If the GOP's efforts to repeal child labor laws

[ugonow]

are successful,which state do you think will be the most lenient?

[ugonow]

Senator Lee,who the GOP just appointed to the Judiciary Committee is argueing they are unconstitional, That governor who recently got prss for taking down a labor mural in the labor dept has a bill reducing them,which is not to drastic,then there is SB 222-----<<<<<<SB 222 Modifies the child labor laws


Sponsor: Cunningham
LR Number: 0938S.03I Fiscal Note:
Committee: General Laws
Last Action: 2/10/2011 - Second Read and Referred S General Laws Committee Journal Page: S235
Title: Calendar Position:
Effective Date: August 28, 2011




Full Bill Text | All Actions | Available Summaries | Senate Home Page | List of 2011 Senate Bills


Current Bill Summary



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.>>>


www.senate.mo.gov/11info/bts_web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=4124271

[ugonow]

I don't think it is a moot point. I see the possibility of some states waging child labor law wars to entice business to their states.

[ugonow]

Sorry,you are right,you didn't,I misread. My fault...do a degree,I agree.Like I sad, the one I think it is Maine,perhaps is not to bad,some should be relaxed perhaps.... but the talk is of the federal ones being unconstitutional. I think some general rules need to be in place to prevent the exploitation of children....and yes,I do think it could happen here,just as it does in the countries we are compeating with.

[ugonow]

As for some child labor war, i don't see how. There are minimum wage laws in place. What difference if they are employing a teen versus a 50 yr old if they are paying the same? How will that stimulate some labor war?

Some are against min.wage laws also. But what I meant was there is the real chance some states will try to outdo each other with lax rules on child labor inorder to entice business. I think some general rules need to be in place.

[Deleted]

Child labor laws do need to be changed. There are family businesses that for generations have had young people taking part in the day to day work. IMO that is great. Lots of stupid laws concerning kids. Here in AZ we had an issue a few years ago with children out late at night without parents being in violation of state laws. Kids under 18 were getting paper arrested on the way home from working late, or driving home from sporting events, things like that. The laws had to be modified to accommodate kids that had a reason to be out late without a parent. Lots of laws cause more harm than good. As far as abusing kids? I don't see anyone getting away with that any more than they already are if child labor laws are changed. It COULD happen, but I bet it won't. I would be interested in reading up on why they are doing this, but I am too lazy today to look for it. Maybe tomorrow.

[chiver78]

I don't know how it is in other states, but in MA a child can work in a family business at any age. my sister worked in my parents' coffee shop at age 12. there was always someone else in the shop with her when she worked, but she ran the counter just like the rest of us.

[Deleted]

As it should be. Some children's rights activist somewhere probably started screeching about something like that, and started a process to have to change the laws. I think kids developing a work ethic young is great. Maybe we wouldn't have so many college grads unemployed if they had learned to work young. My kids all started working young so they could have things I could not afford to buy them, like cars. They also played sports year round, had tons of friends, and lots of fun. They are all adult now, and not a drain on society among them.

[billisonboard]

May 8, 2011 13:40:12 GMT -5 @horatiolegrand said:

Senator Lee,who the GOP just appointed to the Judiciary Committee is argueing they are unconstitional,

I am confused. Is he trying to repeal a law or is he trying to uphold the constitution? If it is the latter shame on you for saying different. We need more people in congress who care about upholding the constitution.

Again shame on you. Y

Or is he trying to repeal a law and is misusing the Constitution to justify it? If it is that, shame on him.

[billisonboard]

May 8, 2011 13:55:44 GMT -5 @horatiolegrand said:

May 8, 2011 13:49:23 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

...

.... Which it doesnt.

"Because I say so."

[fairlycrazy23]

Somehow I doubt this is going to cause a resurgence on child sweat shops.

[Deleted]

One of my daughters went to a Charter school in high school. She went 4 hours in the evening 4 days a week, and worked during the day for a couple of years. Graduated 1 of 4 with honors out of hundreds. Totally legit her not being in school during the day.

[ugonow]

I am confused. Is he trying to repeal a law or is he trying to uphold the constitution? If it is the latter shame on you for saying different. We need more people in congress who care about upholding the constitution.

Again shame on you. Y

No shame here.This has been debated before.I believe even in court.It is another case of interpretation of the constitution. As I said,some of the laws are archaic and could be laxed.But SB 222 repeals them all.. I believe there needs to be certain boundries regarding children that need to be set to protect them. ----"Senator Lee discusses his claim in a YouTube presentation that attempts to use the 1918 Supreme Court case of Hammer v. Dagenhart as his evidence that Congress has gone too far. Unfortunately for Senator Lee, the Hammer case was specifically overruled in 1941 by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1941 in U.S. v. Darby. scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1183543472021488573&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr I guess Senator Lee didn’t want to let minor details get in the way of “proving” his claim.