Missouri SB222 - Modifies the child labor laws

[acroyear]

[Missouri] SB 222 – This act modifies the child labor laws. It eliminates the prohibition on employment of children under age fourteen. Restrictions on the number of hours and restrictions on when a child may work during the day are also removed. It also repeals the requirement that a child ages fourteen or fifteen obtain a work certificate or work permit in order to be employed. Children under sixteen will also be allowed to work in any capacity in a motel, resort or hotel where sleeping accommodations are furnished. It also removes the authority of the director of the Division of Labor Standards to inspect employers who employ children and to require them to keep certain records for children they employ. It also repeals the presumption that the presence of a child in a workplace is evidence of employment.
SB222 - Modifies the child labor laws

 

 

I wonder what the original impetus was for this?  The old days of child labor, and the reasons it was banned, was because kids were being paid less than living wages for ridiculous (and sometimes dangerous) work.  They were being blatantly exploited.  Each of the restrictions was meant to 1) encourage kids to remain in school, and 2) protect kids from over-working to the detriment of their education or their health.

Now, I can only see 3 possible reasons for this effective repeal of child labor laws.

1. The legislator is a racist who would would rather pay white kids (or at least American kids) instead of immigrant adults for unskilled labor in hotels and restaurants.
2. The legislator just has a whacky or sadistic idea of increasing the labor pool at a time of 10% unemployment, to make workers even less valuable and thus entitled to less income at/above minimum wage.
3. [The only remotely valid reason] The legislator is addressing concerns from honest family businesses that would like their children to be allowed to participate in helping to run the "company". [Oh, and there already usually are exemptions to this that the family can file, so such a law is unnecessary.]

In any case, it just seems like a bill that has no reason for existence, as I can't see any group out there actually actively lobbying for such a change in child labor laws.

Comments

[turnberryknkn.livejournal.com]

4) The legislator is fiercely devoted to the minimization of government involvement in anything, believing that the free market should be allowed to do as it sees fit.

In this case, Jane Cunningham (R), Missouri Senate, District 7, whose district covers the very wealthiest community in the whole state of Missouri (Town and Country), and who won "Republican Legislator of the Year" (http://www.stlbeacon.org/voices/blogs/political-blogs/beacon-backroom/108547-cunningham-honored-for-prop-c-effort) for championing the infamous Missouri Proposal C (http://www.stltoday.com/article_481f6ca2-ebaf-5871-9181-0dc892da4276.html). Her argument is that it should be between employers and parents to decide what maximum work hours are permissible for children, and that neither the schools nor the government should interfere with the decisions that employeers and parents make. See her interview link here (http://www.stlbeacon.org/voices/blogs/political-blogs/beacon-backroom/108187-cunningham-defends-proposal-to-change-child-labor-laws?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+StLouisBeacon+%28St.+Louis+Beacon%29). In other words, classic libertarian/Guilded Age ideology.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

I don't see that as any different from a combination of #1 or #2. the net result, while appearing libertarian on the surface, ends up more pure-reactionary-conservative in depth: the result is an increase in the labor pool, thus making immigration workers think twice about going to an area where they will be competing with more native children for jobs.

it also shows an utter ignorance of history. pure reactionary drivel: pining to restore laws to an alleged golden age of the past that never existed except in their tiny minds.

if child labor laws weren't necessary, they wouldn't have been written.

and in any case, it still begs the question of who actually ASKED for this law to be proposed. how many parents are really banging on the doors of their congress saying "MY KIDS WANT TO WORK BUT MEAN OLD NASTY GOVERNMENT WON'T LET THEM!"? Seriously?

ESPECIALLY in the "wealthiest community in the whole state".

[mandrakan.livejournal.com]

As I recall, child labor laws were USEFUL for kids, at least for relatively well-off kids working retail. It didn't really limit the hours you wanted to work, but it prevented your manager from making you work overnight doing inventory on a school night: "I'd like to help out, Mr. Jenkins, but the law says I need to be done at 10."