Child Labor Restriction Bill [withdrawn]

[Democratic Hawk]

Child Labor Restriction Bill

Section 1: Applicability
1. This statute shall only apply in the District of Columbia and in federal territories which do not form part of any region.

Section 2: Definitions
1. The following definitions shall apply throughout this statute:
a.) A "school day" is defined as a day that contains more than two hours of classroom instruction.
b.) A "school week" is defined as any week (beginning noon Sunday) that contains two or more school days.
c.) "Work" is defined as receiving financial compensation for services rendered.

Section 3: Minors aged 15 to 17
1. Minors aged fifteen to seventeen years may not:
a.) Work more than 40 hours in a non-school week, and no more than 20 hours in a school week.
b.) Work more than 8 hours in a non-school day, and no more than 4 hours in a school day.
c.) Work more than 6 days in a non-school week, and no more than 4 days in a school week.

Section 4: Children aged less than 15
1. Employment of children aged less than fifteen years is prohibited, except those over the age of 13 years, who may work only as a newspaper carrier, and for no more than 10 hours in a week.

Section 5: Hours of Work
1. Employment of any person under the age of eighteen years between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m. is prohibited.

Section 6: Type of Employment
1. Employment of minors in any place that sells alcohol, except a supermarket or other general provisions store, is prohibited.
2. Employment of minors in work that requires the use of heavy machinery is prohibited.
3. The Secretary of the Treasury may additionally prohibit employment of minors in certain jobs that it considers hazardous as he or she finds necessary.

Section 7: Penalties
1. Any employer in violation of Sections 3, 5 or 6 shall be fined between $500 and $1000 for each infraction.
2. Any employer in violation of Section 4 shall be fined between $2000 and $10000 for each infraction.

Section 8: Exemptions
1. Parents may employ their own children to work in the home or at the place of their own business, except in prohibited types of employment specified in Section 6.
___________________________________________________________

Sponsor: Sen. Jake

[Jake]

I propose an amendment to remove Sections 3-5, and Clauses 2 & 3 of Section 6 and Clause 2 of Section 7, and rewrite Clause 1 of Section 7 to read:

Any employer in violation of Section 3 shall be fined $500 for each infraction.

And I motion to renumber the bill appropriately.

[Speed of Sound]

I find this bill to be of great importance. Our children must be portected, not only from employers, but greedy parents. This is especially important in the regions this covers, as Atlasian law enforcement and general survellience has always been a uncertain area for me. I urge my colleagues to ensure the safety of our children (well, kind of our children ) by voting aye on the bill, and nay on Jakes amendment, which practically eliminates the bill anyway.

[Jake]

My arguments. Supporters of the bill can attempt to refute them, or ignore them like before and look like jokes.

Section 1: Applicability
1. This statute shall only apply in the District of Columbia and in federal territories which do not form part of any region.

Section 2: Definitions
1. The following definitions shall apply throughout this statute:
a.) A "school day" is defined as a day that contains more than two hours of classroom instruction.
b.) A "school week" is defined as any week (beginning noon Sunday) that contains two or more school days.
c.) "Work" is defined as receiving financial compensation for services rendered.

Section 3: Minors aged 15 to 17
1. Minors aged fifteen to seventeen years may not:
a.) Work more than 40 hours in a non-school week, and no more than 20 hours in a school week.
Would cause many businesses (any that employs teens) to A. hire more workers, increasing training costs and lowering efficiency for a period; or B. restrict the hours that they are open, lowering profit and decreasing tax revenue.
b.) Work more than 8 hours in a non-school day, and no more than 4 hours in a school day.
See above. Personal anecdote, I know this would remove any possibility of the theater where I work getting a movie over about 2 hours, as there's no time to fit prepping for a movie, the movie playing, and cleaning up into four hours. I'm guessing that's true for a lot of businesses. I also don't see why restrictions need be in place for non-school days. Do you think teens can't conclude that working 12 hours on a weekend might not be in their best interest?
c.) Work more than 6 days in a non-school week, and no more than 4 days in a school week.
I don't see why this needs to be in place either. Why shouldn't teens work every day in a week with or without school?

Section 4: Children aged less than 15
1. Employment of children aged less than fifteen years is prohibited, except those over the age of 13 years, who may work only as a newspaper carrier, and for no more than 10 hours in a week.
I don't see why this need be in place either. Few businesses would hire an under 15 to work (mostly because of transportation issues), but if there is a job they can do, why not let them?

Section 5: Hours of Work
1. Employment of any person under the age of eighteen years between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m. is prohibited.
Personal anecdote again, this would remove any possibility of showing most movies twice on weekend nights where I work, as we almost always get out at 12-12:30, sometimes 1. I don't see what the harm in that is.

Section 6: Type of Employment
1. Employment of minors in any place that sells alcohol, except a supermarket or other general provisions store, is prohibited.
I can see why this would be included.
2. Employment of minors in work that requires the use of heavy machinery is prohibited.
This too, though it should be decided by the worker and employer whether the worker is capable of handling such work. Define "heavy machinery" too.
3. The Secretary of the Treasury may additionally prohibit employment of minors in certain jobs that it considers hazardous as he or she finds necessary.
Horrendous discretionary power.

Section 7: Penalties
1. Any employer in violation of Sections 3, 5 or 6 shall be fined between $500 and $1000 for each infraction.
2. Any employer in violation of Section 4 shall be fined between $2000 and $10000 for each infraction.
Extremely stiff penalties too.

Section 8: Exemptions
1. Parents may employ their own children to work in the home or at the place of their own business, except in prohibited types of employment specified in Section 6.
Now, why can teens work for their parents in these jobs, but not for someone who isn't a parent? Why not legal relatives, or family friends, etc?

In summary, I see no reason why this bill is needed at all. It's a blatant attempt to put some senator's subjective preferences into law, without good reason. Pretty stupid.

[Dr. Cynic]

Sorry Jake, I think we need to actually protect our youngsters, instead of thier employers.

I vote Nay on your amendment.

[Jake]

Sorry Jake, I think we need to actually protect our youngsters, instead of thier employers.

Answer the points I raised, specifically why teens shouldn't be allowed to agree to a work contract that violates the provisions of this act.

[jerusalemcar5]

I agree we need to protect our youngsters as well.  From fascist discriminatory government officials.

AYE.

[MasterJedi]

Seriously people, pay attention. (Especially those that have already been in the Senate for 2 months):

NO VOTES START UNTIL THE VP/PPT/DEAN OPEN THEM UP. Geeze.

[Dr. Cynic]

Let me see here...

Section 1: Applicability
1. This statute shall only apply in the District of Columbia and in federal territories which do not form part of any region.

Section 2: Definitions
1. The following definitions shall apply throughout this statute:
a.) A "school day" is defined as a day that contains more than two hours of classroom instruction.
b.) A "school week" is defined as any week (beginning noon Sunday) that contains two or more school days.
c.) "Work" is defined as receiving financial compensation for services rendered.

Section 3: Minors aged 15 to 17
1. Minors aged fifteen to seventeen years may not:
a.) Work more than 40 hours in a non-school week, and no more than 20 hours in a school week.
Would cause many businesses (any that employs teens) to A. hire more workers, increasing training costs and lowering efficiency for a period; or B. restrict the hours that they are open, lowering profit and decreasing tax revenue. - I don't see why many businesses would target the under 18 crowd unless they were a fast food joint, or other major entry level chain anyway
b.) Work more than 8 hours in a non-school day, and no more than 4 hours in a school day.
See above. Personal anecdote, I know this would remove any possibility of the theater where I work getting a movie over about 2 hours, as there's no time to fit prepping for a movie, the movie playing, and cleaning up into four hours. I'm guessing that's true for a lot of businesses. I also don't see why restrictions need be in place for non-school days. Do you think teens can't conclude that working 12 hours on a weekend might not be in their best interest? - Because alot of teens that I know, just aren't smart enough to conclude that... I know it comes as a shock. And, I spent some time when I was 16 working at a movie theater... What theater is still working that late at night... Maybe they should shift the teen workers differently?
c.) Work more than 6 days in a non-school week, and no more than 4 days in a school week.
I don't see why this needs to be in place either. Why shouldn't teens work every day in a week with or without school? - Because most teens I know can't balance that kind of workload. Sorry to say, but you'd have alot of teens quitting those jobs, resulting in inefficency, and the constant training of the workforce if it's based solely on the teenagers.

Section 4: Children aged less than 15
1. Employment of children aged less than fifteen years is prohibited, except those over the age of 13 years, who may work only as a newspaper carrier, and for no more than 10 hours in a week.
I don't see why this need be in place either. Few businesses would hire an under 15 to work (mostly because of transportation issues), but if there is a job they can do, why not let them? - My brother got his job as a newspaper carrier at the age of 11 and at nearly 16, he still has it... It's an hour a day, six days a week... I also think that this clause just covers the bases.

Section 5: Hours of Work
1. Employment of any person under the age of eighteen years between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m. is prohibited.
Personal anecdote again, this would remove any possibility of showing most movies twice on weekend nights where I work, as we almost always get out at 12-12:30, sometimes 1. I don't see what the harm in that is. - Actually, I think this should be amended to weekdays... I see no problem with a late shift on weekends.

Section 6: Type of Employment
1. Employment of minors in any place that sells alcohol, except a supermarket or other general provisions store, is prohibited.
I can see why this would be included. - No qualms
2. Employment of minors in work that requires the use of heavy machinery is prohibited.
This too, though it should be decided by the worker and employer whether the worker is capable of handling such work. Define "heavy machinery" too. - This is just too vague... I can't comment either way
3. The Secretary of the Treasury may additionally prohibit employment of minors in certain jobs that it considers hazardous as he or she finds necessary.
Horrendous discretionary power. - I don't think that it is as horrendous as you do... I don't really think that this will be much of an issue.

Section 7: Penalties
1. Any employer in violation of Sections 3, 5 or 6 shall be fined between $500 and $1000 for each infraction.
2. Any employer in violation of Section 4 shall be fined between $2000 and $10000 for each infraction.
Extremely stiff penalties too. - Nothing wrong with jabbing a fat cat for breaking the law, considering, most of the teenage employers are major corporations

Section 8: Exemptions
1. Parents may employ their own children to work in the home or at the place of their own business, except in prohibited types of employment specified in Section 6.
Now, why can teens work for their parents in these jobs, but not for someone who isn't a parent? Why not legal relatives, or family friends, etc? - Ok, there's a loophole here, but it should be amended to include relatives, but probably not family friends.

In summary, I see no reason why this bill is needed at all. It's a blatant attempt to put some senator's subjective preferences into law, without good reason. Pretty stupid. - Maybe, but it raises an important issue that needs to be addressed... It's not my bill, but, I'm just as willing to go to the blackboard and work it out for a compromise. Just calling it "stupid" is no way to resolve it.

If the amendments you have made fail, I'll still be willing to work with you. If they pass, I'm still willing to compromise. I don't know how willing you are to work it out, other than to just strike it completely, but my offer stands. I encourage my fellow Senators to come to the table as well.

[Jake]

I don't see why many businesses would target the under 18 crowd unless they were a fast food joint, or other major entry level chain anyway

It's labor that will work for minimum wage or something not much higher. Let's face it, we live in a world where teens want money, money that they can get from working a job.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bit of background. We have two screens, just a small locally owned theater, we have about 12 teen employees, four adult supervisors, and then a bunch of older, mostly women, volunteers who run the theater. There is no business without the teen employees working. Most theaters are open at midnight, certainly the larger multi-plexes are, and we are on some weekends, usually because we'll have a 2-3 hour movie like King Kong, which starts at 6:30 and then again at 9:30. I certainly don't mind working that late, because I'm not in bed on weekends before 1 or 2 anyway, and no one seriously complains about it, because they explicitly tell you when you start that some nights you'll be working until 1AM. If you don't like late hours, you can sign up just to work afternoons.

As for weekdays, it's simply impossible to work less than four hours most nights, unless you have two shorter movies playing, simply because you get there at 5:30 to open and get started, the movie runs 6:30-8:30, and you spend an hour cleaning and prepping for the next day. Bringing in two shifts is simply not an option.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They shouldn't have the job if they can't balance the work load. Without these laws right now, McDonalds is not shedding employees every day. Why? because they know it's poor business sense to run your employees into the gorund. But, why shouldn't an employee be able to decide to work a job that calls for them to work this much?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, few businesses have use for employees who are unable to drive (DC's driving age is 16.5 for provisional license, 17 for Full license BTW). This clause merely restricts those who can work from working. Those that can't are already excluded.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It gives the Sec. of Treasury the power the block employment based on what they define as hazardous. I prefer the legislature actually decides on our laws.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm guessing not. Considering the fines will be levied against owners of the franchise or business, you'll won't be hitting McDonalds or Burger King, rather those who own and operate those places, or even worse, small businesses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some parents would just as soon over work their teen as some random employee, or would expect such work in a family business or such. In short, there's either no reason for the exception or there's no reason for the law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 3 and 5 are the worst, and I'd support the passage of this bill if both were removed.

[Democratic Hawk]

I hereby open the vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Child Labor Restriction Bill

Section 1: Applicability
1. This statute shall only apply in the District of Columbia and in federal territories which do not form part of any region.

Section 2: Definitions
1. The following definitions shall apply throughout this statute:
a.) A "school day" is defined as a day that contains more than two hours of classroom instruction.
b.) A "school week" is defined as any week (beginning noon Sunday) that contains two or more school days.
c.) "Work" is defined as receiving financial compensation for services rendered.

Section 3: Type of Employment
1. Employment of minors in any place that sells alcohol, except a supermarket or other general provisions store, is prohibited.

Section 4: Penalties
1. Any employer in violation of Section 3 shall be fined $500 for each infraction.

Section 5: Exemptions
1. Parents may employ their own children to work in the home or at the place of their own business, except in prohibited types of employment specified in Section 3.

'Hawk'

[Speed of Sound]

NAY

[Jake]

Aye

[Dr. Cynic]

Some of the amendments have merit, but there are others that I am seriously unsatisfied with, so I'll Abstain.

[jerusalemcar5]

NAY

Fascist.  AYE.

[MasterJedi]

Nay, and please stop acting like an annoying kid Jcar. Or at least act like you aren't here, thanks.

[Јas]

I, like Doctor Cynic, would be willing to see some movement towards Jake's position, but feel that Jake's amendment is too far.

Nay

[Speed of Sound]

NAY

Fascist.  AYE.

Youre the senates Ted Kennedy, except he tries to stay sober while on the senate floor. Clearly that was too much to ask of you.

[Bdub]

Abstain.  Some parts are good, but I think it might go a little to far.

[Dr. Cynic]

I think that after thinking it over, I can't abstain from this... I now wish to vote Nay, but I'm still willing to come to the bargaining table.

[WMS]

Nay, for much the same reasons as Jas stated.

[jerusalemcar5]

NAY

Fascist.  AYE.

Youre the senates Ted Kennedy, except he tries to stay sober while on the senate floor. Clearly that was too much to ask of you.

[Dr. Cynic]

NAY

Fascist.  AYE.

Youre the senates Ted Kennedy, except he tries to stay sober while on the senate floor. Clearly that was too much to ask of you.

Ok, this is getting a little rediculous... Aren't you two members of the same party? Oh wait, we all are... Grow up and stop the childish insults of each other.

[Democratic Hawk]

Nay . I concur with Senators Jas, Dr Cynic and WMS. I'm open to giving due consideration to any alternative amendments should they be proposed, however

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

With 2 'Ayes' 6 'Nays' and 1 Abstention, this amendment has failed

'Hawk'