RE: Farm kids no longer alowed to work on family farms?
(04-25-2012 01:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:
(04-25-2012 01:25 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:
(04-25-2012 01:14 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:
(04-25-2012 01:03 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote: Does this proposal apply to kids doing work on their own family (aka parents') farm?
Or does the proposal just say that kids can't be farm hands on non-family farms?
This proves you didn't read the link.
It applies SPECIFICALLY to family farms. Child labor laws would apply if it were not a family farm.
Oh, but I did.
I also read the DOL release where it specifically says, "The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents."
It's been revised now to address the loophols in child labor laws that allow children to work on family farms.
So the original version expressly says that this does not apply to family farms. But you say the proposal has been revised to apply to all farms, including family farms?
RE: Farm kids no longer alowed to work on family farms?
(04-25-2012 01:47 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:
(04-25-2012 01:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:
(04-25-2012 01:25 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:
(04-25-2012 01:14 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:
(04-25-2012 01:03 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote: Does this proposal apply to kids doing work on their own family (aka parents') farm?
Or does the proposal just say that kids can't be farm hands on non-family farms?
This proves you didn't read the link.
It applies SPECIFICALLY to family farms. Child labor laws would apply if it were not a family farm.
Oh, but I did.
I also read the DOL release where it specifically says, "The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents."
It's been revised now to address the loophols in child labor laws that allow children to work on family farms.
So the original version expressly says that this does not apply to family farms. But you say the proposal has been revised to apply to all farms, including family farms?
Do you have a source for that?
I wonder if "family farm" as being stated is being used in 2 different ways. A family farm can hire workers that aren't their children and family farms that are just family members and not hired hands. I am cool with exempting the latter and not the former.
RE: Farm kids no longer alowed to work on family farms?
(04-25-2012 02:59 PM)bearcat65 Wrote: I agree with neither. It's simply a matter of the government getting involved with something that they have little clue about.
RE: Farm kids no longer alowed to work on family farms?
(04-25-2012 01:47 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:
(04-25-2012 01:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:
(04-25-2012 01:25 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:
(04-25-2012 01:14 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:
(04-25-2012 01:03 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote: Does this proposal apply to kids doing work on their own family (aka parents') farm?
Or does the proposal just say that kids can't be farm hands on non-family farms?
This proves you didn't read the link.
It applies SPECIFICALLY to family farms. Child labor laws would apply if it were not a family farm.
Oh, but I did.
I also read the DOL release where it specifically says, "The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents."
It's been revised now to address the loophols in child labor laws that allow children to work on family farms.
So the original version expressly says that this does not apply to family farms. But you say the proposal has been revised to apply to all farms, including family farms?
Do you have a source for that?
From the first article in the original post.
“American Farm Bureau does not view that as a victory,” said Kristi Boswell, a labor specialist with the American Farm Bureau Federation. “It’s a misconception that they have backed off on the parental exemption.”
Theres a video link at the bottom of the article if you care to watch the actual Appropriations Subcommittee meeting.
From another article that explains the parental exemption.
"The Agricultural Hazardous Occupations Order was written in an effort to protect children from dangerous situations in on-farm work environments; however, under the proposed changes, the current "parental exemption" would not apply to incorporated family farms, notes Bill Field, farm-safety specialist at Purdue University."
My family's farm has been incorporated for 40 years. It was my grandfather and his 5 brothers, then my grandfather and his two sons, and now my grandfather and father with help from me on occassion. My nephew growing up on the farm wouldn't be allowed to help if this legislation passes for two reasons. 1. His mother and father are not farmers even though they live on the family farm, and 2. it's incorporated. Both technicalities, but both violations of the proposed law.
The govt has no business doing this, especially under the guise of protecting children from injuries when the injury rate is just 7.2 injuries per 1000 farms. More than 7.2 children out of 1000 households injures themselves playing each year I would bet.
RE: Farm kids no longer alowed to work on family farms?
(04-25-2012 01:52 PM)RobertN Wrote: I wonder if "family farm" as being stated is being used in 2 different ways. A family farm can hire workers that aren't their children and family farms that are just family members and not hired hands. I am cool with exempting the latter and not the former.
I really don't see what the difference is. If it is a farm belonging to the childs family there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to work it, even if it employees non-family members.
Just think about this though. This is govt intrusion into a very small part of private sector work. Family farms are disappearing at an alarming rate as it. The values and knowledge gained by farm children are principles that this country were founded on. Now parents aren't allowed to teach this? FFA and 4H aren't allowed to teach this? A 90-hour govt program sounds more like indoctrination than education to me.
RE: Farm kids no longer alowed to work on family farms?
(04-25-2012 04:03 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:
(04-25-2012 01:47 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:
(04-25-2012 01:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:
(04-25-2012 01:25 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:
(04-25-2012 01:14 PM)200yrs2late Wrote: This proves you didn't read the link.
It applies SPECIFICALLY to family farms. Child labor laws would apply if it were not a family farm.
Oh, but I did.
I also read the DOL release where it specifically says, "The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents."
It's been revised now to address the loophols in child labor laws that allow children to work on family farms.
So the original version expressly says that this does not apply to family farms. But you say the proposal has been revised to apply to all farms, including family farms?
Do you have a source for that?
From the first article in the original post.
“American Farm Bureau does not view that as a victory,” said Kristi Boswell, a labor specialist with the American Farm Bureau Federation. “It’s a misconception that they have backed off on the parental exemption.”
Theres a video link at the bottom of the article if you care to watch the actual Appropriations Subcommittee meeting.
From another article that explains the parental exemption.
"The Agricultural Hazardous Occupations Order was written in an effort to protect children from dangerous situations in on-farm work environments; however, under the proposed changes, the current "parental exemption" would not apply to incorporated family farms, notes Bill Field, farm-safety specialist at Purdue University."
My family's farm has been incorporated for 40 years. It was my grandfather and his 5 brothers, then my grandfather and his two sons, and now my grandfather and father with help from me on occassion. My nephew growing up on the farm wouldn't be allowed to help if this legislation passes for two reasons. 1. His mother and father are not farmers even though they live on the family farm, and 2. it's incorporated. Both technicalities, but both violations of the proposed law.
The govt has no business doing this, especially under the guise of protecting children from injuries when the injury rate is just 7.2 injuries per 1000 farms. More than 7.2 children out of 1000 households injures themselves playing each year I would bet.
Section 570.123
"(1) Application of the parental exemption in agriculture is limited
to the employment of children exclusively by their parents or person(s)
standing in place thereof on a farm owned or operated by the parent(s).
Only the sole owner or operator of a farm is in a position to regulate
the duties of his or her child and provide guidance. Where the
ownership or operation of the farm is vested in persons other than, or
in addition to, the parent or person standing in place of the parent,
such as a business entity, corporation, or partnership (unless wholly
owned by the parent(s)), the child worker is responsible to persons
other than his or her parent, and his or her duties would be regulated
by the corporation or partnership."
Incorporated family farms are still exempt so long as the farm is managed by the parent (or parental equivalent).
(This post was last modified: 04-25-2012 04:40 PM by AtlanticLeague.)
RE: Farm kids no longer alowed to work on family farms?
(04-25-2012 04:37 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote: Section 570.123
"(1) Application of the parental exemption in agriculture is limited
to the employment of children exclusively by their parents or person(s)
standing in place thereof on a farm owned or operated by the parent(s).
Only the sole owner or operator of a farm is in a position to regulate
the duties of his or her child and provide guidance. Where the
ownership or operation of the farm is vested in persons other than, or
in addition to, the parent or person standing in place of the parent,
such as a business entity, corporation, or partnership (unless wholly
owned by the parent(s)), the child worker is responsible to persons
other than his or her parent, and his or her duties would be regulated
by the corporation or partnership."
Incorporated family farms are still exempt so long as the farm is managed by the parent (or parental equivalent).
I'm no lawyer, so the technicalities in the writing may prove you right, but there are a number of groups stating otherwise. Even reading the section you just quoted I can take it to mean that incorporated farms don't count for the exemption.
The first portion clearly states that the exepmtion applies to exculsively owned family farms and is backed up by this statement: "Only the sole owner or operator of a farm is in a position to regulate the duties of his or her child and provide guidance."
After that it get a bit confusing. No other farmhand would be allowed to supervise, meaning that most incorporated farms the parent would have to hold direct supervision or the exemption wouldn't apply. I don't know for sure, but the extent of 'direct supervision' will probably be a sticky area. For example I was often on my own, several miles away from my father or grandfather working for 6-8 hours at a time. Would that qualify as being supervised?
All in all it just bad legislation. I read most of the revision to the regulation and in relation to the number of injuries they seek to prevent, the regulations are simply overbearing. It's even stated in the study that the number of injuries is miniscule, and instead compares the number of injuries not to the % of children working on farms, but to the number of injuries of other similar aged children working in other occupations. It doesn't take a scientist to understand that farming is more dangerous than babysitting or waiting tables.
RE: Farm kids no longer alowed to work on family farms?
From the CS Monitor:
Sarah Palin says the Obama administration wants to ban kids from working on family farms. In a Facebook post Wednesday she charges that the Department of Labor is working on regulations that would stop children from doing agricultural chores that teach hard work and help feed America.
“This is more overreach of the federal government with many negative overtones,” the ex-Alaska governor writes.
Is she right? Are before-school milkings, after-school stall mucking, and summertime hay-bale hauling at risk?
Weeellll, it would have been better if Ms. Palin had gone to the source material before putting this up. Maybe.
It is true that the Labor Department is working up new regulations bearing on under-age-16 agricultural work. It has been working on them for some years now, with lots of input from farm groups, which are very much worried about that ending-farm-chores thing. So in that sense Palin is resounding a previously rung alarm.
However, “the proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents”, says the Labor Department press release from last August announcing publication of the proposed law revisions in the Federal Register.
Palin says in her Facebook post that the new regs “would prevent children from working on our own family farms.” This would not appear to be correct, unless there is some definition of "family farm" we nonfarm workers aren't familiar with.
What the regulations would do, according to the Labor Department, is update the list of farm jobs that children under age 16 cannot be hired to do by nonfamily farms. Among the new tasks on the list: pesticide handling, timber operations, and work around manure pits and storage bins. Farm workers under 16 would no longer be able to cultivate, harvest, or cure tobacco, either.
Agricultural work accounts for 75 percent of the job-related fatalities for workers under 16, notes the Labor Department.
“Children employed in agriculture are some of the most vulnerable workers in America,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis last August.
Many farm-state lawmakers still believe the rules go too far. Sen. Jerry Moran ® of Kansas earlier this month published an opinion piece on Politico that questioned whether those who drew up the regulations knew much about agriculture, and charged that the Labor Department originally had wanted to narrow the parental farm exemption.
“The future of agriculture, and our individual rights, depends on stopping this vast overreach of executive authority,” wrote Senator Moran.
At least we know who 200braincells2short gets his daily talking points from.
RE: Farm kids no longer alowed to work on family farms?
(04-25-2012 06:28 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote: From the CS Monitor:
Sarah Palin says the Obama administration wants to ban kids from working on family farms. In a Facebook post Wednesday she charges that the Department of Labor is working on regulations that would stop children from doing agricultural chores that teach hard work and help feed America.
“This is more overreach of the federal government with many negative overtones,” the ex-Alaska governor writes.
Is she right? Are before-school milkings, after-school stall mucking, and summertime hay-bale hauling at risk?
Weeellll, it would have been better if Ms. Palin had gone to the source material before putting this up. Maybe.
It is true that the Labor Department is working up new regulations bearing on under-age-16 agricultural work. It has been working on them for some years now, with lots of input from farm groups, which are very much worried about that ending-farm-chores thing. So in that sense Palin is resounding a previously rung alarm.
However, “the proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents”, says the Labor Department press release from last August announcing publication of the proposed law revisions in the Federal Register.
Palin says in her Facebook post that the new regs “would prevent children from working on our own family farms.” This would not appear to be correct, unless there is some definition of "family farm" we nonfarm workers aren't familiar with.
What the regulations would do, according to the Labor Department, is update the list of farm jobs that children under age 16 cannot be hired to do by nonfamily farms. Among the new tasks on the list: pesticide handling, timber operations, and work around manure pits and storage bins. Farm workers under 16 would no longer be able to cultivate, harvest, or cure tobacco, either.
Agricultural work accounts for 75 percent of the job-related fatalities for workers under 16, notes the Labor Department.
“Children employed in agriculture are some of the most vulnerable workers in America,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis last August.
Many farm-state lawmakers still believe the rules go too far. Sen. Jerry Moran ® of Kansas earlier this month published an opinion piece on Politico that questioned whether those who drew up the regulations knew much about agriculture, and charged that the Labor Department originally had wanted to narrow the parental farm exemption.
“The future of agriculture, and our individual rights, depends on stopping this vast overreach of executive authority,” wrote Senator Moran.
At least we know who 200braincells2short gets his daily talking points from.
Another Lib, another personal insult. Are you all from the same mold? I cited stories that questioned the legislation, not the legislation itself, not to mention there is a question mark at the end of the thread title. I was asking a question and stating my opinion based on the couple of articles referenced.
There is no harm in questioning the legislation, its intended purpose and the precedents it will set for future regulation if passed.
(This post was last modified: 04-25-2012 07:23 PM by 200yrs2late.)
RE: Farm kids no longer alowed to work on family farms?
(04-25-2012 06:28 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote: At least we know who 200braincells2short gets his daily talking points from.
Wow, what an insult, since the average brain has almost 100 billion neurons. Considering all you ever do is insult people, you'd think you'd at least be decent at it.
Congratulations, your complete worthlessness is now fully verified.
RE: Farm kids no longer alowed to work on family farms?
(04-25-2012 06:38 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:
(04-25-2012 06:28 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote: From the CS Monitor:
Sarah Palin says the Obama administration wants to ban kids from working on family farms. In a Facebook post Wednesday she charges that the Department of Labor is working on regulations that would stop children from doing agricultural chores that teach hard work and help feed America.
“This is more overreach of the federal government with many negative overtones,” the ex-Alaska governor writes.
Is she right? Are before-school milkings, after-school stall mucking, and summertime hay-bale hauling at risk?
Weeellll, it would have been better if Ms. Palin had gone to the source material before putting this up. Maybe.
It is true that the Labor Department is working up new regulations bearing on under-age-16 agricultural work. It has been working on them for some years now, with lots of input from farm groups, which are very much worried about that ending-farm-chores thing. So in that sense Palin is resounding a previously rung alarm.
However, “the proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents”, says the Labor Department press release from last August announcing publication of the proposed law revisions in the Federal Register.
Palin says in her Facebook post that the new regs “would prevent children from working on our own family farms.” This would not appear to be correct, unless there is some definition of "family farm" we nonfarm workers aren't familiar with.
What the regulations would do, according to the Labor Department, is update the list of farm jobs that children under age 16 cannot be hired to do by nonfamily farms. Among the new tasks on the list: pesticide handling, timber operations, and work around manure pits and storage bins. Farm workers under 16 would no longer be able to cultivate, harvest, or cure tobacco, either.
Agricultural work accounts for 75 percent of the job-related fatalities for workers under 16, notes the Labor Department.
“Children employed in agriculture are some of the most vulnerable workers in America,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis last August.
Many farm-state lawmakers still believe the rules go too far. Sen. Jerry Moran ® of Kansas earlier this month published an opinion piece on Politico that questioned whether those who drew up the regulations knew much about agriculture, and charged that the Labor Department originally had wanted to narrow the parental farm exemption.
“The future of agriculture, and our individual rights, depends on stopping this vast overreach of executive authority,” wrote Senator Moran.
At least we know who 200braincells2short gets his daily talking points from.
Another Lib, another personal insult. Are you all from the same mold? I sited stories that questioned the legislation, not the legislation itself, not to mention there is a question mark at the end of the thread title. I was asking a question and stating my opinion based on the couple of articles referenced.
There is no harm in questioning the legislation, its intended purpose and the precedents it will set for future regulation if passed.
The spectrum of civility applies to both sides. And here I thought this thread would go largely unscathed.
RE: Farm kids no longer alowed to work on family farms?
(04-25-2012 10:40 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:
(04-25-2012 09:38 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: Bailed Hay for 2 dollars an hour. Thought it was all the money in the world.
The first farm work I really did was spraying beans and corn since it was really kinda hard to mess up, even for a 12 year old.
We didn't have a lot of hay, but we did raise a few hundred acres of wheat and would bale the straw and sell it to nurserys. I was running a crew of about 3-6 other kids between 13-17 years old bailing and stacking bales of straw. We all made more money in one month then our friends made all year at their jobs or from allowance.
That kind of work just instills good values in kids, teaches them about being accountable not just to themselves but to their families since their work is essential to the family income. I would bet that 85% of these kids love the work they do. Unfortunately the govt feels it knows better.
RE: Farm kids no longer alowed to work on family farms?
(04-25-2012 06:46 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:
(04-25-2012 06:28 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote: At least we know who 200braincells2short gets his daily talking points from.
Wow, what an insult, since the average brain has almost 100 billion neurons. Considering all you ever do is insult people, you'd think you'd at least be decent at it.
Congratulations, your complete worthlessness is now fully verified.
RE: Farm kids no longer alowed to work on family farms?
(04-25-2012 09:04 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:
(04-25-2012 06:46 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:
(04-25-2012 06:28 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote: At least we know who 200braincells2short gets his daily talking points from.
Wow, what an insult, since the average brain has almost 100 billion neurons. Considering all you ever do is insult people, you'd think you'd at least be decent at it.
Congratulations, your complete worthlessness is now fully verified.
RE: Farm kids no longer alowed to work on family farms?
(04-25-2012 09:23 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:
(04-25-2012 09:04 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:
(04-25-2012 06:46 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:
(04-25-2012 06:28 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote: At least we know who 200braincells2short gets his daily talking points from.
Wow, what an insult, since the average brain has almost 100 billion neurons. Considering all you ever do is insult people, you'd think you'd at least be decent at it.
Congratulations, your complete worthlessness is now fully verified.
RE: Farm kids no longer alowed to work on family farms?
(04-25-2012 09:31 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:
(04-25-2012 09:23 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:
(04-25-2012 09:04 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:
(04-25-2012 06:46 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:
(04-25-2012 06:28 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote: At least we know who 200braincells2short gets his daily talking points from.
Wow, what an insult, since the average brain has almost 100 billion neurons. Considering all you ever do is insult people, you'd think you'd at least be decent at it.
Congratulations, your complete worthlessness is now fully verified.
You're really, really slow.
Another pitiful attempt at an insult.
Nope. Just pointing out the truth.
That's hilarious coming from the idiot who thought 200 brain cells was a significant amount.
RE: Farm kids no longer alowed to work on family farms?
(04-25-2012 09:36 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:
(04-25-2012 09:31 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:
(04-25-2012 09:23 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:
(04-25-2012 09:04 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:
(04-25-2012 06:46 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: Wow, what an insult, since the average brain has almost 100 billion neurons. Considering all you ever do is insult people, you'd think you'd at least be decent at it.
Congratulations, your complete worthlessness is now fully verified.
You're really, really slow.
Another pitiful attempt at an insult.
Nope. Just pointing out the truth.
That's hilarious coming from the idiot who thought 200 brain cells was a significant amount.
The longer you don't get it, the more you prove the truth of my statement.
/
Farm kids no longer alowed to work on family farms?
Another pitiful attempt at an insult.