More red-state insanity: Missouri Lawmaker Pushes Bill Rolling Back Child Labor Laws

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...hild_labor.jpg

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.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/15/...ri-child-labo/

alternet.org
truth-out.org
thinkprogress.org
mediamatters.org


You can pretty much ignore a post linking to any of these sites.

Go ahead. Ignore the State of Missouri:

http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_...BillID=4124271

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

alternet.org
truth-out.org
thinkprogress.org
mediamatters.org


You can pretty much ignore a post linking to any of these sites.

---

One of them contains more truth in one day's articles than Fox Repug Network does in a year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

alternet.org
truth-out.org
thinkprogress.org
mediamatters.org


You can pretty much ignore a post linking to any of these sites.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Go ahead. Ignore the State of Missouri:

http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_...BillID=4124271

---

:lmao owned

LOL...

You lefties are really stretching to make Red States look bad. I suggest you read the bill before saying it's bad, else prove yourself a useless idiot of the leftist agenda.

SENATE BILL NO. 222

More insane propaganda and lies from the leftist media. that's all it is.

Boutons...

Don't you ever verify anything before posting it? I guess it's true if it comes from one of your favorite leftist sites, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyle Orton

:lmao owned

---

No, read the bill. Someone summarized that part incorrectly:

Quote:

---

294.040. A child under sixteen shall not be employed or permitted to work by any person, firm, or corporation in connection with:

(13) Any capacity in or about a motel, resort, hotel, where sleeping accommodations are furnished

---

Good grief bouton's. Again, you didn't bother to read the bill, instead you parrot only what your tautological shill of an RSS feed tells you to think. Think for yourself for a change.http://www.audioandanarchy.com/images/smilies/fack.png

The government has no right to say how many 10 year olds I can hire. That is pure government overreach. :p:

oh hai tom tomorrow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

LOL...

You lefties are really stretching to make Red States look bad. I suggest you read the bill before saying it's bad, else prove yourself a useless idiot of the leftist agenda.

SENATE BILL NO. 222

More insane propaganda and lies from the leftist media. that's all it is.

Boutons...

Don't you ever verify anything before posting it? I guess it's true if it comes from one of your favorite leftist sites, huh?

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

The worst part seems to be the gutting of the enforcement. Dunno if there is some alternate means of enforcing the law.

Random...

I covered that in post #7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I haven't read the bill yet.:lol

---

It also replaces the specific sections that were removed with new restrictions.

:lol

Lots of ownage in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

The worst part seems to be the gutting of the enforcement. Dunno if there is some alternate means of enforcing the law.

---

Really?


[2 94 .0 90 . 1 . T h e d irector i s c h arged w ith th e en forcem e n t
2 o f th e pr o v is i o n s o f th i s c h apt e r a nd a l l o th e r l aws r e g u l a t in g t h e
3 em p loym e n t of ch ild ren . T h e d irector is vested w ith th e p ow er a nd
4 ju r is d ictio n to e xe rcis e s u ch su p e r vis io n o ve r e ve ry emp l oy m e n t a s
5 ma y b e ne c e s s a r y to a de q ua t e ly e n f o rc e a n d a dmi n i s t e r th e
6 pr o v is i o n s o f th i s c h apt e r, i nc lu di n g t h e r ig h t to e n t e r a n y pl a c e
7 wh e r e c h i l d r e n ar e empl o y e d a nd to i n s pe c t th e pr emi ses an d to
8 r e q u i r e th e pr o d uc ti o n o f wo r k c e rt ifi ca t e s o r wo r k p e rmi ts a nd a ny
9 o t h e r n e cess a r y d o c ume n t s s pe c ifi ca l ly r e q u e s t e d t h at i n v o l v e th e
10 em p loym e n t of ch ild ren



Wow, that really formats badly when you c/p from that doc.:wow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Wow, that really formats badly when you c/p from that doc.:wow

---

Here... Cleaned it up:

Quote:

---

294.090. 1. The director is charged with the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter and all other laws regulating the employment of children. The director is vested with the power and jurisdiction to exercise such supervision over every employment as may be necessary to adequately enforce and administer the provisions of this chapter, including the right to enter any place where children are employed and to inspect the premises and to require the production of work certificates or work permits and another necessary documents specifically requested that involve the employment of children.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No, read the bill. Someone summarized that part incorrectly:

---

Goober. If you actually read the .pdf file you posted a bit more closely, that was an exised section.

The brackets (made larger and bolder) denote deleted sections.

Quote:

---

EXPLANATION--Matter enclosed in bold-faced brackets [thus] in this bill is not enacted and is
intended to be omitted in the law.

---

(13) [Any capacity in or about a motel, resort, hotel, where sleeping
30 accommodations are furnished except in offices or locations physically separated
31 from the sleeping accommodations;
32 (14)]


In plain english:
Section 13 shall read (section within the brackets deleted, including the annotation "14" to renumber the statute's sections) (actual text of section 13 follows closing bracket, omitted from my excerpted section)

Reading comprehension fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Really?


[ 2 94 .0 90 . 1 . T h e d irector i s c h arged w ith th e en forcem e n t
2 o f th e pr o v is i o n s o f th i s c h apt e r a nd a l l o th e r l aws r e g u l a t in g t h e
3 em p loym e n t of ch ild ren . T h e d irector is vested w ith th e p ow er a nd
4 ju r is d ictio n to e xe rcis e s u ch su p e r vis io n o ve r e ve ry emp l oy m e n t a s
5 ma y b e ne c e s s a r y to a de q ua t e ly e n f o rc e a n d a dmi n i s t e r th e
6 pr o v is i o n s o f th i s c h apt e r, i nc lu di n g t h e r ig h t to e n t e r a n y pl a c e
7 wh e r e c h i l d r e n ar e empl o y e d a nd to i n s pe c t th e pr emi ses an d to
8 r e q u i r e th e pr o d uc ti o n o f wo r k c e rt ifi ca t e s o r wo r k p e rmi ts a nd a ny
9 o t h e r n e cess a r y d o c ume n t s s pe c ifi ca l ly r e q u e s t e d t h at i n v o l v e th e
10 em p loym e n t of ch ild ren



Wow, that really formats badly when you c/p from that doc.:wow

---

Quote:

---

Section A. Sections 294.021, 294.022, 294.024, 294.027, 294.030, 294.040,
2 294.045, 294.051, 294.054, 294.060, 294.070, 294.080, 294.090, and 294.100,
3 RSMo, are repealed

---

(again, the brackets thing)--RG

I'm looking at this again. That bracket thing is fucked up.

Random...

Now that I got you to read the bill, please note the entire section refers to the entertainment industry, and therefore hotels/motels are not needed to be included in an assumption of cleaning rooms, etc. Some hotels offer entertainment. You know, like stage performances...

WTF is up with all the verbage dedicated to the entertainment industry?

Oh, Branson. NM....


After reviewing this bill in proper context (Thanks RG!), apologies to boutons. :toast

This bill sucks.:depressed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

WTF is up with all the verbage dedicated to the entertainment industry?

Oh, Branson. NM....


After reviewing this bill in proper context (Thanks RG!), apologies to boutons. :toast

This bill sucks.:depressed

---

It allows child actors to work. The part that we just argued over is for ages under 16. What's the problem? I had my first real job at 15.

And I had my first real job @ 13. But I was working for relatives so there was oversight.

This bill removes oversight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

And I had my first real job @ 13. But I was working for relatives so there was oversight.

This bill removes oversight.

---

No, just specific oversight related to children. There are still work law oversights in play I bet, or do employees over 18 not enjoy protection?

The first part removed deals with work permits. Isn't that a silly notion anyway, using tax payer dollars and possibly delaying employment to where it's impossible to make things happen? States are under budget crunches. Would this not be a reasonable cut?

Now they wholesale removed other sections. I'll bet they were redundant to other laws. I don't know about you, but I have seen more than one law cover the same thing. One gets changes, then is in conflict with another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Random...

Now that I got you to read the bill, please note the entire section refers to the entertainment industry, and therefore hotels/motels are not needed to be included in an assumption of cleaning rooms, etc. Some hotels offer entertainment. You know, like stage performances...

---

Indeed it does. It appears as though the primary intent was to encourage film industry jobs, by outlining the protection of child actors etc.

So WC, do you think that the OP's comment

Quote:

---

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.

---

... is all leftist lies? Or are you going by this NEW argument?

Quote:

---

Now they wholesale removed other sections. I'll bet they were redundant to other laws. I don't know about you, but I have seen more than one law cover the same thing. One gets changes, then is in conflict with another.

---

Which is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

So WC, do you think that the OP's comment



... is all leftist lies? Or are you going by this NEW argument?



Which is it?

---

The bill does not say it eliminates restrictions for those ages. It only eliminates restrictions that were in this one bill. What do you think the chances are this is covered in another law already? I don't know about you, but we normally have several redundant laws on the books.

Seriously... Without reviewing every labor law, how can they accurately say it removes restrictions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

LOL...

You lefties are really stretching to make Red States look bad. I suggest you read the bill before saying it's bad, else prove yourself a useless idiot of the leftist agenda.

SENATE BILL NO. 222

More insane propaganda and lies from the leftist media. that's all it is.

Boutons...

Don't you ever verify anything before posting it? I guess it's true if it comes from one of your favorite leftist sites, huh?

---

By the way, the section I posed here was that of the official Missouri Senate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Go ahead. Ignore the State of Missouri:

http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_...BillID=4124271

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the entirety of Winehole's link

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.
MICHAEL RUFF

---

http://www.senate.mo.gov/SenateStaff/

Ruff, Michael B-9 751-4666 Research

Mr. Ruff's summary appears to be intended to be the "official" summary, especially since the linked summary is on the senate's website.

FWIW

Not sure who then is responsible for enforcement of these laws. It removed authority, without saying who then became responsible.

That, to me, seems to be eliminating oversight.

Without knowing the specifics of what was intended, that conclusion is not entirely as solid as I would like, though.

(edit)

Any fair reading of this seems to be the overall weakening of child labor laws, though.

So? Does it make what I said wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The bill does not say it eliminates restrictions for those ages. It only eliminates restrictions that were in this one bill. What do you think the chances are this is covered in another law already? I don't know about you, but we normally have several redundant laws on the books.

Seriously... Without reviewing every labor law, how can they accurately say it removes restrictions?

---

:lol Really WC? Let's look at this logic.

"It's ok if this bill eliminates restrictions, because there might be another bill with those restrictions. The gov't often has several redundant laws on the books."

Tell me WC, what sense does that make? If the law often has several redundant laws, what is the point of stripping them from THIS bill? If the law is covered somewhere else, why would they take the extra step of removing them from this bill in the first place?

And to top it off, do you really think that the lawmakers looked through every other piece of work legislation before they wrote this one down? If so, you have way more respect for legislators then I do.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

So? Does it make what I said wrong?

---

Quote:

---

You lefties are really stretching to make Red States look bad. I suggest you read the bill before saying it's bad, else prove yourself a useless idiot of the leftist agenda.

SENATE BILL NO. 222

More insane propaganda and lies from the leftist media. that's all it is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the entirey of boutons linked article

Missouri State Sen. Jane Cunningham (R) is pushing a bill which would dramatically claw back state child labor protections. As the bill’s official summary explains:

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.

To be fair, children in Missouri would still enjoy robust protections against exploitation even if Cunningham succeeded in repealing all child labor laws in her state, thanks to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. But far right lawmakers have declared war on federal child labor laws as well. In a lengthy lecture delivered before his election to the U.S. Senate, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) praises a discredited 1918 Supreme Court decision declaring child labor laws unconstitutional. That decision, which Lee holds out a model for his tenther vision of the Constitution, was unanimously overruled by the Supreme Court in 1941.

As recently as the day before President Obama moved into the White House, it was difficult to imagine even the most conservative lawmakers breaking with the 70 year-old consensus surrounding child labor laws. Welcome to the post-Tea Party era, where even the most bizarre and disastrous mistakes from America’s past are part of the right-wing’s agenda.

---

They quoted the official summary, in it's entirety, as well as noting that the child labor laws were not entirely gutted, something intellectually honest and fair.

You didn't read the link, to note any of this. You simply dismissed it out of hand.

You hack.

A great example of the Repug/red-state "jobs" policy. This is how the WC and other conservative assholes want the US laborers to be competitive with China, India. Work for peanuts, no benefits, non-stop intimidation by employers, and STFU.

Can we please get away from this stupid fucking Upton Sinclair type picture of what kids working is in the US?

There aren't legal sweat shops here... Kids aren't going to be hired because they can fit under the boiler...

The old laws are outdated because there are several layer of protection laid over the top. This allows kids that want to work longer hours and make more money do so!

What the hell is wring with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sec24Row7

The old laws are outdated because there are several layer of protection laid over the top.

---

Regarding child labor protections, I'm ok with "extra" laws built in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sec24Row7

This allows kids that want to work longer hours and make more money do so!

---

That's certainly a better argument than WC's. I myself worked at the age of 14. It's a double-edged sword, allowing children to work. I honestly haven't done the research to determine if this will indeed make it easier for children to work without protecting basic oversight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Regarding child labor protections, I'm ok with "extra" laws built in.



That's certainly a better argument than WC's. I myself worked at the age of 14. It's a double-edged sword, allowing children to work. I honestly haven't done the research to determine if this will indeed make it easier for children to work without protecting basic oversight.

---

Certainly kids shouldn't be even DOING some jobs, leave those protections in and open their services up to the rest of the workforce... the protections I was talking about that are redundant... are like say... a 40 hour work week...

Kids like a regular employee should be able to work 40+ if they are compensated justly...

They don't need time limits more than a regular modern worker, so those laws dealing specifically to child labor time restrictions can be removed.