true for every state in the union. The Iowa legislature did not do anything new here.

FFS yourself. If your claim is true, then the bill would not need those carve outs.

What carve out? Workers compensation has been the law for about 100 years.

So? We are talking about children who are granted exemptions from otherwise banned work. For some unexplicable reason, you don't seem to think children deserve extra protection.

And that assumes that worker compensation laws are adequate.

Are you missing that those carve outs are under extremely limited circumstances, where the work is part of an educational endeavor, and that the workplace has to get permission in the first place?

 

[Politesse]

The special thing this serves, the new thing, is limited employer liability and relaxations of workplace safety laws for children.

Holy fucking shit. No it does not. Just fuck a fucking duck. The student-worker actually has more protections than the adult. Can no one here read?

Children are supposed to be better protected from abuse. That's no defense for stripping some of those protections.

 

[Emily Lake]

Moreover, it is pretty obvious that the intent behind this bill is to get more bodies into those workplaces, not for people to "gain experience".

It strengthens prohibition on 14 year olds, leaves the provisions for 15 year olds unchanged, and it provides a new avenue for LEARNING of some trades, under extremely specific circumstances and with very clear requirements for oversight and safety.

 

[Emily Lake]

If it is work experience in a dangerous job, waiting until graduation will not be an impediment to career advancement in those professions.

What dangerous job? Working in a office? Preparing food? Retail? You claim to have read the bill, but it's hard to believe you.

I know I have read the bill. There is little evidence that you have read the bill with even a moderate level of comprehension because the law allows the director of workplace or department of education to grant exceptions to the banned work activities (which include things like logging and mining). It also allows the labor commissioner to reduce or waive civil penalties to employers for violations.

Nope.

S.F.167Sec.10.NEWSECTION.92.8AApprovedcareerandtechnical1education,work-basedlearning,internships,registered2apprenticeshipprograms,andstudentlearners.31.Thedirectorofthedepartmentofworkforcedevelopment4ordepartmentofeducationmaygrantanexceptionfromany5provisionofsection92.6,92.6B,or92.7forminorsfourteen6toseventeenyearsofageparticipatinginwork-basedlearning7oraschooloremployer-administered,work-relatedprogram8approvedbythedepartmentofworkforcedevelopmentorthe9departmentofeducationifallofthefollowingapply:10a.Therequestordemonstratestheactivitywillbeperformed11underadequatesupervisionandtraining.12b.Thetrainingincludesadequatesafetyprecautions.13c.Thetermsandconditionsoftheproposedemploymentwill14notinterferewiththehealth,well-being,orschoolingofthe15minorenrolledintheapprovedprogram.

Turns out that section 92.8 still holds, which explicitly prohibits 14 to 17 year olds from working in logging or mining.

so... ? Are you sure you read it?