This is a worse nanny state intrusion than the "Here, Kid, eat this and go tell your mother she doesn't care enough about you to give you healthy food" lunchroom incident:
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.”
But let me rethink this a bit. We didn't live on a farm, but my parents saddled me with lots of chores when I was growing up. It was like I had some obligation or something just because chance had me born into that family! They didn't ask me if I liked the chores, and they certainly didn't take into account things like how long a child should be bored with repetitive tasks or how early or late in the day he should be allowed to rest.
That was awfully disrespectful of my rights, don't you think? Wonder if I can bring a posthumous suit against them. This day and age, don't say no so fast.
Comments
I'm guessing this was your question:
"Doesn't the fact that they responded to concerns, even misinformed concerns, kind of blow a hole in that particular conspiracy theory of yours, Zank?"
The answer is no, not at all. Quite the contrary. When faced with the backlash by normal people in this country that still outnumber the Marxists, the Marxists retreated. Their retreat only means they fear losing an election, it won't stop their never ending battle to give the state complete control over all activity. I'm pretty sure you hardcores will keep pushing for total state control for the rest of your lives, it's the only thing you've got.
Where does the federal government get the authority to tell farmers that certain young adults can't work on their farms? For free or fee.
I don't care who the mouthpiece is.
Where does the authority come from?
RAG, he thinks the authority all comes from The Anointed One, HeHimself, the leader of the 21st century and his disciples (the czars, union leaders, etc)....
Empty soulless and vaccuous people need the state to tell them what to do, when to do it, where to do it, how to do it. They have been conditioned since state sponsored pre-school to be led by the nose, to fall in line, to be fed by their masters, housed by their masters, to be transported by their masters. Their entire sustenance is granted and provided by the state and they will now defend that at any cost.
"The answer is no, not at all. Quite the contrary. When faced with the backlash by normal people in this country that still outnumber the Marxists, the Marxists retreated."
Nothing's going to get that tinfoil hat off of you, Tim Zank!
"Their retreat only means they fear losing an election, it won't stop their never ending battle to give the state complete control over all activity."
And being able to laugh at this sort of paranoid conspiracy nonsense is how non-Tim Zank people win every day. XD
RAG: It's part of the Fair Labor Standards Act. We've been moving along quite well under it since 1938 or so. It's always been a great deal more lenient for agricultural work.
The amendment to the policy wasn't going to affect farmer's direct children at all, and wouldn't have affected children helping relatives or neighbors on farms, either.
But now that the changes are scrapped, large farm operations/corporate farms will still be able to hire as many children as they want to work on any jobs they want. Not that they were too worried about having anough 15-year-olds to drive tractors at all, but at least they get to keep those under 18 working in "nonagricultural occupations in the farm-product raw materials wholesale trade industries," where "Prohibited establishments would include country grain elevators, grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, feed yards, stockyard, livestock exchanges, and livestock auctions not on a farm or used solely by a single farmer."
So while there was no actual threat to small family farms, fear-mongering about them just happened to be useful for larger-scale agriculture corporations. Who ran advertising against the changes if I'm to believe comments elsewhere. Make of that what you will.
OR I suppose you could go with Tim Zank's rambling conspiracy theory of the day.
"OR I suppose you could go with Tim Zank's rambling conspiracy theory of the day."
Sane people are not Marxists, and do not require their sphincters to be wiped by the state, therefore most adults agree with me, as is evidenced here as well as other sites where adults gather.
Swing: Am I supposed to feel bad?
No, but you're supposed to behave. Leo asks for your best arguments, not your best insults. If you can't tell the difference between arguing and fighting, consult Rick Ritter.
Swing: Bullshit. Cite something I've said that's not true.
You cited a 2011 release (11-1250-NAT) that said "The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents." ignoring the release from THIS year (12-0203-NAT) that would gut the parental exemption.
Swing: But Christ Leo, don't you have a journalism degree?
You thing you need a license to practice jounalism? Leo has kept a relatively cushy job in an increasingly competitive occupation through a series of employers by demonstrating competence. A j-school degree is worthless; at best it gets you an interview for a job where you learn to actually DO something.
A competent jouralist looks at the facts - and in this case, the DOL said in 12-0203-NAT that the actual proposed regulations wouldn't be available until late June at the earliest. But you're accusing him of being incompetent because he relied on the best available information instead of something obsolete.
Swing: Oh, and you think you're in a position to tell me what the rules are? How about you get bent?
Yes, I think I'm in a position to remind you what the rules are. I also speak up when someone is ignoring a kid who's screaming because nobody will change his diaper, when someone is throwing stones at dogs, and when store clerks hurl racial epithets at potential customers. Actions have consequences, and it is the duty of responsible members of a community to use social pressure to protect that community.
So Littlejohn and Zank never agree? Not a problem, because they argue the merits of their cases instead of simply launching violent attacks. Blood stains are so difficult to get out, and even if this discussion was governed by Amendment I - Fort Wayne Newspapers was not a branch of government, last I checked - even Amendment I doesn't cover "fighting words".
When you see Rick, ask him about racing bicycles internationally with a leg that won't bend, about airlines losing his bicycles, about using a recumbent bicycle in the slush of Fort Wayne in midwinter. Entertaining stories, and they'll let him help you without your even noticing. And if he sends you to somebody for meds, try to get in to see Steve Schneider. Because your pain is very obvious.
Zank: yap more about marxists and sphincters, it makes you sound even more well-balanced and sane. XD
Delos: The proposed clarification of 570.123 expanded and clarifed the exception, the opposite of gutting, you old fool.
You did actually read the source material, didn't you? You could link to it and show us how it was gutted, right?
"You thing (sic) you need a license to practice jounalism?"
Given that I only said that I expect better out of someone who's a journalist rather than a doddering old man in PA, this seems to be something that exists only in your head. Fro example: I don't think you need a degree in religious fanfic to yammer about imaginary things, but you've got a doctorate in that, so I'd expect you to be a little more well-versed.
And let's face it, as far as I can tell, Leo maintains his current position through something other than journalistic integrity or competence.
"A competent jouralist looks at the facts - and in this case, the DOL said in 12-0203-NAT that the actual proposed regulations wouldn't be available until late June at the earliest."
Actually, in this case all he had to do was look at the source press release to realize the story didn't match.
And I'm looking at the policy changes up for comment right now on regulations.gov, which has apparently been up since last year. If I could find it... You can find it too, right?
"Yes, I think I'm in a position to remind you what the rules are."
HAHAHAHaahhahaa... GFY. I already did this with Zank. Leo kind-of half-ass did something about it. Lo and behold, Zank and Kalb start in again, and Leo is just as AWOL as ever. And I'm not the one breaking any rules, and I'm certainly not doing anything more socially destructive than disagreeing with you in a tone you don't approve of.
Littlejohn simply chooses not to defend himself against Zank or Kalb, and that's his right. You don't get to complain at me for responding to them in kind, after Leo has made it clear he doesn't care enough to do anything about it.
Who the hell is Rick? Or Steve Schneider? Are you trying to be clever in some way? Or have you lost track of who you're talking to?
The way I understand it, Leo's comments are to start an argument. He does a commendable job with that sometimes.
I think it's fun to see the regulars bicker so much. I won't even try to keep up. But, a simple proven counter on a thought, however boring, is all that is needed.
It appears that I am ignorant in what is going on with this farm issue. After talking to some farmers, they were also ignorant, because they were angry about the proposal.
There is a lack of trust of President Obama's administration. There is also a lack of quality communications. These farmers aren't reading Leo's comments or the Daily Caller.
My question earlier about where does the federal government get its authority to "tell farmers that certain young adults can't work on their farms," still stands even though it is now irrevelent
Mr Swing did point out that it comes from the Fair Labor Standards Act from 1938. Thanks.
Where did the federal government get the authority to pass that law?
The ever-popular commerce clause, of course.
Swing: But now that the changes are scrapped, large farm operations/corporate farms will still be able to hire as many children as they want to work on any jobs they want.
No, they won't. The rules will remain the same as they've been since 1966.
Swing: The proposed clarification of 570.123 expanded and clarifed the exception, the opposite of gutting, you old fool.
Hate to disappoint you, you syphilitic idiot, but the DOL planned to re-proposed 29 CFR 570.70, not 570.123.
Swing: Who the hell is Rick? Or Steve Schneider? Are you trying to be clever in some way? Or have you lost track of who you're talking to?
Ritter and Schneider have been community leaders as well as respected members of their respective professions for several decades, although given your apparent Cluster B membership, it's no wonder you'd not know who they are.
Are you mad now Harl? What, I don't know who two random people in a city are when I haven't even been here a year? How dare I not know those two people!
BTW, evidence, you can STFU now Harl:
N. Child Labor Exemptions Applicable
to Agricultural Employment (29 CFR
570.123)
The Department proposes to revise
this section of subpart G to reflect the
statutory changes to the FLSA
provisions dealing with child labor
employment in agriculture that were
made since the last update of the
subpart. A similar revision of the
subpart addressing nonagricultural
employment was made by the Final
Rule published by the Department on
May 20, 2010 (see 75 FR 28404).
The Department proposes to clarify
the parental exemption involving
agricultural employment by including
information about the exemption
discussed in the Background section of
this preamble. The proposal provides
guidance as to who qualifies as a parent;
what determines that a farm is
‘‘operated by’’ a parent; and how the
Department interprets the extension of
this parental exemption to persons
standing in the place of a parent as well
as a relative who may take temporary
custody of a youth and stands in the
place of the parent. The revision also
notes that the parental exemption—both
in terms of working during school hours
and performing hazardous occupations
normally prohibited by the Ag H.O.s—
would not apply to the employment of
a child of a farmer when that child is
employed on a farm not owned or
operated by his or her parent. It also
addresses related situations, such as
where the farm or its property may be
owned by a closely-held corporation or
partnership consisting of family
members or other close relatives.
The Department also proposes to
incorporate the provisions of FLSA
sections 13(c)(2) and 13(c)(1)(A) through
(C) into § 570.123. These sections were
enacted after the last revision to subpart
G. Section 13(c)(2) establishes the
Secretary’s authority to find and declare
certain agricultural occupations to be
particularly hazardous for the
employment of children below the age
of 16 and sets the minimum ages for
employment in agriculture. Unlike the
parental exemption contained in section
3(l) which exempts only the
employment of a youth by a parent or
person standing in place of a parent in
a business/farm solely owned by that
parent or person, sections 13(c)(1)(A)
and 13(c)(2) expand the parental
exemption to include youth who are
employed in agriculture by a parent or
person standing in place of a parent on
a farm operated by such parent or
person. The parent/operator of the farm
must be the employer of the minor for
this exemption to apply.
The way I read the commerce clause in the Constitution-
Article 1, Section 8 ---- Congress shall have power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several Sates, and with the Indian tribes.
I still am confused. The federal government can "tell farmers that certain young adults can't work on their farms", because of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act. Does this mean that the U.S. federal government can pass this type of regulation to cover French, Chinese, or Brazilian farms? What about Choctaw farms?
I'm only asking because these are all covered under the same clause.
Sorry, I should have been more specific, presuming you're being honest about that. The specific component I was referring to was the interstate commerce clause. The foreign commerce clause and Indian commerce clause components are of course not relevant.
How is the U.S. commerce clause, the foreign commerce clause, or the Indian commerce clause different? The way I understand it, the commerce clause only gives the federal government power to regulate commerce flowing between the states, flowing between the U.S. and foreign countries, or commerce flowing between the U.S and Indian tribes.
How is it that the INTERSTATE commerce clause in the Constitution gives the federal government power to regulate INTRASTATE commerce in Indiana or Michigan, but not in Mexico or the Chickasaw territories?
I will repeat the question: Where did the federal government get the authority to pass the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act?
If you can run a business and at no point produce anything that crosses state lines, is made from things that have crossed state lines, and never even call anyone across state lines on the phone, sure - it won't apply then.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse about the other two components. Regulating the trade of US entities with non-US entities obviously doesn't mean the US government regulates the non-US entities.
I guess this is where I politely disagree with you.
The commerce clause gives the federal government equal authority in regulating commerce with foreign nations, between the states, and with the Indians. The federal government has no business to "tell farmers that certain young adults can't work on their farms", just because, for instance, that wooden planks for an Indiana barn were purchased in Ohio. These wooden planks are only indirectly used to produce commerce between the states, if at all.
If a state wanted to pass a law about what farmers did on farmland in that state, that is a state business .... not federal.
Federal commerce regulations only cover what moves between the states.
Well, you're welcome to try to overturn the commerce clause and convince people of the case you're trying to make, but I don't think you're going to have much luck with that.