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

[Emily Lake]

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?

You should probably put your burning hatred to rest at some point. It's never really made sense, and it can't be good for your health.

 

[Toni]

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.

I read the bill. I saw no actual provisions for apprenticeships. I did see plenty of ways to allow kids to work at fast food establishments so long as it was not within school hours.

 

[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.

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?

No, because permission means carve out.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Which allow for exceptions.

 

[Elixir]

The director of the department of work force development or department of education may grant an exception from any provision of section 92.6,92.6B,or92.7 for minors fourteen to seventeen years of age participating in work-based learning or a school or employer-administered ...[blah blah blah]

You were saying?

 

[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.

I read the bill. I saw no actual provisions for apprenticeships. I did see plenty of ways to allow kids to work at fast food establishments so long as it was not within school hours.

The sections allowing kids to work fast food were already in there. They're not new. The new section is specifically related to work that is part of a student learning program, which includes apprenticeship type work. FFS, the section is titled "Sec.10. NEWSECTION. 92.8A Approved career and technical education, work-based learning, internships, registered apprenticeship programs, and student learners".

 

[Toni]

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.

I read the bill. I saw no actual provisions for apprenticeships. I did see plenty of ways to allow kids to work at fast food establishments so long as it was not within school hours.

The sections allowing kids to work fast food were already in there. They're not new. The new section is specifically related to work that is part of a student learning program, which includes apprenticeship type work. FFS, the section is titled "Sec.10. NEWSECTION. 92.8A Approved career and technical education, work-based learning, internships, registered apprenticeship programs, and student learners".

I'm aware of labor laws governing the hours that teenagers can work at McDonalds and the like.

There is zero elucidation as to what constitutes 'approved career and technical education, work based learning, internships. registered apprenticeship programs and student learners (a term that should be expunged from the language of any decent civilization.)

Apprenticeship programs have been available through vocational schools since I was in high school, which is quite a long time ago.

I've actually done some of those jobs as have other family members. I am extremely well acquainted with the abuses that teens often endure because their supervisor is more their exploiter.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If they follow the route of China, yes. Furthermore, when the poor countries are no longer poor, they will no longer have enough young population of their own to export.

Wake me up when the human race runs out of exploitable poor people.
Tom

Man, you're on a roll.

 

[ZiprHead]

Too late.

How Did Children End Up as Factory Workers in America Again?

Kids as young as 12 or 13 work in jobs that are prohibited, dangerous, and grossly inappropriate places for minors.

slate.com

How many Americans start the day with a bowl of Cheerios and milk? Certainly thousands, and maybe even millions; it’s the largest cereal brand in the United States.

But there’s a dark underbelly to those cheerful yellow boxes, and to many other common household products, from Hyundai cars to Quaker Chewy granola bars. A recent New York Times investigation revealed widespread use of illegal child labor in factories that make these products and more. Staffing agencies and middlemen place children as young as 12 or 13 to work in jobs that are unambiguously prohibited, dangerous, and grossly inappropriate places for minors to work. Child labor is on the rise, and the newest revelations show just how extensive and exploitative it is. These horrifying stories were supposed to be in the history books, not something we see in 2023. How did this happen?

 

[TV and credit cards]

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts employers lean heavily on "work based learning" and "employer administrated".

And if your ears don't perk up at the obvious unless permitted by government official in the bill, you're more naive than the kids getting hired.

I wonder how egregious "negligence" has to be for an employer to actually be held accountable.

This bill is nothing more than an attempt to take some pressure off an extremely tight labor market and tamp down wage growth.

If these legislators wanted to actually do some good they'd fund county administered apprenticeship programs and require internships have a proper wage.
They're just looking to feed workers into low wage dead end jobs.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Too late.

How Did Children End Up as Factory Workers in America Again?

Kids as young as 12 or 13 work in jobs that are prohibited, dangerous, and grossly inappropriate places for minors.

slate.com

How many Americans start the day with a bowl of Cheerios and milk? Certainly thousands, and maybe even millions; it’s the largest cereal brand in the United States.

But there’s a dark underbelly to those cheerful yellow boxes, and to many other common household products, from Hyundai cars to Quaker Chewy granola bars. A recent New York Times investigation revealed widespread use of illegal child labor in factories that make these products and more. Staffing agencies and middlemen place children as young as 12 or 13 to work in jobs that are unambiguously prohibited, dangerous, and grossly inappropriate places for minors to work. Child labor is on the rise, and the newest revelations show just how extensive and exploitative it is. These horrifying stories were supposed to be in the history books, not something we see in 2023. How did this happen?

Well, that's terrible. What we need is to allow these student learners to work these jobs legally. Perhaps a new law would be appropriate that allows some government guy in a suit to make a shitload of money taking bribes, err, I mean, to commit to oversight of these educational opportunities. But he's the fall guy, err, I mean, bloated government official and children are often reckless or incompetent, so the law should also add in limits to the liability of the for-profit corporations, I mean, moral learning institutions. We can't have them suffering because everyone else are the bad guys.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This bill is nothing more than an attempt to take some pressure off an extremely tight labor market and tamp down wage growth.

If these legislators wanted to actually do some good they'd fund county administered apprenticeship programs and require internships have a proper wage.
They're just looking to feed workers into low wage dead end jobs.

Truer words have never been penned.

 

[TomC]

This bill is nothing more than an attempt to take some pressure off an extremely tight labor market and tamp down wage growth.

If these legislators wanted to actually do some good they'd fund county administered apprenticeship programs and require internships have a proper wage.

As a long term solution I'd support that.

But a much shorter term solution would be giving out a few hundred thousand more green cards to adults.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Actually, paying a living wage, offering a more humane and predictable schedule and offering benefits ( or supporting government funded health insurance for all) would all help fill positions.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Actually, paying a living wage, offering a more humane and predictable schedule and offering benefits ( or supporting government funded health insurance for all) would all help fill positions.

But...muh ProFiTs!!!

 

[Toni]

From The Des Moines Regisister

A new bill introduced in the Iowa Legislature would rewrite Iowa's child labor law to allow teens to work in previously prohibited jobs so long as they are part of an approved training program.

Here are some highlights of Senate File 167.

List of prohibited jobs for teens remains​

As with the existing law, the bill outlines the jobs that 14-17-year olds can do, like bagging and carrying groceries to cars, clerical work and preparing and serving food.

The bill also maintains a list of jobs kids under 18 can't hold, such as working in slaughterhouses, meatpacking or rendering plants; mining; operating power-driven metal forming, punching or shearing machines; operating band or circular saws, guillotine shears or paper balers; or being involved in roofing operations or demolition work. It makes a few modifications, such as removing a prohibition against 14- and 15-year-olds working in freezers and meat coolers.


In-depth:Amid a massive labor shortage, Iowa businesses push for a bill to loosen child-labor laws

New section allows for exemptions​

In an entirely new section, however, the bill would allow the Iowa Workforce Development and state Department of Education heads to make exceptions to any of the prohibited jobs for teens 14-17 "participating in work-based learning or a school or employer-administered, work-related program."


It says those asking for exceptions must demonstrate "the activity will be performed under adequate supervision and training;" that "the training includes adequate safety precautions;" and that "the terms and conditions of the proposed employment will not interfere with the; and health, well-being, or schooling of the minor enrolled in an approved program."

More:'What is the value of life?' Iowa bills to cap lawsuits pit Republicans against Republicans

Bill also would shield businesses from liability​

The bill exempts businesses from civil liability if a student is sickened, injured or killed due to the company's negligence. A business also would be free of civil liability if a student is hurt because of the teen's negligence on the job — or is injured traveling to or from work.

This wonderful legislation is being brought to you by the same political party what doesn't want a drag performer reading books about Ruby Bridges to these same children in a public library because such an experience would scar a child for life. However, an after-school job on the killing room floor is just
"participating in [a] work-based learning or a school or employer-administered, work-related program."

What is truly wonderful about this piece of legislation is just how much it demonstrates the GOP’s commitment to protecting children.

So... we could teach children to be smart in math and science and get STEM related jobs and teach others required skills for labor jobs like plumbing, electrical, housing that can lead to other viable careers.

Naw... let's just let kids work in meat packing facility... as long the meat packers promise it'll be safe.

Because obviously nothing in our lives of value depends upon being able to create art or to write well or to help people. Let’s all the smart people become STEM degrees bots and all the others become plumbers and electricians. Nothing else is of any value to society at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

serving food and beverages, including the cleaning using kitchen cleaning products with required personal protective equipment

I don't like this one.

A business that accepts a secondary student in a work-based learning program shall not be subject to civil liability for any claim arising from the student’s negligent act or omission during the student’s participation in the work-based learning program

So you can put a kid in a dangerous situation and not be liable if they mess up.

 

[laughing dog]

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

serving food and beverages, including the cleaning using kitchen cleaning products with required personal protective equipment

I don't like this one.

A business that accepts a secondary student in a work-based learning program shall not be subject to civil liability for any claim arising from the student’s negligent act or omission during the student’s participation in the work-based learning program

So you can put a kid in a dangerous situation and not be liable if they mess up.

Apparently the apologists who have carefully read the bill think it is a great idea. After all, if there are no consequences to making a mistake, how are these teenagers ever going to learn?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Standard Republican tactics. Hide the damning stuff in confusing verbage.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Perhaps I missed it in the bill but I wonder...

though these minors cannot operate dangerous equipment, but might they have to transit a factory floor with many dangers around, overhead cranes, forklifts, conveyors, or whatever moving machinery?

We don't let them drink, smoke, enter into contracts, give consent, vote. But contribute to our capitalism run amok system? You're in there kid.