|
Post by hisea on Apr 25, 2012 9:04:32 GMT -4
A proposal from the Obama administration to prevent children from doing farm chores has drawn plenty of criticism from rural-district members of Congress. But now it’s attracting barbs from farm kids themselves. The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families’ land. Under the rules, children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials.” “Prohibited places of employment,” a Department press release read, “would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.” The new regulations, first proposed August 31 by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, would also revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA, replacing them instead with a 90-hour federal government training course. Rossie Blinson, a 21-year-old college student from Buis Creek, N.C., told The Daily Caller that the federal government’s plan will do far more harm than good. “The main concern I have is that it would prevent kids from doing 4-H and FFA projects if they’re not at their parents’ house,” said Blinson. “I started showing sheep when I was four years old. I started with cattle around 8. It’s been very important. I learned a lot of responsibility being a farm kid.” In Kansas, Cherokee County Farm Bureau president Jeff Clark was out in the field — literally on a tractor — when TheDC reached him. He said if Solis’s regulations are implemented, farming families’ labor losses from their children will only be part of the problem. “What would be more of a blow,” he said, “is not teaching our kids the values of working on a farm.” The Environmental Protection Agency reports that the average age of the American farmer is now over 50. “Losing that work-ethic — it’s so hard to pick this up later in life,” Clark said. “There’s other ways to learn how to farm, but it’s so hard. You can learn so much more working on the farm when you’re 12, 13, 14 years old.” John Weber, 19, understands this. The Minneapolis native grew up in suburbia and learned the livestock business working summers on his relatives’ farm. He’s now a college Agriculture major. “I started working on my grandparent’s and uncle’s farms for a couple of weeks in the summer when I was 12,” Weber told TheDC. “I started spending full summers there when I was 13.” “The work ethic is a huge part of it. It gave me a lot of direction and opportunity in my life. If they do this it will prevent a lot of interest in agriculture. It’s harder to get a 16 year-old interested in farming than a 12 year old.” Weber is also a small businessman. In high school, he said, he took out a loan and bought a few steers to raise for income. “Under these regulations,” he explained, “I wouldn’t be allowed to do that.” Read more: dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/rural-kids-parents-angry-about-labor-dept-rule-banning-farm-chores/#ixzz1t3adCEix
|
|
|
Post by bluecrabber on Apr 25, 2012 10:33:04 GMT -4
Labor Secreatary Hilda is probably one of those nitwits who think meat is made in the backroom of the grocery store...
|
|
|
Post by freefallin on Apr 25, 2012 10:35:38 GMT -4
They must be bowing down to the Farmworkers Childrens Union. This is so rediculous, none of them I am sure have worked on a farm or relied on the family farm income to make a living. I grew up working on a farm in this area when I was young and it taught me early the value of hard work and how to work with your hands to make a living from dawn till dusk. How many more days until the election?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2012 10:48:47 GMT -4
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
News Release
WHD News Release: [02/01/2012] Contact Name: Laura McGinnis or Elizabeth Alexander Phone Number: (202) 693-4653 or x4675 Release Number: 12-0203-NAT
US Labor Department to re-propose 'parental exemption' of child labor in agriculture rule.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division today announced that it will re-propose the portion of its regulation on child labor in agriculture interpreting the "parental exemption." The decision to re-propose is in part a response to requests from the public and members of Congress that the agency allow an opportunity for more input on this aspect of the rule. Following the president's historic executive order on regulation, issued in January 2011, this re-proposal reflects the department's careful attention to public comments and its conclusion that it is appropriate to provide the public with further opportunities to participate in the regulatory process.
The parental exemption allows children of any age who are employed by their parent, or a person standing in the place of a parent, to perform any job on a farm owned or operated by their parent or such person standing in the place of a parent. Congress created the parental exemption in 1966 when it expanded protections for children employed in agriculture and prohibited their employment in jobs the Department of Labor declared particularly hazardous for children under the age of 16 to perform.
The department recognizes the unique attributes of farm families and rural communities. The re-proposal process will seek comments and inputs as to how the department can comply with statutory requirements to protect children, while respecting rural traditions. The re-proposed portion of the rule is expected to be published for public comment by early summer. The department will continue to review the comments received regarding the remaining portions of the proposed rule for inclusion in a final rule.
Until the revised exemption is final, the Wage and Hour Division will apply the parental exemption to situations in which the parent or person standing in the place of a parent is a part owner of the farm, a partner in a partnership or an officer of a corporation that owns the farm if the ownership interest in the partnership or corporation is substantial. This approach is consistent with guidance the Wage and Hour Division has provided to the public on its website for the past several years.
"The Department of Labor appreciates and respects the role of parents in raising their children and assigning tasks and chores to their children on farms and of relatives such as grandparents, aunts and uncles in keeping grandchildren, nieces and nephews out of harm's way," said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. "Today's announcement to re-propose the parental exemption means the department will have the benefit of additional public comment, and the public will have an opportunity to consider a revised approach to this issue. We will continue to work closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to ensure that our child labor in agriculture rule generally, and the parental exemption specifically, fully reflect input from rural communities."
"I want to applaud Secretary Solis and the Department of Labor for their decision to re-propose this portion of the rule to ensure kids across the nation have the opportunity to learn the value and reward of good old-fashioned farm work, while still providing protection to children from the most dangerous aspects of farming," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "The Labor Department listened to farmers and ranchers across the country. This announcement and the additional opportunity for comment represent a common-sense approach to strengthen our agricultural economy while keeping farm kids safe. It reflects the Obama administration's commitment to the American values that will keep our rural and agricultural economies growing, and keep rural communities and families prosperous."
The department published and invited public comments on its proposed rule on child labor in agriculture on Sept. 2, 2011. The proposed rule aimed to increase protections for children working in agriculture while preserving the benefits that safe and healthy work can provide. The Wage and Hour Division was driven to update its 40-year-old child labor regulations by studies showing that children are significantly more likely to be killed while performing agricultural work than while working in all other industries combined. The department's child labor in agriculture statutory authority extends only to children employed in agriculture who are 15 years of age or younger.
The department will continue to consider feedback from the public, Congress and the Department of Agriculture on portions of the rule outside of the parental exemption before it is finalized.
|
|
|
Post by highlander73 on Apr 25, 2012 11:36:51 GMT -4
Amazing, it's like we want to intentionally declare war on our own food suppliers and force the US to import everything a large Walmart.
|
|
|
Post by double on Apr 25, 2012 13:28:05 GMT -4
The U.S. is actively legislating itself into oblivion.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Apr 25, 2012 17:00:58 GMT -4
Well, this will certainly make mega factory farms happy.
|
|
|
Post by Water Lady on Apr 25, 2012 19:26:12 GMT -4
I hope they are willing to grant the Amish an exemption... I grew up on a farm...my people are farm people... This is
|
|
|
Post by tomc on Apr 26, 2012 16:21:36 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Apr 26, 2012 16:42:50 GMT -4
Look up a few posts to MJ's. What you posted is their revised proposal.
|
|
|
Post by highlander73 on Apr 26, 2012 21:31:13 GMT -4
Yes, because what we need more of in this society is a ban against people working.
|
|
|
Post by misternuke on Apr 26, 2012 22:44:27 GMT -4
Might not ban kids from working on family farms, but I believe national 4-H is still opposed since this will impact projects at farms not owned by the kids' families. But that's ok...they're just the kids of silly right wingers....
|
|
|
Post by dej on Apr 27, 2012 1:45:33 GMT -4
Even the revised proposal would not have allowed me to work on neighboring farms, which I did as a teenager. I also noticed Secretary Solis talked about children working on the farms of relatives, but the proposal, in the way it seems to define "parent or person standing in the place of a parent" would not have allowed me to work on the farms belonging to my uncles. It clearly states allowed farms would include "situations in which the parent or person standing in the place of a parent is a part owner of the farm, a partner in a partnership or an officer of a corporation that owns the farm if the ownership interest in the partnership or corporation is substantial". My parents never had any owner partnership or interest in farms belonging to relatives, so those farms would have been off limits, even under the revised proposal.
|
|
|
Post by tomc on Apr 27, 2012 7:59:37 GMT -4
Yes, because what we need more of in this society is a ban against people working. Because child labor is a lot cheaper than employing ADULTS.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Apr 27, 2012 14:18:20 GMT -4
Fixed it for you
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Apr 28, 2012 6:54:33 GMT -4
Yes, because what we need more of in this society is a ban against people working. Because child labor is a lot cheaper than employing ADULTS. Chores on the farm is not child labor and the gov't needs to downsize massively.
|
|
|
Post by tomc on Apr 28, 2012 7:37:11 GMT -4
Chores on the farm is not child labor and the gov't needs to downsize massively. The bill doesn't address chores on the family farm. It addresses child labor issues and EMPLOYMENT on farms not belonging to the family. Just more misinformation from the right.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Apr 28, 2012 8:17:05 GMT -4
Just more control tactics from the left, and when they realize that it is going to blow up on them, they change it slightly. It isn't misinformation. It is what they WANT to do.
|
|
|
Post by AquaHolic on Apr 28, 2012 8:25:28 GMT -4
Just more control tactics from the left, and when they realize that it is going to blow up on them, they change it slightly. It isn't misinformation. It is what they WANT to do. Exactly!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2012 9:25:17 GMT -4
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL - BUSINESS Updated April 26, 2012, 10:37 p.m. ET
Rule on Child Workers Pulled Administration Withdraws Curbs on Farm Labor Amid Pressure From Right
By ANDREW GROSSMAN
Under pressure from conservatives and farm-state lawmakers, the Labor Department on Thursday evening withdrew a proposed federal rule that would have tightened restrictions on the kind of work children can do on farms.
The rule, proposed in September, was meant to reduce deaths and injuries among children under the age of 16 by preventing them from using certain farm equipment and working higher than six feet in the air, among other activities. Children under 18 would have been barred from working in manure pits and grain-storage silos.
The proposal came under fire from the right, with politicians and commentators claiming it was the latest in a series of Obama administration regulations that would hurt business. Opponents also seized on a potent line of attack, saying the rule would strike at the heart of American agriculture by making it harder for kids to work on farms owned by their extended families and to participate in programs such as 4-H, which promotes farm careers, and Future Farmers of America.
"I grew up on a farm, myself, with my four older brothers, and you learn great responsibility, you learn skills, and it's a part of what agriculture is," said Rep. Tom Latham (R., Iowa) on Thursday. Mr. Latham had sponsored a bill to prevent the rule from taking effect.
The Labor Department said the administration made its decision "in response to thousands of comments expressing concerns about the effect of the proposed rules on small, family-owned farms.'' The comment period for the proposal had ended, and a final rule was expected to be issued within weeks.
Addressing critics of the proposed rules, the department said: "The Obama administration is firmly committed to promoting family farmers and respecting the rural way of life, especially the role that parents and other family members play in passing those traditions down through the generations.''
"I am very surprised. We hadn't heard that this was even being considered," said Kristi Boswell, a lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau Federation, which represents farmers and opposed the rule. She said the group was "ecstatic" about the news.
Former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin had attacked the proposal on her Facebook page Wednesday, and talk-radio hosts had taken up the issue.
Before the reversal, the Labor Department and groups that advocate for increased worker protections said the rule simply would have applied many of the same standards to farm work that exist for other fields. Advocates pointed to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics that show agricultural work is among the most deadly fields for young workers, second only to mining.
Families working together on farms weren't the target of the rule, backers had said. Instead, they wanted to reduce injuries among workers who don't have a family link to farms—many of which are large operations with hundreds of workers in the fields.
In its proposal, the Labor Department had buttressed its case for new rules with stories of children who died or were seriously injured on farms. In one such incident, a 14- and 19-year-old died after being engulfed in corn while working in a storage bin in Illinois in 2010.
Norma Flores Lopez, who runs the Children in the Fields Campaign at the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs, a worker advocacy group, said that, as a child, she had seen the dangers of farm work.
She and her family had traveled the Midwest to find work on farms. "I was out there working, being exposed to a lot of these dangerous elements without any supervision," she said Thursday. The rule was meant to protect children in those circumstances, not just those working for relatives on family farms, she said.
|
|
|
Post by Water Lady on Apr 28, 2012 13:14:56 GMT -4
I read the above article a couple times and was struck by the last two paragraphs and Ms. Norma Flores Lopez's comments... So I went here: www.afop.orgSpend some time looking around the website and see what you think...Maybe I missed it, but I did not see that any of the staff of this organization actually grew up on a farm. A couple (I think two) worked on farms as children, along with their "migrant" parents...and they were paid for their work. Whose decision was it to have their 9 or 10 or 12 year old children work at those ages? I've mentioned before that I grew up on a farm and my entire family were/are farmers from WAY back. We all worked and did chores. We did not get paid however, unless you consider like we did, the benefit of fresh milk, fruits, vegetables, beef, pork, eggs...and doing whatever was needed to subside, all while gathering a valuable work ethic and life experience. It's hard and dirty work! It's dangerous at times. In my lifetime, two of my cousins have died. One fell off the fender of a tractor his older brother was operating while plowing a field. What happened was too horrible to detail. Another cousin died after a four-wheeler accident on my grandparents farm. He wasn't out rounding up the cows or mending fences, he was just out riding around for fun and flipped the bike. It broke my grandfather's heart, but it was an accident. An uncle got his arm caught in a wood milling machine and lost his arm from above the elbow. It was an accident and his two brothers who were there at the time managed to save him from a result far worse. Another uncle was trapped and severely injured when a bull busted through his stall and crushed him against the wall. The result was a fractured pelvis, broken ribs and badly bruised liver. It was an accident and he is fine today. As far back as I can remember, and I mean around 6, 7 and 8 years old, we spent hours every day picking stuff! We planted it, we nurtured it and then we picked it. My God, looking back on it, I don't remember even wearing a hat or sunscreen... The calf barn was my favorite chore...two hours each morning and evening to prepare their formula and feed, and another hour cleaning their stalls. The worst was "crap-trap" detail in the milking parlor... ... but somebody had to do it! All in all, I'm glad the whole plan has been withdrawn. If there is a group (and it seems there is,) who wants to address the rights and safety of migrant farm workers, then perhaps they could start over again and focus on the issues "they" have and leave the hard working, traditional, family farmers alone...
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Apr 28, 2012 16:31:35 GMT -4
I hate when lawmakers use isolated incidents to appeal to the emotional, and create laws to govern those that don't need it. They hurt more people than they help.
|
|
|
Post by highlander73 on Apr 29, 2012 10:38:10 GMT -4
The fact that there is anyone in Dept of Labor even looking at this shows how excessive this government has grown.
I say again - why would we want to ban ANYONE from working in this country.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2012 15:04:29 GMT -4
This is a related story...though I can't find a link on the web to verify it, it did came from a credible source. I've been told there's a bill, one of many floating on capital hill, looking at repealing past mandates that have required business to implement cumbersome and costly safety standards. This one bill is looking at repealing the 1966 mandate* requiring all cars sold in the U.S. to have safety belts. Although there are some opponents to repealing the mandate.....a majority of Americans, many lawmakers and most manufactures all agree that repealing this would allow free enterprise to work the way it was intended. Another plus to the repeal, CEO's say it would also allow manufactures to lower the cost of new cars and spend additional saved dollars on creating more U.S. jobs that are badly needed in the down economy. Sounds like a win win. * In 1966, passage of the Highway Safety Act and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorized the federal government to set and regulate standards for motor vehicles and highways, a mechanism necessary for effective prevention. Many changes in both vehicle and highway design followed this mandate. Vehicles were built with new safety features, including head rests, energy-absorbing steering wheels, shatter-resistant windshields, and safety belts. Roads were improved by better delineation of curves (edge and center line stripes and reflectors), use of breakaway sign and utility poles, improved illumination, addition of barriers separating oncoming traffic lanes, and guardrails. The results were rapid. By 1970, motor-vehicle-related death rates were decreasing by both the public health measure (deaths per 100,000 population) and the traffic safety indicator.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Apr 29, 2012 16:43:02 GMT -4
Related?
|
|