An estimated one in six kids, or 158 million globally, are engaged in some form of child labor — much of it dangerous. But a Missouri state senator says kids in Bangladesh or Brazil shouldn’t get to have all that hazardous, low paying fun. She wants the youth of Missouri to go to work without the encumbrances of silly labor laws.
Jane Cunningham (R – West County) believes the kids from the “show me” state need to show a little backbone and work ethic, so she’s sponsoring a bill (SB 222) that would repeal much of the state’s child labor laws.
If she has her way, children under the age of 14 would be able to work all hours of the day (or night), no longer would need a work permit and be able to work at motels and resorts so long as they’re given board. Or a board perhaps.
And those generous, benevolent businesses that exploit, woops, I mean employ, these kids, wouldn’t be subject to inspections from the buzz killers at the Division of Labor Standards. Heck, if we’ve learned anything in the last 170 years when the first child labor laws came into being, it’s that we can trust the marketplace to treat workers right without interference from a bunch of fuddy duddy overseers.
Rep. Cunningham “defended” her legislation saying her two adult sons both held jobs as minors (or was it miners?) and are “better for it.”
“My aim is to put back some common sense,” she said. “We’re not doing students any favor by telling them, ‘You cannot work.’ “
Somewhat surprisingly, the bill is under attack from labor groups who think there’s a reason why current law only allows children to work three hours on school days and no more than eight hours on non-school days.
I’m not sure why the unions wouldn’t want access to an untapped pool of potential workers, for the exact same reasons factory owners liked kids in the 1800’s; they are “more manageable, cheaper and less likely to complain about working conditions” than their adult counterparts.
Granted, traditional bastions of child labor such as glass factories and textile mills aren’t exactly growth industries today, and there is less demand for newsboys, messengers, bootblacks and peddlers. But surely there is somewhere in this job-starved land, or at least Missouri, where we can pull kids from the classroom and teach them instead about the miseries of low paying working life.
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
You have to be kidding me. This is the most ridiculous story I’ve heard in a long time. As the parent of two teens I would be the first to admit they have it too easy in some respects today. But I also know they do ALOT more homework than I ever did, are pressured to grow up faster, have less time for the days of doing nothing that marked my days as a kid and so on. Does that mean I should put them to work at the all night drive thru window? Of course not. These rules got on the books for good reason over a century ago and they should stay there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This legislator is a bit extreme, but is working really worse than high school and, if public education were so important, why are so many people educated people unemployed?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I was on my own at 15 and legally emancipated at 16. I went to an alternative school and worked as much as the law would allow. I also worked as much as I could under the table. I had too – I had no choice but to support myself. I have a different perspective on this bill. Do I think it should pass in its entirety? no. Do I think that laws should change to address individual situations without clogging the court system? yes. We as a society should protect children and allow them to be children as much as possible. We should focus initiatives on educating and preparing our nation’s children for the harsh reality of the world. That being said, not all children have the white fence and the soccer mom to drive them around. As an employer, if I want to give a kid a break and help him/her out with giving them a job to help sustain their living expenses, I should be able to do so as long as I am within Labor Laws and not overly harsh or putting them in danger. If this bill becomes law, who then would advocate and make sure that these children aren’t being unduly burdened or overworked like those in foriegn sweatshops? The bill ‘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.’ That in my opinion in unacceptable. One should document more so with employing children so that the company and the minor child’s best interest can be alligned. The bill also repeals the presumption that the presence of a child in a workplace is evidence of employment – this seems like it could be more trouble than not. It’s like an open invitation to work kids ‘under the table’ – no rules – no regulations and cut out the tax man. This bill should not come to fruition. Simply it’s a bad bill with limited advantages. Yes I learned more Spanish from the back of a kitchen than I ever did in school but with today’s economy and unemployment rate shouldn’t we be focused on employing our adult population rather than putting our children to work?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Education is no longer the ticket or “guarantee” it once was (if it ever way), and some argue that too many young people in the U.S. go on to college when in fact vocational training in some form might have been a better route. I talked to the owner of a manufacturing job shop the other day, and he says he has good jobs go unfilled because of a lack qualified applicants. As far as this bill goes, Lisa points out more eloquently than I that there really are two issues here. The first is that some loosening of the laws may be in order, and that there are some very good reasons for teens to work. But I think we can all agree this bill does go too far in stripping away too many safeguards that are there to protect children from harm and exploitation. This is a profound discussion and subject. Lisa, thank you for your thoughtful and well formed response, and you are right, you do have a perspective that is unique.
Come on, Gregg. Are you saying that education is not important?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is the worst thing that could happen. Isn’t there enough child abuse already? I guess we should bring back the beatings from the old days too!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just curious Mr. Gee, did you actually even read the bill itself?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Did you even READ the proposed bill? No mention of hotel/motel, the Entertainment section adheres to SAG rules for child performers, kids must be in school. Cannot work in hazardous professions.
Your misinformation is right up there with the best of the right. makes me sad to be a progressive due to this
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To the several people who asked, yes, I did read the bill. I also read several stories about it in newspapers from Springfield, St. Louis and Jefferson City. Somewhere along the way I may have picked up on aspects of this subject that were being written about but are not contained in the actual bill, such as the hotel/motel component. I don’t live in Missouri and don’t have a strong sense of how much buzz this is creating, but by no means am I trying to spread misinformation. Why would we do that? A blog such as Staffing Talk doesn’t have a political agenda. Kelly, I’m not sure how you use “progressive” and “am in favor of loosening child labor laws” in the same sentence. You can forget about the particulars of the bill, i.e., child performers, hazardous jobs, etc. The combo platter of potentially unscrupulous employers, and kids (or their parents) hard up for money, is unpalatable. The main takeaway for most if this law, or a similar law, ever passes, is that child labor laws in Missouri have been relaxed. Period. Forget about the particulars. Today’s laws provide plenty of room for our kids to earn money while still offering them plenty of protection. This is clearly an answer to a question no one, except perhaps for Rep. Jane Cunningham, asked. And nothing good can come from it.
If you can put children to work, they aren’t going to school. If children aren’t going to school, the education budget can be reduced. Thereby taxes can be lowered for the taxpayers that are out of work because a ten year old kid got their job.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you put the children to work, they won’t be at school. If they aren’t at school, they will learn a real trade and contribute to the tax base. Thereby delinquency will be lowered for the taxpayers and we can sleep better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An examination of the actual bill, Kelly, reveals that it would *revoke* the portions of the current law which requires — for their own protection — that children under 16 employed at hotels, motels or resorts may olny work in areas separate from sleeping accomodations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 1 trackback }