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

[Jarhyn]

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.

I'll note, the number of teens I have met who have expressed their position on math education give me all the reason I need to know it's a bad idea making kids do jobs with required "hassles" that they can get away with skipping out on.

Kids will often reject the advice given and cut corners, even when that advice protects their lives and health.

There is no way to make a law that relaxes restrictions of restrictions on minors doing work requiring PPE, without minors then engaging in unsafe work.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Legal question, "negligent act or omission". Is omission protecting the employer from a mistake made by the minor that gets someone else hurt? From what I read online, which clearly makes me a Web Board expert on law , omission in this case, which is attached to the student (underaged minor) means not doing something that should have been done. I would think in this case, this could be a procedure in which the student harms themselves for not acting as per a trained adult OR not acting and getting someone else hurt because either they screwed up through inaction. But really, to go even further, this really could apply to negligent act as well. It says a business "shall not" be civilly liable for "any claim" arising from a student's negligence or omission.

So, to me, this is even worse than it looks like on the surface. As it doesn't merely allow the business to not be at civil risk if the teen gets hurt... it isn't at civil risk if the teen gets someone else hurt either.

 

[Elixir]

Obviously it's not enough to read the bill. One would have to understand it in order to foresee the disasters it enables.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I genuinely have no idea how this fits into anything that has been said here. I'm very confused.

 

[Oleg]

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.

Legal question, "negligent act or omission". Is omission protecting the employer from a mistake made by the minor that gets someone else hurt? From what I read online, which clearly makes me a Web Board expert on law , omission in this case, which is attached to the student (underaged minor) means not doing something that should have been done. I would think in this case, this could be a procedure in which the student harms themselves for not acting as per a trained adult OR not acting and getting someone else hurt because either they screwed up through inaction. But really, to go even further, this really could apply to negligent act as well. It says a business "shall not" be civilly liable for "any claim" arising from a student's negligence or omission.

So, to me, this is even worse than it looks like on the surface. As it doesn't merely allow the business to not be at civil risk if the teen gets hurt... it isn't at civil risk if the teen gets someone else hurt either.

Ugh. Worker's compensation covers minors. Even minors in work-based learning programs. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/85.pdf

The point of worker's compensation is that injury can occur at work even if there's no ill intent. E.g., a worker trips over a paint can. That's covered. What is not covered is where there is gross negligence or willful misconduct. E.g., your boss punches you. There's nothing new here, guys.

 

[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.

Legal question, "negligent act or omission". Is omission protecting the employer from a mistake made by the minor that gets someone else hurt? From what I read online, which clearly makes me a Web Board expert on law , omission in this case, which is attached to the student (underaged minor) means not doing something that should have been done. I would think in this case, this could be a procedure in which the student harms themselves for not acting as per a trained adult OR not acting and getting someone else hurt because either they screwed up through inaction. But really, to go even further, this really could apply to negligent act as well. It says a business "shall not" be civilly liable for "any claim" arising from a student's negligence or omission.

So, to me, this is even worse than it looks like on the surface. As it doesn't merely allow the business to not be at civil risk if the teen gets hurt... it isn't at civil risk if the teen gets someone else hurt either.

Ugh. Worker's compensation covers minors. Even minors in work-based learning programs. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/85.pdf

The point of worker's compensation is that injury can occur at work even if there's no ill intent. E.g., a worker trips over a paint can. That's covered. What is not covered is where there is gross negligence or willful misconduct. E.g., your boss punches you. There's nothing new here, guys.

You keep bringing up workman's compensation as if it some panacea. It is not.

Clearly if it were, there'd be little need for new legislation that limits business liability in some cases.

 

[lpetrich]

Whatever the flaws, it's a good idea. Most high school students don't want to be there. It's teen daycare. Why not let them get practical knowledge and skills?

That's more of a case for making much of high school into vocational training, something that can include apprenticeship. That will require "tracking" high-school students, some for blue-collar jobs, some for white-collar jobs, some for going on to college. That is done in many European countries. I don't think that such tracking should be too rigid, however, like being stuck in some track after sixth or eighth grade.

I'd also do a shakeup of the curriculum, like instead of having one year each of algebra, geometry, and trigonometry, I'd mix them all together and add probability and statistics. I'd do only a little bit of Euclid-style constructions and only a little bit of trigonometry and instead do a lot of analytic geometry - coordinate systems and graphing and the like.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

 

[ZiprHead]

The looks on these kids' faces at the signing ceremony with Sarah Huckabee Sanders says it all. Just look how excited and eager they are.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The looks on these kids' faces at the signing ceremony with Sarah Huckabee Sanders says it all. Just look how excited and eager they are.

View attachment 42546

That’s just their blue collar grit showing through. The smiley faces are all pencil pushers who don’t have to work hard for a living.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

"After this, you will all be rewarded with internships with Matt Gaetz."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Age only matters when you're trying to "protect" kids from things you don't like, not when you're actually trying to protect them:

Arkansas: No Need To Age Verify Kids Working In Meat Processing Plants, But We Must Age Verify Kids Online

As we’ve been covering, there are a slew of laws across the country (and around the globe!) looking to required websites to “age verify” their visitors. And, it seems to be something that has suppo…

www.techdirt.com

 

[scombrid]

I got a work permit to work on a tree farm when I was 14. I was not allowed to exceed 40 hours per week or operate heavy machinery. I mowed grass, hoed weeds, lined out plants in new fields, filed in holes that the loader couldn't access, hand dug - balled - burlapped trees for transplant. Not allowed to use chemicals. I preferred the heat and the sun to stocking shelves or bagging groceries. The meat packing plant did not employ children. There was no job there suitable.

 

[Emily Lake]

Age only matters when you're trying to "protect" kids from things you don't like, not when you're actually trying to protect them:

Arkansas: No Need To Age Verify Kids Working In Meat Processing Plants, But We Must Age Verify Kids Online

As we’ve been covering, there are a slew of laws across the country (and around the globe!) looking to required websites to “age verify” their visitors. And, it seems to be something that has suppo…

www.techdirt.com

Well that bill is all the way nutty.