Child Labor Laws

[ydoaPs]

SB 222 – This act modifies the child labor laws. It eliminates the prohibition on employment of children under age fourteen. Restrictions on the number of hours and restrictions on when a child may work during the day are also removed. It also repeals the requirement that a child ages fourteen or fifteen obtain a work certificate or work permit in order to be employed. Children under sixteen will also be allowed to work in any capacity in a motel, resort or hotel where sleeping accommodations are furnished. It also removes the authority of the director of the Division of Labor Standards to inspect employers who employ children and to require them to keep certain records for children they employ. It also repeals the presumption that the presence of a child in a workplace is evidence of employment.

 

http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=4124271

 

 

I have no idea why this is needed. Anyone got the scoop?

[Moontanman]

Capitalists need those child laborers?

[Mr Skeptic]

As I understand it it was the unions that wanted to eliminate child labor (and prison labor too) since it represented a source of cheap labor and undermined their bargaining position. I'm not convinced it was a good idea.

[CaptainPanic]

The primary occupation of anyone under 16 should be education... and only education.

 

Children of age 14-16 don't have time to work. The go to school. Then they do homework. And whatever time is left should be spent doing sports, doing their first futile attempts to flirt or just hanging out with friends.

 

Of course, I immediately admit that it's not very profitable to send kids to school, on the short term. And why look at the long term if the next quarterly report is only weeks away?

[CharonY]

Actually, part-time work for kids between 14-16 is not that unusual and is imo a rather good idea to give them a first taste of real life, provided the workload does not impact on their time to get education.

[ydoaPs]

Actually, part-time work for kids between 14-16 is not that unusual and is imo a rather good idea to give them a first taste of real life, provided the workload does not impact on their time to get education.

This bill removes the hours restriction which would make it more likely to impact their ability to learn in school. It also removes the age restriction of 14.

[jackson33]

The Missouri State Bill 222, is completely with in the authority of that State, as it would be any State. I think you will find far less restrictive laws in many States...

 

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2011/02/jane_cunningham_child_labor_missouri_bill.php

[Moontanman]

The Missouri State Bill 222, is completely with in the authority of that State, as it would be any State. I think you will find far less restrictive laws in many States...

 

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2011/02/jane_cunningham_child_labor_missouri_bill.php

 

 

Jackson are you seriously suggesting that states rights trump the federal government protecting individuals? Do you really think that states can allow children to be denied basic rights because they cannot vote? Surely slave labor is outside the realm of states rights? Does capitalism really trump common decency?

 

If a state decides to kill all the green eyed people is that ok? Where do you draw the limits?

 

As I understand it it was the unions that wanted to eliminate child labor (and prison labor too) since it represented a source of cheap labor and undermined their bargaining position. I'm not convinced it was a good idea.

 

 

So you're not sure keeping children out of the dangerous factories and mines was a good idea? You might be correct, when I worked in a factory i was faced with many scenarios where a small child could have crawled back inside one of the machine to effect repairs much easier than taking it completely apart to fix, of course the high voltage capacitors and hot surfaces might have been a problem for the little ones.. oh and yeah they can work in smaller tunnels in the mines than adults can not to mention all you have to pay them is pennies i mean after all they are just children, how much can they be worth?

 

http://www2.needham.k12.ma.us/nhs/cur/Baker_00/2002_p7/ak_p7/childlabor.html

 

http://www.eiu.edu/eiutps/childhood.php

 

According to wiki children as young as 4 were employed in factories and mines, i thought this was ridiculous at first, no way a 4 year old as I know them could do factory work but then I thought if I had no morals or feelings i could take a cattle prod and sugar cubes and train a 4yo to do almost anything....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour

Edited February 15, 2011 by Moontanman

[Mr Skeptic]

So you're not sure keeping children out of the dangerous factories and mines was a good idea? You might be correct, when I worked in a factory i was faced with many scenarios where a small child could have crawled back inside one of the machine to effect repairs much easier than taking it completely apart to fix, of course the high voltage capacitors and hot surfaces might have been a problem for the little ones.. oh and yeah they can work in smaller tunnels in the mines than adults can not to mention all you have to pay them is pennies i mean after all they are just children, how much can they be worth?

 

http://www2.needham....childlabor.html

 

http://www.eiu.edu/e...s/childhood.php

 

According to wiki children as young as 4 were employed in factories and mines, i thought this was ridiculous at first, no way a 4 year old as I know them could do factory work but then I thought if I had no morals or feelings i could take a cattle prod and sugar cubes and train a 4yo to do almost anything....

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Child_labour

 

And this has anything to do with child labor how? It was not only children who were abused such -- worker safety and worker compensation are separate issues.

[Moontanman]

And this has anything to do with child labor how? It was not only children who were abused such -- worker safety and worker compensation are separate issues.

 

Is exploiting a child who cannot say no a separate issue?

[jackson33]

Jackson are you seriously suggesting that states rights trump the federal government protecting individuals? Do you really think that states can allow children to be denied basic rights because they cannot vote? Surely slave labor is outside the realm of states rights? Does capitalism really trump common decency? [/Quote]

 

Moon; What in the world are you talking about. The author of the thread asked for clarity on the article and I offered it. It's a STATE BILL, not a Federal.

 

The Amendment* which many people feel is part of the Constitution, has simply never been ratified and Child Labor, for the most part, remains a States prerogative. It seems to me rights are being denied young folks, whom just might want to help out around the farm, help their single Mom with the budget or just start getting some work experience. My first job came at age 9, I had full time Summer Job from age 13 and most kids in my day were working by 15 or so.

 

Until January 11, 1864, Slavery WAS a State Right, Congress doing it the right way by submitting an Amendment (13th) to abolish slavery, was ratified and it became illegal in all States. What the Child Labor Amendment, during the Progressive era US, wanted control over the States for all labor laws for any person under 18. There is no analogy there...

 

The primary occupation of anyone under 16 should be education... and only education.[/Quote]

 

CR; Why? Work ethics and what's achieved by working is as much a part of life as education. Many, many kids that worked while under 16, also worked there way through College and many more that didn't, couldn't handle both. Today kids are coddled through K-12, then through College and now there given Health Care by law through their parent to at least 26 or if they will work for Government get their education paid for, in part. I don't know which is worse, people like this being in Government or the damage done to those young folks.

 

 

 

*A lot of people, believe the "Child Labor Amendment" (1924) is part of the Constitution for some reason. Although still active (needs 10 more States to become law) it has never been ratified.

 

the Child Labor Amendment

 

Section 1. The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.

 

Section 2. The power of the several States is unimpaired by this article except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Congress.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Labor_Amendment

[rigney]

Jackson are you seriously suggesting that states rights trump the federal government protecting individuals? Do you really think that states can allow children to be denied basic rights because they cannot vote? Surely slave labor is outside the realm of states rights? Does capitalism really trump common decency?

 

If a state decides to kill all the green eyed people is that ok? Where do you draw the limits?

 

 

 

 

So you're not sure keeping children out of the dangerous factories and mines was a good idea? You might be correct, when I worked in a factory i was faced with many scenarios where a small child could have crawled back inside one of the machine to effect repairs much easier than taking it completely apart to fix, of course the high voltage capacitors and hot surfaces might have been a problem for the little ones.. oh and yeah they can work in smaller tunnels in the mines than adults can not to mention all you have to pay them is pennies i mean after all they are just children, how much can they be worth?

 

http://www2.needham.k12.ma.us/nhs/cur/Baker_00/2002_p7/ak_p7/childlabor.html

 

http://www.eiu.edu/eiutps/childhood.php

 

According to wiki children as young as 4 were employed in factories and mines, i thought this was ridiculous at first, no way a 4 year old as I know them could do factory work but then I thought if I had no morals or feelings i could take a cattle prod and sugar cubes and train a 4yo to do almost anything....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour

 

Where in "hell" did you last hear the word "labour" unless used by some radical leftwing orginization like ACORN, trying to tear our government apart? You have never ever, seen a 10, 12, 14, or even a 16 year old, walk into a ficility decked out, and ready to go to work, unles it was a fast food carry out. I'm a hell of a lot older than you and have never seen it. Yes, there was a time when "child labor" laws had no standard. You could work one of these kids until they dropped, but it rarely happened. The Simon Lagrees of that era weren't totally heartless nor dumb. Even a stupid hunter doesn't beat his best hunting dogs. Today, you sit on your ass until you retire, letting the companies make the innovations an decisions, thus making you job even less important, but the pay still goes up. And Kids? they aren't involved at all. We are overly protective by sending them off to school, hoping many will become the next generation of lazy assed bastards wanting something for nothing. Don't we have enough of them right now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)

Edited February 15, 2011 by rigney

[Mr Skeptic]

Is exploiting a child who cannot say no a separate issue?

 

No. I'm against forcing a person to work against their will. It really doesn't matter to me whether that person is a child or not. How come people act like things are only terrible when done to children?

[Moontanman]

Where in "hell" did you last hear the word "labour" unless used by some radical leftwing orginization like ACORN, trying to tear our government apart? You have never ever, seen a 10, 12, 14, or even a 16 year old, walk into a ficility decked out, and ready to go to work, unles it was a fast food carry out. I'm a hell of a lot older than you and have never seen it. Yes, there was a time when "child labor" laws had no standard. You could work one of these kids until they dropped, but it rarely happened. The Simon Lagrees of that era weren't totally heartless nor dumb. Even a stupid hunter doesn't beat his best hunting dogs. Today, you sit on your ass until you retire, letting the companies make the innovations an decisions, thus making you job even less important, but the pay still goes up. And Kids? they aren't involved at all. We are overly protective by sending them off to school, hoping many will become the next generation of lazy assed bastards wanting something for nothing. Don't we have enough of them right now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)

 

 

Fuck it, there is no point...

I will post this much of what i originally wrote

 

now I look at life from a a rather unique perspective neither fish nor fowl, not Conservative. not Liberal, i go with the truth and the truth never resides in either extreme but one thing i know absolutely for sure is that children have to be protected from adults, there is simply no way to be a civilized nation unless we protect our children from exploitation.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Moontanman

[CaptainPanic]

The primary occupation of anyone under 16 should be education... and only education.

CR; Why? Work ethics and what's achieved by working is as much a part of life as education. Many, many kids that worked while under 16, also worked there way through College and many more that didn't, couldn't handle both. Today kids are coddled through K-12, then through College and now there given Health Care by law through their parent to at least 26 or if they will work for Government get their education paid for, in part. I don't know which is worse, people like this being in Government or the damage done to those young folks.

There's plenty of time to develop work ethics. It can wait 2 more years. Having social institutions doesn't turn an entire population into wussies. In the age of 14-16, young people can learn a lot more by not being employed in mind-numbing jobs... you seem to forget that at the age of 14-16, kids have no diploma, no chance for an educated job. They'll be doing physically demanding jobs, because at that age, that's all they're good for. They cannot develop complicated things like creativity if they sit in school, then go to tire themselves to earn a little money, and then making a trade-off between a social life and sleep.

 

You seem to forget the importance of material gain to people. If you do not limit the amount of time that children can work, then adults will somehow find a way to make children work a lot more. Also, a 14 year old will often think short-term: they prefer material gain (an iPhone) over a good education. You have to protect them against themselves and the adults. You must protect the children against short term thinking.

 

Physically tired sleep-deprived youngsters simply cannot develop into productive adults. But if you envision the life of a factory worker... a drone, doing the same job every day, then I completely agree. You might as well lower the age at which the compulsory education or compulsory attendance ends. Kids will love you for it - they hate school anyway.

 

Actually, I don't really understand you Americans... You already accept that you work much more than Europeans (less holiday, longer working weeks). You accept that you have practically no rights as an employee, and that you can be fired on the spot for no good reason (the so called at-will principle - unheard of in Europe). You accept that you have no healthcare, and you're proud of it. American education is very expensive and receives little state sponsoring, and you say that's good - compared to European education which is practically for free. And now you support child labor, and claim it's healthy for the development of children??

 

It's quite difficult to discuss the economy with you guys, because I feel quite an alien (a morally superior alien, too)...

[Mr Skeptic]

Fuck it, there is no point...

I will post this much of what i originally wrote

 

now I look at life from a a rather unique perspective neither fish nor fowl, not Conservative. not Liberal, i go with the truth and the truth never resides in either extreme but one thing i know absolutely for sure is that children have to be protected from adults, there is simply no way to be a civilized nation unless we protect our children from exploitation.

 

I agree, and I will add that adults have to be protected from adults, there is simply no way to be a civilized nation unless we protect our adults from exploitation.

[CaptainPanic]

children have to be protected from adults, there is simply no way to be a civilized nation unless we protect our children from exploitation.

adults have to be protected from adults, there is simply no way to be a civilized nation unless we protect our adults from exploitation.

 

In other words: we need some rules to make sure that the population doesn't get screwed or bullied... and that's what we call civilization.

 

I completely agree.

 

We gained all those rights in great moments. Revolutions that we still celebrate. Leaders whose statues decorate central squares in capital cities. We got the rights, because it was a matter of principle...

And now, motivated by practical concerns or just fear, we give up those rights again.

 

Fear from a bad economy (give up labor rights) and fear from terrorism (give up other rights)... We give away our civilization bit by bit...

History taught us that we will keep doing this, until some new great leader comes along, who gives it all back. And that will then be celebrated for the next couple of generations.

 

It's all the same thing. History tends to repeat itself.

[Saryctos]

In other words: we need some rules to make sure that the population doesn't get screwed or bullied... and that's what we call civilization.

 

I completely agree.

 

We gained all those rights in great moments. Revolutions that we still celebrate. Leaders whose statues decorate central squares in capital cities. We got the rights, because it was a matter of principle...

And now, motivated by practical concerns or just fear, we give up those rights again.

 

Fear from a bad economy (give up labor rights) and fear from terrorism (give up other rights)... We give away our civilization bit by bit...

History taught us that we will keep doing this, until some new great leader comes along, who gives it all back. And that will then be celebrated for the next couple of generations.

 

It's all the same thing. History tends to repeat itself.

 

Would you be willing to connect how regaining the right to work relates to losing one's rights?

[CaptainPanic]

Would you be willing to connect how regaining the right to work relates to losing one's rights?

Sure.

Work is not a right. But a proper reward for work is a right.

Slaves have work... But only free people get a proper reward for the work they do.

 

If you want to enable child labor - or at least lower the age limits - in a country with a few percent unemployment, then you basically just want to have different people to do existing jobs for less money. Instead of employing some unemployed guy, you employ a child. That means you lose (one bit at a time) the right to a proper reward for labor. The value of that particular job goes down, and so does the reward for it.

 

In principle, the unemployed people can take up the jobs that 14-16-year-olds would do. I mean, youngsters have no diplomas, and anyone can do the simplest jobs. But older unemployed people are simply too expensive, and that's why people wouldn't mind to employ kids.

 

The demand for child labor would instantly evaporate if the minimum wage for kids would be identical to the minimum wage of a 50-year-old.

[Moontanman]

No. I'm against forcing a person to work against their will. It really doesn't matter to me whether that person is a child or not. How come people act like things are only terrible when done to children?

 

 

I think it's mostly becasue children have no vioce when it comes to explotation, as i said before I could take a cattle prod and sugar cubes and teach a child to do anything, an adult might take the cattle prod and stick it up my ass.

 

However I agree that everyone really needs to be protected to some extent from other people who are just out to exploit others, (just being a soulless bastard who doesn't give a crap about anyone but himself shouldn't be the best way to success) adults have the capacity to make decisions, they might be wrong but at some point you have to allow people to take responsibility for themselves, our society for better or worse seems to have decided that responsibility for your actions comes with an arbitrary age instead of the older you are the more responsible you are.

 

If you provide no protection for anyone from the exploitation of others you will end up with psychopaths in charge (maybe that has already happened?)

 

Many people seem to think that they have the right to teach their children anything they want and some seem to think that using them to make money is ok as well but we as a society put limits on what adults can do with children, even their parents, personally i don't think the restrictions are strict enough, but it's not for me to say but the precedence of protecting children from adults is already on the books, now it's just a matter of how far we want to take those restrictions...

 

Great post BTW Captainpanic!

Edited February 16, 2011 by Moontanman

[Mr Skeptic]

I think it's mostly becasue children have no vioce when it comes to explotation, as i said before I could take a cattle prod and sugar cubes and teach a child to do anything, an adult might take the cattle prod and stick it up my ass.

 

But we've already done that, minus the sugar cubes, to adults, and they were not able to defend themselves against it. Eventually, we decided it was a bad idea and outlawed slavery.

 

However I agree that everyone really needs to be protected to some extent from other people who are just out to exploit others, (just being a soulless bastard who doesn't give a crap about anyone but himself shouldn't be the best way to success) adults have the capacity to make decisions, they might be wrong but at some point you have to allow people to take responsibility for themselves, our society for better or worse seems to have decided that responsibility for your actions comes with an arbitrary age instead of the older you are the more responsible you are.

 

If you provide no protection for anyone from the exploitation of others you will end up with psychopaths in charge (maybe that has already happened?)

 

Many people seem to think that they have the right to teach their children anything they want and some seem to think that using them to make money is ok as well but we as a society put limits on what adults can do with children, even their parents, personally i don't think the restrictions are strict enough, but it's not for me to say but the precedence of protecting children from adults is already on the books, now it's just a matter of how far we want to take those restrictions...

 

And here is the heart of the matter: for almost every right and protection we want to grant to children, we want to and for the most part already have, granted that right to people regardless of whether they are children or adults. But children do need additional protection -- from themselves and their parents. Back in the day, or even now where allowed, many parents would send their children off to work whatever job they could for whatever money they could get. This of course is a problem since that would sabotage the child's ability to get educated so they can be even more productive members of society.

 

However, I don't think entirely outlawing child labor was the right answer. Many children nowadays go around thinking they have the right not to work, they don't want to work, and they don't want to grow up and have to work, and they don't understand responsibility. No work experience, no work ethic, no desire to work. And part of this I would say would be due to their being forbidden to work. Other children are controlled by their parents because their parents are their only possible source of money, and not only have we allowed that but made it the law. Yet others get a feeling of entitlement because their parents must provide them with everything. Why not simply ensure they get paid fairly and work limited hours, maybe no more than 2 or 4 hours per day? Then they could gain work experience, some responsibility, and realize the value of things. Surely a little bit of work wouldn't ruin their education nor even their fun?

[Moontanman]

But we've already done that, minus the sugar cubes, to adults, and they were not able to defend themselves against it. Eventually, we decided it was a bad idea and outlawed slavery.

 

Good thing we did outlaw slavery, at some point slaves always seem to rebel and that would nave been a very bad thing but children are defenseless and are unlikely to rise up against their oppressors.

 

And here is the heart of the matter: for almost every right and protection we want to grant to children, we want to and for the most part already have, granted that right to people regardless of whether they are children or adults. But children do need additional protection -- from themselves and their parents. Back in the day, or even now where allowed, many parents would send their children off to work whatever job they could for whatever money they could get. This of course is a problem since that would sabotage the child's ability to get educated so they can be even more productive members of society.

 

Agreed

 

However, I don't think entirely outlawing child labor was the right answer. Many children nowadays go around thinking they have the right not to work, they don't want to work, and they don't want to grow up and have to work, and they don't understand responsibility. No work experience, no work ethic, no desire to work. And part of this I would say would be due to their being forbidden to work. Other children are controlled by their parents because their parents are their only possible source of money, and not only have we allowed that but made it the law. Yet others get a feeling of entitlement because their parents must provide them with everything. Why not simply ensure they get paid fairly and work limited hours, maybe no more than 2 or 4 hours per day? Then they could gain work experience, some responsibility, and realize the value of things. Surely a little bit of work wouldn't ruin their education nor even their fun?

 

I don't think it should be outlawed but it needs to be monitored very closely by someone who's finger is not in the pie so to speak. While I have a giant mistrust of the government in many if not most things i don't think anyone else has the capacity to do this successfully, whether they do it right or not is problematic and subject to how closely we as citizens hold the gov responsible.

 

I worked my whole life, it never hurt me but it was generally tailored to fit around my school work, if i remember correctly there was a limited number hours i could work, not sure if it was a law or just the employer being socially responsible (it can happen) but the pay issue is where the abuse begins i think, if a child has to be paid the same minimum wage as an adult fewer children will be working and the ones that do will be paid a reasonable wage. I think 16 is as young as a child should be officially employed but even then hours should be limited.

 

My boys mowed lawns and did odd jobs around the neighborhood from around 10 or so but they did it as they needed money it was not required, requiring a kid to do something is the best way to keep them from doing it, lol There are ways to raise children that don't involve cattle prods or sugar cubes...

[Saryctos]

Sure.

Work is not a right. But a proper reward for work is a right.

Slaves have work... But only free people get a proper reward for the work they do.

I dare say that through the freedom of association that being allowed to voluntarily enter into a labor agreement should be considered a right.

 

If you want to enable child labor - or at least lower the age limits - in a country with a few percent unemployment, then you basically just want to have different people to do existing jobs for less money. Instead of employing some unemployed guy, you employ a child. That means you lose (one bit at a time) the right to a proper reward for labor. The value of that particular job goes down, and so does the reward for it.

I want people to have less restrictions on the ability to make their own choices. You basically just want to restrict the labor force to keep wages inflated by choking out potential competition.(Sure is easy to state someone's opinion for them isn't it?)

 

I'm afraid we'll just have to disagree on the second part there. A proper reward for labor isn't set in stone, 'nor is there reason to suggest that wages for a position should be arbitrarily sticky to previous amounts. This is something I hear a lot of from the local unions (SE Michigan), and it never seems to be justified by anything other than personal conviction. Is your position on this particular issue the same when it comes to reduced wages due to increased automation instead of children laborers?

 

In principle, the unemployed people can take up the jobs that 14-16-year-olds would do. I mean, youngsters have no diplomas, and anyone can do the simplest jobs. But older unemployed people are simply too expensive, and that's why people wouldn't mind to employ kids.

Not all unemployed folks have diplomas either. The age of an employee does not grant them an age adjusted wage(age discrimination laws aside), these kids would be just like any other employee. They may think they're entitled to a "living wage" because they have a family, and might be more willing to negotiate a higher pay, but there is no universal pay increase just because you've been around the sun a few more times.

 

The demand for child labor would instantly evaporate if the minimum wage for kids would be identical to the minimum wage of a 50-year-old.

Explain this one for me, as I would strongly disagree the assertion that 50-year-olds are more likely to be hired than 16-year-olds for the same wages.

[ydoaPs]

Explain this one for me, as I would strongly disagree the assertion that 50-year-olds are more likely to be hired than 16-year-olds for the same wages.

Perhaps he's talking about employment locations that are padded with bubble wrap and have no stairs.

[Moontanman]

I dare say that through the freedom of association that being allowed to voluntarily enter into a labor agreement should be considered a right.

 

Yes, a right that adults have, not children.

 

I want people to have less restrictions on the ability to make their own choices. You basically just want to restrict the labor force to keep wages inflated by choking out potential competition.(Sure is easy to state someone's opinion for them isn't it?)

 

No, i think it's to protect children from being exploited

 

I'm afraid we'll just have to disagree on the second part there. A proper reward for labor isn't set in stone, 'nor is there reason to suggest that wages for a position should be arbitrarily sticky to previous amounts. This is something I hear a lot of from the local unions (SE Michigan), and it never seems to be justified by anything other than personal conviction. Is your position on this particular issue the same when it comes to reduced wages due to increased automation instead of children laborers?

 

Minimum wage is set in stone for workers who are of age, it's under age workers that need to be protected. In some places children as young as 6 are working in fields, not on family farms, but as workers just like their parents.

 

Not all unemployed folks have diplomas either. The age of an employee does not grant them an age adjusted wage(age discrimination laws aside), these kids would be just like any other employee. They may think they're entitled to a "living wage" because they have a family, and might be more willing to negotiate a higher pay, but there is no universal pay increase just because you've been around the sun a few more times.

 

No one is saying that anyone should make any more than minumum wage, children under 16 have no business being worked in dangerous jobs they cannot refuse to do for money they never see for people who don't care what happens to them.

 

 

Explain this one for me, as I would strongly disagree the assertion that 50-year-olds are more likely to be hired than 16-year-olds for the same wages.

 

I agree this is probably not true, but a 16 year old is legal worker now, do you really think children of any age should be required to work in jobs that adults do? Deal with the same dangers adults do? I really don't. I honestly think there should be limits to how old a kid can be when he works most jobs.