Reply With Quote
alternet.org
truth-out.org
thinkprogress.org
mediamatters.org
You can pretty much ignore a post linking to any of these sites.
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
One of them contains more truth in one day's articles than Fox Repug Network does in a year.
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?
No, read the bill. Someone summarized that part incorrectly:
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.
The government has no right to say how many 10 year olds I can hire. That is pure government overreach.
oh hai tom tomorrow
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.
It also replaces the specific sections that were removed with new restrictions.I haven't read the bill yet.
Lots of ownage in this thread.
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.
Here... Cleaned it up:Wow, that really formats badly when you c/p from that doc.
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 do ents specifically requested that involve the employment of children.
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.
(13) [Any capacity in or about a motel, resort, hotel, where sleepingEXPLANATION--Matter enclosed in bold-faced brackets [thus] in this bill is not enacted and is
intended to be omitted in the law.
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.
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.(again, the brackets thing)--RGSection 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
I'm looking at this again. That bracket thing is ed 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.
This bill sucks.
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.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.
This bill sucks.
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
owned
