NR-tarded

[Dr Strangelove]

None of those are specific to children. All of them are about paying employees for the work they do. These are only oppressive if you believe that employees should either work for no compensation or should have no breaks, including meals. You seem to think of employees as slaves. Many people do as well, which is how unions gained power.

IIRC those were the rules for employing minors in Virginia. Adults were not protected by similar rules unless they were negotiated by a union. Remember, Virginia is a "right to work" state. I believe that there were certain job classifications prohibited to minors. Minors couldn't work in "hard hat" jobs or assembly lines. I think they were prohibited from working more than a certain number of hours / week during school sessions. Also minors under 16 had to get a special work permit.

[kentonio]

Oh man. I totally called this response.

BUT HC DON'T YOU REMEMBER THE COAL MINES??? THE KIDS WHO WORKED AT THE LOOMS??? WHAT ABOUT THEM? DO YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO THE 1910S YOU DISGUSTING PIECE OF CHILD HATING SELF RIGHTEOUS UPPER MIDDLE CLASS ****? No, ****ing idiot, I want to get rid of pointless laws. Not all child labor laws are pointless. Just most of them. Good god

I wrote that thinking, "I'm going to pre-empt kentonio on this one." You are as predictable as a coin with two heads.

Except your answer didn't change anything dip****. Exploitation was not always chimney sweeps and cotton mills. The things you talk about as pointless have very good rationale, you're just too privileged to see it.

Oh yeah, and my dad didn't get me any jobs, shithead. I have gotten five jobs to date, all on my own initiative. Go fuck yourself.

Sure, I bet you worked much harder to get there than all those stupid poor kids.

[Hauldren Collider]

IIRC those were the rules for employing minors in Virginia. Adults were not protected by similar rules unless they were negotiated by a union.

Yes.

I believe that there were certain job classifications prohibited to minors. Minors couldn't work in "hard hat" jobs or assembly lines. I think they were prohibited from working more than a certain number of hours / week during school sessions. Also minors under 16 had to get a special work permit.

These three things are perfectly reasonable, in my opinion--mostly what I hate are the randomly mandated breaks and severe limitations on working hours during the summer, and most of what I hate about those are the ridiculously high penalties for breaking them (in VERY minor ways) which discourage companies from hiring.

[DaShi]

IIRC those were the rules for employing minors in Virginia. Adults were not protected by similar rules unless they were negotiated by a union. Remember, Virginia is a "right to work" state. I believe that there were certain job classifications prohibited to minors. Minors couldn't work in "hard hat" jobs or assembly lines. I think they were prohibited from working more than a certain number of hours / week during school sessions. Also minors under 16 had to get a special work permit.

I see. I've never worked an hourly job that wasn't unionized so I had figured these were standard. I've always seen them more as a way of protecting the company from having to pay employees unwanted overtime by clearly delineating when they can and cannot work. In truth, while we always had these rules, no one ever followed them. There is a lot of unpaid labor in the US.

[DaShi]

Yes.
These three things are perfectly reasonable, in my opinion--mostly what I hate are the randomly mandated breaks and severe limitations on working hours during the summer, and most of what I hate about those are the ridiculously high penalties for breaking them (in VERY minor ways) which discourage companies from hiring.

It's reasonable when you consider how children can be used in these circumstances. Not everyone has the same advantages that you were given.

[Aeson]

... which discourage companies from hiring.

I have gotten five jobs to date, all on my own initiative.

Obviously they aren't that discouraged ...

[Dauphin]

A few examples:

I had to take a 10 minute break every 2 hours, for no real reason whatsoever. At my job which involved sitting down at a computer. I had to physically leave the computer. I couldn't just randomly surf the web.

I couldn't work more than 8 hours a day, even though the job was not physically demanding in any sense.

I had to take at least 30 minutes for lunch.

I had to eat lunch EXACTLY four hours after I started work. A minute later, and the company could get in trouble.

Etc. etc. All very stupid and annoying.

Edit: Oh yes, I couldn't eat lunch at my computer. Because oh my god, what if I did work during lunch? That could be abusive and exploitative.

Are you sure it wasn't just a summer job in France?

[Dauphin]

On a more serious note. Child labour exploitation would be a problem in poorer households, and the exploitation would mostly be by the parents forcing their child to work.

[Dauphin]

Some child labor laws are downright retarded. Having worked as a minor for many years, there were a ton of ****ing stupid rules I had to follow "for my own safety". That doesn't mean the principle of regulating child labor is bad, it means that there is a point where more is too much.

Do you rate child labour laws favourably?

Follow up in case you said "No".

Would you rather they ALL stay implemented, or they ALL get repealed? (A false dichotomy I know, but it is the same basic binary question asked in the first place).

I ask as I agree with your point, I just want to know why you were ranting. I think we have different focus in our heads when we discuss child labour laws. The latter question highlights this better I would think.

[The Mad Monk]

That completely explains why it would be necessary for congress to stop this happening. It is clearly one of the most important and vital issues facing America today.

Thank baby Jesus that the NRA were willing to spend that lobby money to save their fellow Americans from having to know stuff.

With our current debt load it makes perfect sense for Congress to stop multiple agencies from spending money duplicating each others' research. The CDC is also studying seat belts, among other things. WHY???

[kentonio]

With our current debt load it makes perfect sense for Congress to stop multiple agencies from spending money duplicating each others' research. The CDC is also studying seat belts, among other things. WHY???

Yes, duplicate research into something as broad ranging as gun control would obviously be terrible. We clearly only need a single study which would provide all answers ever needed. Thank goodness Republicans are here to save science from itself.

[kentonio]

Oh and incidentally, let's be honest here, this is why it was removed..

Last year Congress tried to take away $2.6 million from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In budgetary terms, it was a pittance: 0.1 percent of the CDC's $2.2 billion allocation. Symbolically, however, it was important: $2.6 million was the amount the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control had spent in 1995 on studies of firearm injuries. Congressional critics, who charged that the center's research program was driven by an anti-gun prejudice, had previously sought to eliminate the NCIPC completely. "This research is designed to, and is used to, promote a campaign to reduce lawful firearms ownership in America," wrote 10 senators, including then Majority Leader Bob Dole and current Majority Leader Trent Lott. "Funding redundant research initiatives, particularly those which are driven by a social-policy agenda, simply does not make sense."...

http://reason.com/archives/1997/04/0...ots/singlepage

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_...n_gun_science/

[Sava]

I'm a sophomore at Carnegie Mellon, dude. Studying Computer Science.

Okay. You just seem like the entitled white rich kid type who would rage at affirmative action.

[The Mad Monk]

Oh and incidentally, let's be honest here, this is why it was removed..




http://reason.com/archives/1997/04/0...ots/singlepage

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_...n_gun_science/

Doesn't matter to me. We need to reduce costs, and redundant research is wasteful by definition.

[kentonio]

Doesn't matter to me. We need to reduce costs, and redundant research is wasteful by definition.

It's not redundant, they just decided to call it redundant because they don't think that kind of research should exist. Personally I get kind of angry at the idea that we shouldn't study things just in case people don't like the results.