Wisconsin Republicans Want To Relax Child Labor Laws

[ZiprHead]

Wisconsin's Senate approves a bill allowing 14 year olds to work as late as 11 p.m., and supporters say it could help plug the labor shortage

Wisconsin's Senate approved a bill on Wednesday that would allow 14 and 15-year-olds to work until 11 p.m. on some days — much later than current laws allow.

Supporters of the bill say it could help plug the state's labor shortage.

Wisconsin currently sticks to federal child-labor laws, which stipulate that people under the age of 16 can only work between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. from June 1 to Labor Day, and between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. for the rest of the year.

The proposed bill would allow this group to instead work from 6 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on days before a school day, and 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. when the next day isn't a school day.

It has now been sent to the Wisconsin Assembly for approval.

Proposed Wisconsin labor law hopes to ease worker shortage with longer hours for teens age 14, 15​

The changes would only impact businesses that make less than $500,000 in annual sales and are not covered by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The measure is backed by Republicans and organizations like the Wisconsin Hotel and Lodging Association, but Democrats and the AFL-CIO have said they oppose the change.

"It's a nice workaround," said state Sen. Chris Larson, D-Milwaukee. "I think in reality if those employers are looking for workers, what frankly the market should dictate is they should be raising wages, offering additional benefits."

https://abc7chicago.com/wisconsin-labor-law-worker-shortage-2021-great-resignation-wi-bill/11169132/

 

[Patooka]

Well that is surprising. I would have assumed they want to eliminate child labour laws completely.

 

[ZiprHead]

Don't give them ideas.

 

[Rhea]

I agree with this guy:

"It's a nice workaround," said state Sen. Chris Larson, D-Milwaukee. "I think in reality if those employers are looking for workers, what frankly the market should dictate is they should be raising wages, offering additional benefits."

So typical of the “free market will set the prices” crowd to say that they oppose it when it means rich people will lower their margins.

 

[TomC]

I agree with this guy:

"It's a nice workaround," said state Sen. Chris Larson, D-Milwaukee. "I think in reality if those employers are looking for workers, what frankly the market should dictate is they should be raising wages, offering additional benefits."

So typical of the “free market will set the prices” crowd to say that they oppose it when it means rich people will lower their margins.

Ironic, isn't it?

When the price of gasoline goes from $2.50 to 3.50, it's the market! Free markets and all that. My wish to pay $2.50, and not $3.50, doesn't qualify as a gasoline shortage.

But when that gas station can't fill it's staff at $9.00/hr, it's a labor shortage. People are lazy. Etc. Etc. It's unfair to expect employers to raise the wages until they've got the labor that they claim to need. Somehow, the same market forces that determine the price of gasoline don't apply to the price of labor.

To me, the answer is obvious. Hypocrisy. Modern American Capitalist Hypocrisy. Free market theory only applies when it benefits the rich. When it comes to the little people it's socialism or something.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I agree with this guy:

"It's a nice workaround," said state Sen. Chris Larson, D-Milwaukee. "I think in reality if those employers are looking for workers, what frankly the market should dictate is they should be raising wages, offering additional benefits."

So typical of the “free market will set the prices” crowd to say that they oppose it when it means rich people will lower their margins.

Ironic, isn't it?

When the price of gasoline goes from $2.50 to 3.50, it's the market! Free markets and all that. My wish to pay $2.50, and not $3.50, doesn't qualify as a gasoline shortage.

But when that gas station can't fill it's staff at $9.00/hr, it's a labor shortage. People are lazy. Etc. Etc. It's unfair to expect employers to raise the wages until they've got the labor that they claim to need. Somehow, the same market forces that determine the price of gasoline don't apply to the price of labor.

To me, the answer is obvious. Hypocrisy. Modern American Capitalist Hypocrisy. Free market theory only applies when it benefits the rich. When it comes to the little people it's socialism or something.
Tom

I don't follow. Is there some Wisconsin law stopping employers from offering more money for labour? In what way is it "hypocrisy"?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

I agree with this guy:

"It's a nice workaround," said state Sen. Chris Larson, D-Milwaukee. "I think in reality if those employers are looking for workers, what frankly the market should dictate is they should be raising wages, offering additional benefits."

That's what they do, when it's best for society. But higher cost of production is not always the best answer, because it often means LESS production. When higher cost means the company must reduce its production, that can make everyone worse off, not better.

Sometimes the solution is to pay higher wages, but other times the solution is to find cheaper labor. It's Nutcase Economics to insist that in every situation always, without exception, the only right choice is to force wages up higher, regardless of any consequences.

We don't need to make a religion out of Higher Wages, as automatically the only right answer to anything.

Rather, the religion should be FREE CHOICE for all individuals, all producers, buyers and sellers, with no one imposing their dogmatic theories onto anyone else.

So typical of the “free market will set the prices” crowd to say that they oppose it when it means rich people will lower their margins.

No, the "free market will set the prices" crowd doesn't say that. It says it's appropriate for someone to get rich, or increase their margin, if they do it by competing better and serving consumers better. Including by trying to save on their production cost, even their labor cost.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't follow.

Of course you don't.

Is there some Wisconsin law stopping employers from offering more money for labour?

No.

In what way is it "hypocrisy"?

Because they are more than willing to allow the market to work in their favor when there is an oversupply of labor so they can keep wages low. Now there is an undersupply of labor so they want to change the rules of the game to help them keep wages low.

It's quite simple if you think about it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I agree with this guy:

"It's a nice workaround," said state Sen. Chris Larson, D-Milwaukee. "I think in reality if those employers are looking for workers, what frankly the market should dictate is they should be raising wages, offering additional benefits."

So typical of the “free market will set the prices” crowd to say that they oppose it when it means rich people will lower their margins.

Ironic, isn't it?

When the price of gasoline goes from $2.50 to 3.50, it's the market! Free markets and all that. My wish to pay $2.50, and not $3.50, doesn't qualify as a gasoline shortage.

But when that gas station can't fill it's staff at $9.00/hr, it's a labor shortage. People are lazy. Etc. Etc. It's unfair to expect employers to raise the wages until they've got the labor that they claim to need. Somehow, the same market forces that determine the price of gasoline don't apply to the price of labor.

To me, the answer is obvious. Hypocrisy. Modern American Capitalist Hypocrisy. Free market theory only applies when it benefits the rich. When it comes to the little people it's socialism or something.
Tom

Are you saying that wages aren't increasing? I did a quick google search and found "Over the two-year period from the second quarter of 2019 to the second quarter of 2021, the median hourly wage of high-wage workers increased from $50.59 to $52.68 and the median for low-wage workers increased from $10.79 to $11.70." For the low-wage workers, that's a greater than 10% increase in wages in a 2 year period.

 

[prideandfall]

Are you saying that wages aren't increasing?

State of Working America Wages 2019: A story of slow, uneven, and unequal wage growth over the last 40 years

Rising wage inequality and slow and uneven hourly wage growth for the vast majority of workers have been defining features of the U.S. labor market for the last four decades, despite steady (if too slow) productivity growth. In only 10 of the last 40 years did most workers see any consistent...

www.epi.org

relative to inflation and changes in the cost of basically everything, wages have effectively gone down over the last 40 years.
buying power is lower today across the board than it was in the 70s for everyone *except* the top 10% of income, which has skyrocketed dramatically.

I did a quick google search and found "Over the two-year period from the second quarter of 2019 to the second quarter of 2021, the median hourly wage of high-wage workers increased from $50.59 to $52.68 and the median for low-wage workers increased from $10.79 to $11.70." For the low-wage workers, that's a greater than 10% increase in wages in a 2 year period.

which is irrelevant when you're getting 10% more of a handful of dog shit.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't follow.

Of course you don't.

Is there some Wisconsin law stopping employers from offering more money for labour?

No.

In what way is it "hypocrisy"?

Because they are more than willing to allow the market to work in their favor when there is an oversupply of labor so they can keep wages low. Now there is an undersupply of labor so they want to change the rules of the game to help them keep wages low.

It's quite simple if you think about it.

But "the rules of the game" had already been altered in favour of wage earners when teenagers were forbidden from working certain hours. The law did that, not the free market.

 

[TomC]

I don't follow.

Of course you don't.

Is there some Wisconsin law stopping employers from offering more money for labour?

No.

In what way is it "hypocrisy"?

Because they are more than willing to allow the market to work in their favor when there is an oversupply of labor so they can keep wages low. Now there is an undersupply of labor so they want to change the rules of the game to help them keep wages low.

It's quite simple if you think about it.

But "the rules of the game" had already been altered in favour of wage earners when teenagers were forbidden from working certain hours. The law did that, not the free market.

Do you have a problem with protecting school age kids? Personally, I don't. I want the law to do that. That's what this thread is about.

Apparently, the labor shortage is so bad that 14 y/o should work longer hours. But not bad enough to boost wages. Sorry, I think that's a very bad thing, morally and ethically. Kids need protection.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I don't follow.

Of course you don't.

Is there some Wisconsin law stopping employers from offering more money for labour?

No.

In what way is it "hypocrisy"?

Because they are more than willing to allow the market to work in their favor when there is an oversupply of labor so they can keep wages low. Now there is an undersupply of labor so they want to change the rules of the game to help them keep wages low.

It's quite simple if you think about it.

But "the rules of the game" had already been altered in favour of wage earners when teenagers were forbidden from working certain hours. The law did that, not the free market.

Do you have a problem with protecting school age kids? Personally, I don't. I want the law to do that. That's what this thread is about.

I did not offer an opinion on what the law should or should not do. I pointed out that this law change is more consistent with a free market, not less consistent.

Apparently, the labor shortage is so bad that 14 y/o should work longer hours. But not bad enough to boost wages. Sorry, I think that's a very bad thing, morally and ethically. Kids need protection.
Tom

But it doesn't make it 'hypocrisy'.

 

[zorq]

Refusing to change the rules when they benefit you because "capitalism." And insisting on changing the rules when they don't benefit you despite "capitalism." It's simple.