LOL! You are arguing against your own beliefs. You admit there is child labor, then brag about the regulations supposed to prevent it.
Actually as long as a child attends school and does homework, I don’t see anything wrong with child labor. I worked long hours at a Vet at age 13 for 50 cents an hour. Working is better than wasting time on social media or selling drugs on the street for quick cash.
Child labor is not very productive because of their short attention span. That is why it is not that common except in the 3rd world where productivity is low.
The point is, the perpetrators were caught and fined $1.5M.
Do you really think that would have happened if the Federal regulations, and the accompanying enforcement mechanisms to enforce them did not exist?
Your inane premise that my argument nullifies my position supporting govt intervention to prevent illegal child labor is simply a desperate attempt to shore up your false premise that child labor did not exist. BTW… it likely still exists today, they just haven’t been caught yet.
By your own admission it exists. The most common place is family businesses, especially farms.
I reject the premise that child labor is always bad. I worked hard as a child- sometimes for pay and sometimes not. You claim you did also. We still completed school. Should our parents and child employers have been prosecuted?
Virtually all of the kids in the US who work in family business are doing so within the rules of the DOL, they are not illegal.
The recent example of illegal child labor in the US that I posted a link to, and to which you responded “LOL! You are arguing against your own beliefs,” involved ILLEGAL child labor. That instance included kids aged 13 to 17 years of age working unsupervised all-night shifts in meat industry factories and slaughterhouses, all while being exposed to dangerous conditions and toxic chemicals.
I don’t have a problem with kids working in family businesses under the direction and guidance of responsible parents, it’s a good, not a bad thing. Where I live kids as young as 8 years old are still put to work doing things like driving potato trucks and hoeing weeds in the fields. At the age of 10-12 many are already driving swathers and tractors on farmland fields & roads and down public highway borrow pits. Those experiences instill confidence and a sense of purpose early in life.
So? Reminds me of gun laws. The laws are ignored, so people demand more laws. The problem is enforcement of existing laws. Most probably these are kids of illegal immigrants. If they had been deported with their parents, we would not have this problem, would they?
Of course they probably would be working similar jobs in Mexico. But at least we would not have it on our conscience that it is occurring on our soil.
You are citing two assumptions and using the resulting conclusion to support your POV. The result may satisfy your predisposition for an answer aligning with your bias, but it’s impossible to make valid decisions that way.
How many of my patient’s kids work in meat-packing factories? Do you personally know any? Anyone you know would send their kids to work a night shift anywhere? To be sure, it probably happens. Widespread serious problem we need to fret over? Nah! PROBABLY kids of illegal aliens who can’t get legal work here and can’t receive welfare handouts. Why else would they do it in an economy where any adult could have three jobs if they wanted?
First I point out that EEOC hampers productivity by making skill tests impractical for employers. Then you claim that without that stupid agency, things like child labor would be rampant. (Despite young children having low productivity.) Then you argue that even with the EEOC, child labor is rampant.
You like to argue so much, you contradict yourself.
The problem with using assumptions in making decisions lies in the fact that you will most likely reach a conclusion which makes no sense. You’ve just proven that, here’s how you went astray:
Your premise that the EEOC makes skills test impractical is an assumption on your part. If that were true then we would see no skills test in use by employers today because in your words, “it is not practical.”
You are evidently under the impression that child labor laws are enforced by the EEOC, they are not. As I cited in a prior post, “The Feds (DOL through the FLSA in this case) enforce child labor laws.”
We had a vo-tech school called SCROC (Southern California Regional Occupational Center) where we could attend during or after High School hours during our Junior and Senior years. The regular courses like welding, plumbing, dental assistance, pharm tech and so on.
I took Aircraft Mechanics (A&P) course thru SCROC but it was actually at the Trade School itself, Northrop University. Once I graduated high school I went to Northrop full time to finish the program and SCROC paid for about half of my $5K tuition at the time.
Fast fwd about 40 years later we take my step son to what is called Northrop now and they want $65K to go thru the program. We looked into the JC around and found one that offered that program for about as close to free as you can get. He has been working for Delta and making north of $100K a year.
Now my wife told her daughters boyfriend about the program and finally after graduating high school about 3 years ago he is getting close to the half way mark.
I guess my point is a person could go about different ways to get the same education and that there is such a high demand for A&P mechanics now and it pays well.
If I was still working at Continental/ United I would be making just under $61 an hour and when I started in 1984 it was $10.80 an hour. I’m 59 and retired when I was close to 53 and no amount of money could ever get me to go back to work.
I forgot to mention that I really didn’t like going to Northrop since there was only 2 weeks off in the summer and 2 weeks off during winter break but it did give me a good career and being a long time clark listener I have my freedom now.
Military training did not provide much help to pass the very rigid A&P license tests, at least not the mechanics I knew.
Two reasons: One, military mechanics were very specialized. An engine mechanic was clueless about flight controls.
Two, the biggest issue. To qualify for taking the tests, applicants were required to have 1960 hours of formal training by federally certified instructors. As far as I know, the military did not license their instructors. Why bother?
The 1960 was 1200 airframe hours and 760 powerplant. These are numbers from back in my days [60’s] , and they are probably different today.
The A&P tests have been seriously updated, because back then, one had to know how to build / repair wood ribs and spars, along with dope and fabric repairs. There were also sections on aircraft weight and balance, along with jet engine theory and operation.
The FAA [CAB, back then] wanted to ensure at least basic knowledge for a licensed mechanic whether they entered general aviation and single engine private planes or 747’s.
Military mechanics were first class, top notch, no doubt about it. But that expertise did not automatically translate into qualifying for US federally licensed A&P mechanics.
Sorry for the saga, but this topic is near and dear to me.
I hope I’m able to follow the format on this so this answer is for H200h.
When I hired on in 1984 I would say the majority of the old timers there had military experience as compared to mechanics hiring on after me.
I think most people that were in the military went on to some kind of A&P school to get the hours in so they could take their FAA exams.
Just think robertpri, when you hired on at TWA for about $2 an hour in 1960 those young mechanics now are sitting on their butt complaining about how great they are and sleeping in the breakroom telling everyone they deserve more and are underpaid at say $60-$70 an hour depending upon what airlines our freight company you are working for. Lol.
No it isn’t. Any company with more than 50 employees must have such a CORPORATE test examined by the EEOC for “Bias.” (This does not include trade licensing tests like the A&P.) The paperwork hassle makes it not worth the effort many times. The company might have to hire a lawyer. Once again government stymies productivity in the private sector.
Not much, as mandatory school attendance laws are in place locally, and as I said, labor of young children is largely unproductive, and therefore common only in poor third world countries.
Better that teens work than waste time on video games and getting involved with drugs and gangs.
I have had a number of jobs to which I was not really qualified. I was hired because I was honest about my abilities. The companies generally saw that even though I may not have had the training they would have preferred, I was ready, willing and able to learn on the job. At least one company I suggested they have me work 30 days and try me out. These days that might not be as easy to do, but in my case I was hired and worked many years there.
I applied to Xerox once as a technician. During the interview I was asked a number of technical questions. One was suppose the head of a small bolt has broken off and the bold is stuck, how would I remove it. When I said that I would first try a ‘screw extractor’, the interviewer was amazed. It appears most applicants said they would use vice grips
