The most Popular Posts of the past seven days.
Jun 12, 2009
Working Kids
Alabama's newspapers and websites this morning include the story of a fifteen year old who is recovering after falling into an auger machine at a factory in Ashford...an auger machine that turns wood into wood chips. The boy was working with his father at the facility. It is amazing that the boy didn't lose a leg...emergency workers had to take the machine apart to remove him from it. We're happy to report the boy's condition has improved, but the bigger question is why the boy was working there in the first place. State labor law is pretty clear on the under 16 crowd:
When you are 14 or 15: You can work in an office, grocery store, retail store, restaurant, movie theater, or amusement park. When you are 16 or 17: You can work in any job that is not hazardous. Prohibited jobs include work in mining, logging, meatpacking, roofing, excavation or demolition. You cannot drive a car
or forklift. Also, you cannot work with explosives, radioactive materials, or most power-driven machines.
My Libertarian friends might argue those restrictions aren't needed, that we should let the marketplace decide. State officials are investigating the accident and will determine if any violations occurred, but what do you think? Should parents be allowed to let their kids wherever they want?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As one of your Libertarian friends I would never argue that. As the mother of a 16-year-old son I would never allow him to work around dangerous equipment like an auger, even if his dad or I worked in such a place. Kids are reckless, have short attention spans and think they're invincible at that age. A dangerous combination on its own...even more so when you add something like an auger into the mix.
ReplyDeleteI wish this kid a speedy recovery.
The boy's fortunate to be alive. He could've been mulch. Industrial accidents are truly horrible. While in EMS school, I recalled one of my instructors telling about a man pinned to a wall by a materials transporter.
ReplyDeleteEMS knew he'd die, and the victim did too, although he was fully cognizant and conversational, and apparently in little pain.
His wife was called to the scene. They spoke, kissed and embraced... and when the loader was removed from pinning the man to the wall, he died instantly.
It's interesting, Tim, your question and the so far, solitary "Libertarian" response.
Parents allowing children to work versus children working with parents. Do those points in any way intersect with children operating their own business enterprise?
The issue here, is of juvenile employees... NOT juvenile business owners.
Could, for example, a juvenile work on a 1099 basis (as a business owner/contractor) in such an hazardous environment?
I would imagine that, from a strict "Libertarian" perspective, the state would have NO "right" to tell a parent what they could or could not do, which would include how to, or how not to raise a child.
"Privacy," you know.
Thus, a child could tell a parent to "take a hike," and be well within THEIR own individual "Libertarian" rights.
Suddenly, the "child" is NOT a child.
So, if the child is not a child, they are an adult. If they're an adult... "good night, and good luck!"
The law is clear. Minors cannot work around dangerous equipment.
ReplyDeleteThe parents and the employer are all at fault.
While I have no philosophical disagreement with our state law, I do foresee the possibility that at some time, some enterprising young man (or girl) with the assistance of an astute and keen attorney, COULD file suit against the state and the issue could land before our state supreme court.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I do see some problem with an unclear part of our law simply because it specifically does NOT address those aged 18 or under whom may themselves be entrepreneurs, operating their own enterprise for their own benefit, whom are NOT employees.
The Code of Alabama 1975 in Title 25 (Industrial Relations and Labor) Chapter 8 (Child Labor) Section 32 states in part that "... the employment of minors..." (emphasis added).
Employment is the KEY word. Employment is DIFFERENTIATED from ENTREPRENEURSHIP - or if you prefer, business ownership.
According to the Internal Revenue Service, an EMPLOYEE and a CONTRACTOR are two completely DIFFERENT categories, with two different operational parameters.
Further, the use of word "suffer" in Section 33 is the somewhat dated term which means "tolerate."
Again, "toleration" is a word which could only be used by a employer, as one might in a supervisory capacity toward an employee. It is clearly NOT a word that one would use to describe oneself were one searching for opportunity.
Typically, the IRS says that a three-pronged test consisting of 1.) behavior, 2.) finances, and 3.) type of relationship determine whether a person is an employee or independent contractor. They further write that "the general rule is that an individual is an independent contractor if you, the person for whom the services are performed, have the right to control or direct only the result of the work and not the means and methods of accomplishing the result."
While the code's section is written well, it does have a glaringly obvious loophole, and presumes an employee/employer relationship. The law specifically does NOT address an underage business owner's relationship or the legality of their working in such environments as Independent Contractors.
The answer to this, Kevin, is simply to not hire any underage "independent contractor" for any dangerous work.
ReplyDeleteI'd hire a 15 year old to babysit. I wouldn't hire a 15 year old to take down a tall tree.
Also, an entrepreneur should have a business license and file the proper tax forms. Will the state, county or municipality give such a license to a minor who is "self-employed" and operates dangerous machinery? If they do, it seems to me that they would be opening a legal can of worms.
I think that the legislature should further define the law so as to absolutely prohibit anyone under an age certain to work in certain environments.
ReplyDeleteFor certain, that would solve the problematic issue.
And, just to make the readers aware, I DO know of some "under-aged" entrepreneurs (as we have defined herein) whose legitimate business operations - for which they pay federal, state and local taxes and purchase licenses and EXPENSIVE equipment (one piece was $40,000, and they paid CASH) - have provided for them, their families and others.