Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iowa governor will sign bill rolling back labor protections for children

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 127 posts

Re: Iowa governor will sign bill rolling back labor protections for children

#111

Post by ejb999 »

pjc50 wrote: post #60
ejb999 wrote: post #49

I worked in heavy construction and roofing from 14 until I went to college - helped paid for quite a bit of it - I don't see a problem here. Nobody is forced to work, and you need to parents permission. Washington post thinks it is OK that 12 year olds, are old enough to consent to sex change operations, without their parents permission, but a 17 year old doing hard work with their parents permission is not OK?

> consent to sex change operations, without their parents permission This doesn't happen and the news sources which say it does are lying to you.

You keep telling yourself that, maybe if you pretend its not happening you will sleep better.

Re: Iowa governor will sign bill rolling back labor protections for children

#112

Post by candiodari »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #97
DubiousPusher wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a rational argument. Roofing in particular is one of the most dangerous, demanding and environmentally harsh trades in the construction industry. Just as there is an age below which most children's bodies are not ready to begin heavy weight lifting, there is an age below which most children's bodies are not prepared to handle roofing.

The bill blocks all children from working on roofs, it just allows 17 and 18 year olds to work for roofing companies in other capacities. Prior to this amendment, roofing companies could do no hiring in any capacity. Does the bill seem more reasonable now?

As soon as you realize this will "allow" many parents to force their children to work at 14 years old, no it doesn't seem reasonable.

Re: Iowa governor will sign bill rolling back labor protections for children

#113

Post by DubiousPusher »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #97
DubiousPusher wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a rational argument. Roofing in particular is one of the most dangerous, demanding and environmentally harsh trades in the construction industry. Just as there is an age below which most children's bodies are not ready to begin heavy weight lifting, there is an age below which most children's bodies are not prepared to handle roofing.

The bill blocks all children from working on roofs, it just allows 17 and 18 year olds to work for roofing companies in other capacities. Prior to this amendment, roofing companies could do no hiring in any capacity. Does the bill seem more reasonable now?

That aspect does. Yes.

Re: Iowa governor will sign bill rolling back labor protections for children

#114

Post by DubiousPusher »

statop wrote: post #87
DubiousPusher wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that simple though. For example, my son is 11 and wants to work. He wants to earn more money than I can find house chores to pay him for. He could absolutely help in an office or retail situation. Neither my wife nor myself have encouraged this. He came up with it all on his own. I went to school with several kids who were gifted mechanically. They suffered in school. It wasn't just not beneficial. School wa…

"My son is 11 and wants to work" "He wants to earn more money than I [want] to pay him" Well which is it. Would he work for free? No? Then he doesn't want to work, he wants money.

Why didn't I think of this? I should be making up things which I pay him unrealistic amounts of money for in order to teach him that work is about being an extractionist sponge rather than trying to find a way to make a meaningful contribution in exchange for a social/economic reward.

He both wants to work and wants money, like most humans.

Re: Iowa governor will sign bill rolling back labor protections for children

#115

Post by falcolas »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #101
the_only_law wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine some drunk asshole trying to hit on and harass the 16 year old bartender. I’ve seen it plenty of times minus the 16 year old part.

16 year olds can't be bartenders. In most states the person pouring, or opening, the alcoholic beverage has to be a bartender and has to be 18, or in some cases, 21. They're a waiter, or someone standing at a counter. Listen, this law sucks, but these points reek of "won't someone think of the children!". They're not working at a bar at 1am, they're waiting tables at the local pizza place and bringing a beer out with…

> They're not working at a bar at 1am, they're waiting tables at the local pizza place and bringing a beer out with the pepsis.

That's what you assert, but that's not what the law says.

And I'd love to think that companies would be ethical enough to only ever surface the situation you bring up.

But I'm enough of a realist to know that's not the case.

Re: Iowa governor will sign bill rolling back labor protections for children

#116

Post by foooobaba »

Kon-Peki wrote: post #108
foooobaba wrote: post #15

“Do I want my 16-year-old operating a power saw as a job? No, I don’t“ - then don’t let them? Why do you need to make it illegal for everyone else? Iowa is mostly a rural state, and growing up on a farm you learn to operate power tools when you’re 10, and there are plenty of 16 year olds in Iowa that are more than capable of running a power saw and working on roofs and are proud to do it. Better than sitting around a…

> Iowa is mostly a rural state Iowa isn't mostly a rural state (though I'm sure plenty of Iowans think that way). It's approaching 65-70% urban - not even close to being in the top 10 most rural states in the US. What is really surprising it that the small towns all over Iowa have excellent urban form. Suburban sprawl is mostly limited to Des Moines, with a little bit in Council Bluffs (part of the Omaha metro area).…

Iowa is the 12th most rural state according to 2020 US census [1][2]. It is 63.2%, urban, so true it’s not mostly rural in terms of total population, but it’s pretty rural.

[1] https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/g...

[2] https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/reference/ua/State_Urban_Ru...

Re: Iowa governor will sign bill rolling back labor protections for children

#117

Post by dahwolf »

I guess I found the one thing where our progressive Netherlands is actually more conservative.

I'm from a rural part. 12 year olds drive massive agricultural vehicles here. My friends' son is 14 and doing welding. I personally did side jobs in brick laying, car washing, mushroom plucking and meat processing at the age of 11.

Nobody forced me, I wanted to do it. I paid for my own education, driver's license, partying years and am debt-free.

The generation after me graduates around age 23 and hasn't worked a day in their lives yet want their debt forgiven and feel oppressed.

Yes I'm here to collect downvotes. All of you could use some blue collar energy.

Re: Iowa governor will sign bill rolling back labor protections for children

#119

Post by fsckboy »

falcolas wrote: post #79
the_only_law wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine some drunk asshole trying to hit on and harass the 16 year old bartender. I’ve seen it plenty of times minus the 16 year old part.

Whelp. With that visualization I'm done with the internet today. And you're wholly correct. Just depressing.

you mean welp!

"whelp" means to birth a litter of puppies!

Re: Iowa governor will sign bill rolling back labor protections for children

#120

Post by analognoise »

jabroni_salad wrote: post #38
onetimeusename wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so is this an issue Iowans are concerned about or is this a synthetic issue that corporations are astroturfing? I can't see it being a very high priority imo even though I am sympathetic to 14 yr olds who want money.

It is a real issue and not just repealing labor laws for funsies. There are too many predators and not enough prey in the ecosystem. Either we need to accept that some of the businesses will starve or find a way to increase the labor force.

If a business is so terrible that it needs to hire children "to survive" it seems obvious to me it should be destroyed.
Post reply on HN