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

[Jarhyn]

Getting the needed work done takes highest priority.

Jobs for teens should benefit teens first and foremost, not the employer.

They should benefit consumers first and foremost. The function of the business is to serve consumers, and those producers (employers and workers) who do better at serving consumers should be rewarded for their superior performance.

Consumers and workers are one and the same. So with all companies extending "benefits" in the form of a fair living wage and proper training, everyone benefits.

Apprenticeships in the trades should be readily available and structured by federal law (national apprenticeship program) with safe work practices always in the forefront. Similarly pay should be structured by the feds and commensurate with the percentage of hands-on work being performed as the apprentice progresses.

Employers do better than the federal government at structuring the apprenticeship programs and deciding the pay levels. Consumers are served better as the decisions are made by the employers and employees rather than outsiders like government.

If some government role is helpful, this should be local government, and possibly some state government for (geographically) small states (but probably not large states). Politicians and bureaucrats far away are not in a good position to dictate local business decisions.

Employers do not "do better than the federal government". You're making an assumption. Employers maximize savings everywhere. Everywhere including safety. I would submit Hyundai's suppliers in Alabama as evidence.
The federal government does have a national apprenticeship program through the Dept of Labor. Obtaining a Journeyman's License should be standardized throughout the country then tailored by the state as needed for things such as climate, propensity for earthquakes, etc. Particulars for a company's equipment is the company's concern with state approval.
This standardizes safety and practices throughout which will cut down on accidents and retraining as employees cross state lines.

Time worked should be time compensated.

meaning hourly wage is the only allowable form of compensation? not by-the-piece? What is the point of having government interfere into such decisions?

Rather than policing employers and interfering with their business, government could make itself useful by investing more in educational programs, perhaps also hiring more teenagers who could fill some public need going unmet, and expanding general opportunities for those wanting to improve themselves. Also there are probably some benefits government should provide to poor communities and families which would reduce some of the negative conditions which drive the poor to desperation. But the bad conditions are not the fault of employers. Fixing some of the bad social conditions does not include scapegoating employers, as if they are to blame.

There is an employer-bashing bias in our culture which is doing more harm than good. This includes also the impulse to punish employers for hiring non-citizens. Even when these are paid a lower pay scale, it is still a net gain for everyone -- as those workers are made better off, and also consumers benefit from the lower-cost more competitive production.

Business makes us all better off when it's able to reduce its cost, including its labor cost.

Meaning money is the only compensation. Yes, money. I do work. You give me money. Mr. Employer does not get to play games with interns "gaining valuable experience" fetching coffee as compensation. Work for money. And the reason for government interference is greed. You can analyze the greed six ways to Sunday and label it as you wish but it all comes back to regulating business so they compensate their employees fairly.
When businesses give low wage employees salaried job titles and work them like hourly employees for no other reason than to not have to pay overtime, government is needed. When businesses give employees daily quotas that are impossible to safely meet, government is needed. When state governments shield businesses from liability, federal government is needed.

But without that "numerical whip" how will they possibly meet their much lower real quotas, or be able to fire employees who object to the treatment?

 

[Bomb#20]

You appear to be taking for granted that there is such a quantity as "the value of their work" available to be known. Value is subjective. Different people have different sets of values. When somebody values a good or service differently from how much you value it, that does not mean the other guy is committing fraud. And when two other people negotiate an exchange rate between what they trade to one another, it is not safe for you to take for granted that one of them would hold out for more if only he weren't being deceptively kept in ignorance of how much you value what he is offering.

Which is my point. There is a minimum set up on "value" through cultural values by applying majority rule upon representation.

That minimum "value" of any job paying a wage to a human is "the minimum wage".

Last year the minimum wage in California was $28,000, assuming a 2000 hour work year. This year the minimum wage in California is $31,000. The government of California has $31,000. If there was some guy making $28,000 last year and the majority sincerely valued his labor at $31,000, they would have hired him. They would have offered to raise his pay to some intermediate amount, say, $30,000, to persuade him to quit his job and come work for the majority. But instead, the majority chose to keep their $30,000 and get along without that worker's labor. This is empirical evidence that the majority values his labor at less than the $31,000 you are claiming is the "value" of his labor. What empirical evidence do you have that the majority values his work at $31,000? Their willingness to order people who won't pay him $31,000 to fire him?

The value of their work is additionally available in looking at the value of the company, as a percentage of their profits. If the company is turning a profit, especially the record profits we see today, then it is clear someone is being <expletive deleted> on value.

I.e., you buy into the Labor Theory of Value. You make believe that there is a quantity you call "value" that behaves like an incompressible fluid; and you make believe that production is a process in which X gallons of input 1, plus Y gallons of input 2, yields X + Y gallons of the company's output; and you value the non-labor inputs to a company's output at zero; and you have decided this is how economics works by armchair philosophizing rather than by observation.

If the company can't figure it out, it's up to the government to FINE them for not doing the work to figure it out, and TAX them on those profits, and then PAY the balance of those taxes to the least paid people at the company.

I.e., having philosophically decided someone is being screwed, you infer it must be those who are paid least, dismissing without consideration the hypothesis that it's some of the higher-paid employees who are contributing more "value" than they're getting paid. I.e., you are taking for granted that everyone's labor has equal "value".

We know by observation what happens when people who accept all those premises are empowered to restructure economies in an attempt to force them to operate according to those principles. What happens is so many workers try to emigrate that the Labor Theory of Value true-believers surround the countries they control with walls and attack-dogs to keep the workers from leaving.

Because it's NOT true that value cannot be quantified. We have a bunch of people who all need and want jobs to survive, who all offer to participate in our economy.

I.e., the above guy IS willing to work and he IS in need of $31,000, so therefore an employer OUGHT to prefer having his labor to having $31,000. Weren't you the one who said any professor caught making an IS-to-OUGHT inference should be fired?

Trying to treat value, something we as a society quantify as money,

We as a society do not quantify value as money. If we did that, we would have no economy. The other day I bought a loaf of artisan sourdough for $6.00. If I quantified the value of the bread as equal to the value of $6.00 I would have had no reason to give up $6.00 to get it -- doing that would have made me no better off. If the shopkeeper quantified the value of the bread as equal to the value of $6.00 he would have had no reason to give up the bread to get $6.00 -- doing that would have made him no better off. The whole reason the transaction took place at all and I was able to eat the bread and he was able to buy whatever he wanted was because "the value" of $6.00 TO ME was less than the bread's value, and simultaneously "the value" of $6.00 TO HIM was more than the bread's value. The fact that "value" is subjective is not metaphysics; it's the fact about human neurobiology that makes voluntary exchange feasible. If things had objective value then we would still be paleolithic foragers. Money is not a quantification of society's values; money is a "medium of exchange" that makes it easy to break up a multi-way bartering arrangement into a sequence of two-person deals.

as unquantifiable, as an excuse to treat some folks as if their work doesn't have value on account of their age or personal priorities, is honestly sick.

I.e., when you philosophically believe a guy's labor has $31,000 of "value", but somebody else only values it at $29,000, you figure that makes her fair game for a strawman argument -- for the trumped-up false accusation that she's treating the guy as if his work "doesn't have value".

 

[Derec]

If all the Millennials and Gen Z are quiet quitting, Gen α must pick up the slack.

 

[Gospel]

Just because the news says something is a trend, doesn't mean it's a trend Derec. Our news networks are taking tweets with 10likes and broadcasting it giving the impression that millions of Americans are involved with that Tweet.

 

[Oleg]

Just because the news says something is a trend, doesn't mean it's a trend Derec. Our news networks are taking tweets with 10likes and broadcasting it giving the impression that millions of Americans are involved with that Tweet.

Woah! Are you saying our news media is untrustworth sensationalists? You'd better watch out, dude.

 

[TomC]

Just because the news says something is a trend, doesn't mean it's a trend Derec. Our news networks are taking tweets with 10likes and broadcasting it giving the impression that millions of Americans are involved with that Tweet.

I have no idea what tweets the news networks are currently broadcasting.

None at all.

Makes me feel special, and more than a bit superior.
Tom

 

[bilby]

You land of make believe people never cease to amaze me.

I know that I for one invariably try to get the lowest possible wages for my work, to fool people into hiring me. Those poor suckers end up paying less, and getting more productivity out of me, and I am laughing all the way to the bank (where I have to plead with them not to repossess my stuff).

I bet they feel really silly, letting me defraud them like that.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Should MAJORITY RULE determine what we produce and consume?
What the price should be? what color your shirt should be?

Paying someone less because they are younger and do not know the value of their work is FRAUDULENT. It is taking advantage of them.

You appear to be taking for granted that there is such a quantity as "the value of their work" available to be known. Value is subjective. Different people have different sets of values. When somebody values a good or service differently from how much you value it, that does not mean the other guy is committing fraud. And when two other people negotiate an exchange rate between what they trade to one another, it is not safe for you to take for granted that one of them would hold out for more if only he weren't being deceptively kept in ignorance of how much you value what he is offering.

Which is my point. There is a minimum set up on "value" through cultural values by applying majority rule upon representation.

That minimum "value" of any job paying a wage to a human is "the minimum wage".

Maybe it's democratic. But this is mobocracy democracy doing more harm than good.

Many decisions in society make us worse off by having it voted on by the general population or by their representatives. The ones who really determine the "value" of something are those individuals who produce it and those who pay the cost of the production. Outsiders not involved as either the producer or buyer of it do not know what the "value" is. The real value of it is determined by the buyer's demand for it in relation to the producer's effort or difficulty required in order to produce it. These are what constitute the "value" of something being bought or sold in the market. Not the vast sprawling population taking a vote on it. I.e., on something that's none of their business.

The value of their work is additionally available in looking at the value of the company, as a percentage of their profits.

No, a janitor doing the same work at Joe's bar is no less valuable than one doing it at the most expensive hotel, except if the latter wants to outbid Joe to attract more applicants. The value of the worker is not determined by how much profit the employer is making. In some cases the fancy establishment is a more pleasant environment, making that job more pleasant and thus more attractive to the worker and thus even worth a lower wage, because unpleasant work has to be paid higher.

If the company is turning a profit, especially the record profits we see today, then it is clear someone is being fucked on value.

Maybe the taxpayers are being fucked, because that company should pay higher taxes. But it's not the company's workers who are being fucked. If the company really needs that particular worker in order to gain that higher profit, it's paying that worker more, because there are other companies who will compete for that more valuable worker by offering a higher wage. It's only the higher-value performance of the worker that merits a higher wage, not the higher profit of the company.

If the company can't figure it out, it's up to the government to FINE them for not doing the work to figure it out, and TAX them on . . .

No, that means higher and higher cost of production, as the company has much more work to do in order to serve consumers = higher prices for all. Plus also the gov't must increase taxes in order to pay all those additional experts needed to figure out how much more each company must pay = more gov't waste and higher debt and more bureaucrats being wasted instead of doing needed work.

. . . TAX them on those profits, and then PAY the balance of those taxes to the least paid people at the company.

Why do you want to make everyone worse off? Punishing producers for saving on cost only makes the economy worse, and thus makes everyone poorer. Your formula would only make all the poor worse off as consumers, by driving up virtually all the prices they must pay. Punishing producers by artificially driving up their cost of production makes all the consumers worse off.

Because it's NOT true that value cannot be quantified.

It can be, and it's the marketplace which quantifies it. The intersection of supply & demand is the best quantifier of the value. Whereas artificial interference by gov't (especially when it's driven by Marxist employer-bashing fanaticism) destroys the good work performed by the market, punishing the better producers and rewarding the worse ones, sending false signals to producers = less gets produced = lower living standard for all consumers.

We have a bunch of people who all need and want jobs to survive, who all offer to participate in our economy.

They produce more and better if the gov't stays out of it and doesn't discourage their better performance by trying to dictate wages and prices and imposing its unfounded theories about "value." The value of their participation is their better performance in serving the demand, not outside interference which reduces participation.

Trying to treat value, something we as a society quantify as money, as unquantifiable, as . . .

It's not unquantifiable. It's the market, driven by supply & demand, which best quantifies it. As long as we let the market do its job, the "value" is very efficiently quantified.

. . . as an excuse to treat some folks as if their work doesn't have value on account of their age or personal priorities, is honestly sick.

There are a million factors which make their work more valuable or less valuable. In some cases an ugly person is discriminated against. This is a legitimate factor along with all the other million factors.

A restaurant might discriminate against ugly applicants, or against males (because customers prefer females to serve them), and many other factors. It is Wacko Economics to pretend that some outside experts can interfere in the hiring and wage-level decisions to impose 100% fairness onto all the hiring and compensation decisions.

There are millions of complaints the gov't could try to adjudicate, to impose "fairness" onto every producer of any kind, and thus drive up the cost of business throughout the economy = higher prices and lower living standard for all.

We are all better served by the producers if we let each of them, workers and employers, decide for themselves individually what works best for them, without interference from outsiders who are not doing that work or paying those costs. Those who sacrifice in order to directly produce or consume something make the best decisions individually to quantify the value of what is produced or consumed.

-- unless one party is committing fraud -- in which case gov't has a legitimate role to interfere.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Last year the minimum wage in California was $28,000, assuming a 2000 hour work year. This year the minimum wage in California is $31,000. The government of California has $31,000. If there was some guy making $28,000 last year and the majority sincerely valued his labor at $31,000, they would have hired him. They would have offered to raise his pay to some intermediate amount, say, $30,000, to persuade him to quit his job and come work for the majority. But instead, the majority chose to keep their $30,000 and get along without that worker's labor. This is empirical evidence that the majority values his labor at less than the $31,000 you are claiming is the "value" of his labor. What empirical evidence do you have that the majority values his work at $31,000? Their willingness to order people who won't pay him $31,000 to fire him?

Quit it with the reality. It doesn't say what they want to hear so it must be wrong.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Packers Sanitation Services Inc allowed at least 102 children between 13 and 17 years old to work overnight shifts and use hazardous chemicals to clean dangerous meat processing equipment such as brisket saws and "head splitters" used to kill animals.

U.S. company fined for hiring kids to clean meatpacking plants

 

[thebeave]

Packers Sanitation Services Inc allowed at least 102 children between 13 and 17 years old to work overnight shifts and use hazardous chemicals to clean dangerous meat processing equipment such as brisket saws and "head splitters" used to kill animals.

U.S. company fined for hiring kids to clean meatpacking plants

Did something change that I'm not aware of? I got my first job at 16, and so did all my family and most of my classmates. Some kids were working as janitors, cleaning nasty toilets, etc. My older brother picked pears from a tall ladder all summer, and actually fell off once. Is kids working real jobs just not a thing anymore. Most people I know have fond memories working during high school, even if the work was underpaid and a bit shitty. Part of growing up.

 

[robnisch]

Packers Sanitation Services Inc allowed at least 102 children between 13 and 17 years old to work overnight shifts and use hazardous chemicals to clean dangerous meat processing equipment such as brisket saws and "head splitters" used to kill animals.

U.S. company fined for hiring kids to clean meatpacking plants

Did something change that I'm not aware of? I got my first job at 16, and so did all my family and most of my classmates. Some kids were working as janitors, cleaning nasty toilets, etc. My older brother picked pears from a tall ladder all summer, and actually fell off once. Is kids working real jobs just not a thing anymore. Most people I know have fond memories working during high school, even if the work was underpaid and a bit shitty. Part of growing up.

Me and my siblings picked crops in the 60's in the summer.
It was just what middle class families did. One of my cousins came up with the idea of using school busses to pick up kids and take them to the fields.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Packers Sanitation Services Inc allowed at least 102 children between 13 and 17 years old to work overnight shifts and use hazardous chemicals to clean dangerous meat processing equipment such as brisket saws and "head splitters" used to kill animals.

U.S. company fined for hiring kids to clean meatpacking plants

Did something change that I'm not aware of? I got my first job at 16, and so did all my family and most of my classmates. Some kids were working as janitors, cleaning nasty toilets, etc. My older brother picked pears from a tall ladder all summer, and actually fell off once. Is kids working real jobs just not a thing anymore. Most people I know have fond memories working during high school, even if the work was underpaid and a bit shitty. Part of growing up.

I think the issue here is hazardous machinery and perhaps hazardous chemicals, not the cleaning per se.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Getting the needed work done takes highest priority.

Jobs for teens should benefit teens first and foremost, not the employer.

They should benefit consumers first and foremost. The function of the business is to serve consumers, and those producers (employers and workers) who do better at serving consumers should be rewarded for their superior performance.

Consumers and workers are one and the same.

No they are not. By this logic, consumers and right-handers are one and the same. Many consumers are not wage-earners or even workers at all. The function of producers / business is to serve ALL consumers, even those not working.

So with all companies extending "benefits" in the form of a fair living wage and proper training, everyone benefits.

Those "benefits" are a net loss for the economy unless they make the living standard higher for everyone, for all consumers. But when they are imposed onto the employers and workers rather than being left to their free choice as individuals, we are all made worse off, not better. Driving up the cost of business makes everyone worse off unless those higher costs result in higher benefit to the consumers. And higher prices for consumers usually is a net loss for them.

Apprenticeships in the trades should be readily available and structured by federal law (national apprenticeship program) with safe work practices always in the forefront. Similarly pay should be structured by the feds and commensurate with the percentage of hands-on work being performed as the apprentice progresses.

Employers do better than the federal government at structuring the apprenticeship programs and deciding the pay levels. Consumers are served better as the decisions are made by the employers and employees rather than outsiders like government.

If some government role is helpful, this should be local government, and possibly some state government for (geographically) small states (but probably not large states). Politicians and bureaucrats far away are not in a good position to dictate local business decisions.

Employers do not "do better than the federal government". You're making an assumption. Employers maximize savings everywhere.

It's always good to increase savings and reduce costs, and companies are better at judging this than gov't regulators/bureaucrats. But in cases where there is fraud or damage to someone, we need a system to correct it. Fraud has to be prosecuted, and damage might be measurable in some cases, but you have to prove it in court and prove that there was damage to consumers generally, or to the general public. Just to complain that your Left-wing Marxist theories were rejected by the company does not prove there is general social harm.

Everywhere including safety. I would submit Hyundai's suppliers in Alabama as evidence.

If you can prove in court that there was net social damage, maybe there's a case to be made. But merely that they hired a child or an immigrant is not sufficient to prove net social damage. Probably society is better off overall in this case, despite violation of some regulations which are probably more harm than benefit to society. If there was fraud, then of course there should be prosecution.

The federal government does have a national apprenticeship program through the Dept of Labor. Obtaining a Journeyman's License should be standardized throughout the country then tailored by the state as needed for things such as climate, propensity for earthquakes, etc. Particulars for a company's equipment is the company's concern with state approval.
This standardizes safety and practices throughout which will cut down on accidents and retraining as employees cross state lines.

There's nothing wrong with gov't promoting such training programs, if they produce net cost-effective results. But they should be voluntary, not imposed onto companies and workers against their will.

Time worked should be time compensated.

meaning hourly wage is the only allowable form of compensation? not by-the-piece? What is the point of having government interfere into such decisions?

Rather than policing employers and interfering with their business, government could make itself useful by investing more in educational programs, perhaps also hiring more teenagers who could fill some public need going unmet, and expanding general opportunities for those wanting to improve themselves. Also there are probably some benefits government should provide to poor communities and families which would reduce some of the negative conditions which drive the poor to desperation. But the bad conditions are not the fault of employers. Fixing some of the bad social conditions does not include scapegoating employers, as if they are to blame.

There is an employer-bashing bias in our culture which is doing more harm than good. This includes also the impulse to punish employers for hiring non-citizens. Even when these are paid a lower pay scale, it is still a net gain for everyone -- as those workers are made better off, and also consumers benefit from the lower-cost more competitive production.

Business makes us all better off when it's able to reduce its cost, including its labor cost.

Meaning money is the only compensation. Yes, money. I do work. You give me money. Mr. Employer does not get to play games with interns "gaining valuable experience" fetching coffee as compensation. Work for money.

This sounds like pettiness caused by the gov't program being poorly designed, and probably this gov't program should be eliminated as waste. Employers doing their own training programs with no outside terms being imposed by gov't would result in legitimate work experience, and the trainees would choose whether it's worth their time and effort.

But an efficient gov't program might be possible.

And the reason for government interference is greed. You can analyze the greed six ways to Sunday and label it as you wish but it all comes back to regulating business so they compensate their employees fairly.

"Fair" compensation is whatever is agreed to by both the worker and the employer without outside interference by gov't or anyone else. No one knows the value of the work other than the employer and individual worker. Let them decide, unless you want to make the society worse off overall.

When businesses give low wage employees salaried job titles and work them like hourly employees for no other reason than to not have to pay overtime, government is needed.

No, it's the opposite. Gov't caused this problem earlier with its interference, by imposing arbitrary terms of compensation instead of letting the employer and worker decide the terms themselves. Notions like "overtime" are arbitrary concepts which the gov't imposed with its meaningless rules and categories of "full" time and "part" time and "work-day" definitions. If all this is left to the employers and workers each individually making their own choices, the whole economy will function much better and all consumers served better. Whereas having arbitrary rules and terms imposed onto them causes higher costs and higher prices for all consumers = lower living standard for all.

When businesses give employees daily quotas that are impossible to safely meet, government is needed.

No, those employees are free to resign. It's in the interest of the business to have arrangements which are reasonable for the workers to perform. If there's fraud, that's when gov't might have a legitimate need to interfere, but otherwise the individual workers are best at deciding what's reasonable. And some should quit rather than doing something not agreeable to them. It's their choice. No outsider should step in to interfere. Where minors are involved, it's up to the parents to decide. They are entitled to have their kids work.

When state governments shield businesses from liability, federal government is needed.

translation: there should be no state government at all, because only the federal gov't can ever make the right decision about anything.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Packers Sanitation Services Inc allowed at least 102 children between 13 and 17 years old to work overnight shifts and use hazardous chemicals to clean dangerous meat processing equipment such as brisket saws and "head splitters" used to kill animals.

U.S. company fined for hiring kids to clean meatpacking plants

Did something change that I'm not aware of? I got my first job at 16, and so did all my family and most of my classmates. Some kids were working as janitors, cleaning nasty toilets, etc. My older brother picked pears from a tall ladder all summer, and actually fell off once. Is kids working real jobs just not a thing anymore. Most people I know have fond memories working during high school, even if the work was underpaid and a bit shitty. Part of growing up.

As did I. At sixteen. But I wasn’t cleaning the head splitter in the middle of the night, not even back in 1979. And anyone who would hire a thirteen year old to do so, I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts isn’t locking out the equipment either. Nevermind training these children who don’t speak English lockout/tagout procedures as per OSHA standards.

 

[thebeave]

Packers Sanitation Services Inc allowed at least 102 children between 13 and 17 years old to work overnight shifts and use hazardous chemicals to clean dangerous meat processing equipment such as brisket saws and "head splitters" used to kill animals.

U.S. company fined for hiring kids to clean meatpacking plants

Did something change that I'm not aware of? I got my first job at 16, and so did all my family and most of my classmates. Some kids were working as janitors, cleaning nasty toilets, etc. My older brother picked pears from a tall ladder all summer, and actually fell off once. Is kids working real jobs just not a thing anymore. Most people I know have fond memories working during high school, even if the work was underpaid and a bit shitty. Part of growing up.

As did I. At sixteen. But I wasn’t cleaning the head splitter in the middle of the night, not even back in 1979. And anyone who would hire a thirteen year old to do so, I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts isn’t locking out the equipment either. Nevermind training these children who don’t speak English lockout/tagout procedures as per OSHA standards.

Yeah, I should have clarifed some more, and realized that after I had posted. Hiring kids under sixteen is uncool, and I assume against the law. Nightshift might not be so bad for a kid though, as some kids' brains are wired for staying up at night and sleeping during the day (I wasn't though, but my friend at 16 was). This is all assuming school is not in session, of course. I don't know what's involved in cleaning a head splitter, so I can't comment on that. And hazardous materials is very subjective. Basic home cleaning products or even paint is classified as a hazardous material where I live and must be disposed of through a special hazardous waste collection program. So who the hell knows how dangerous it all really is. And non English speaking adults in safety critical jobs are a dime a dozen, unfortunately. I have had some close calls with non English speaking workers, so that is a very real problem.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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."

 

[bigfield]

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 health, well-being or schooling of the minor enrolled in an approved program."

In other words:

• Children are going to get injured due to a lack of adequate supervision and training,
• the children's employment conditions (such as later hours) will certainly interfere with their health and education, and
• the employers will treat any resulting fines (if any) as the cost of doing business.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

With a shrinking working-age population we've got to enlist the labor of children. Got to keep the economy growing.

I think we should just start allowing children to marry and have children. Make the legal age 13. Hey, if they're old enough to work they're old enough to have children. And gun ownership, drivers' licensing, voting, the whole shebang. Lets make Lord of the Flies a reality for all those desperate middle-schoolers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My problem is this... these are jobs that require substantial training... that these teens shouldn't have time for because they are supposed to be in school.

This law has an odd Brexit feel to it... where Iowa has a deficit on labor because of modified immigration policies. America wanted illegal immigrants out because they were stealing American jobs.... and it looks like we don't have enough mature aged Americans to fill those positions.

This reminds me of a humor commentary piece I wrote something like 20 years ago, about doctors and lawyers retiring after immigration policies were modified, allowing them to quit their high wage jobs to work in the mills.