Bill to remove work permit requirement for children under 16 goes to Sarah Sanders

[GMDino]

Some of the idealized memories of these republicans of what working was like for their families or at young ages is telling.

They yearn for that time without understanding the consequences that come with that.

https://www.rawstory.com/child-labor-laws-arkansas/

Quote:Greg Larose, Louisiana Illuminator
March 05, 2023
[/url] [url=https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https://www.rawstory.com/child-labor-laws-arkansas/&text=Bill%20to%20remove%20work%20permit%20requirement%20for%20children%20under%2016%20goes%20to%20Sarah%20Huckabee%20Sanders%E2%80%99%20desk&] [/url]    [url=http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=false&url=https://www.rawstory.com/child-labor-laws-arkansas/&]

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Photo by Al Drago-Pool/Getty Images)

[/url][url=https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https://www.rawstory.com/child-labor-laws-arkansas/&text=Bill%20to%20remove%20work%20permit%20requirement%20for%20children%20under%2016%20goes%20to%20Sarah%20Huckabee%20Sanders%E2%80%99%20desk&][/url]
LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas – A proposed Arkansas law that would remove the requirement for children under 16 to prove their age to get a job will head to Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ desk for approval.


[url=https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/Detail?id=HB1410&ddBienniumSession=2023%2F2023R]House Bill 1410, or the Youth Hiring Act, would delete the portion of existing law that requires an employment certificate “accessible to the Division of Labor and the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education, or local school officials” before a company can hire a child under 16 years of age.

State law currently prohibits children under 16 from working more than eight hours a day, more than six days a week and more than 48 hours per week. Opponents of House Bill 1410 have expressed concerns it will open the door to violations of these child labor requirements and put children at risk of human trafficking.

Sanders has said some of her administration’s goals are to fight crime and protect children from harm. She signed an executive order Feb. 14 “to develop an integrated approach” to preventing human trafficking.

The video player is currently playing an ad.

“Arkansas lacks a consistent, uniform screening and identification process of human trafficking, which has resulted in underreporting of this horrendous criminal action,” the order states.

Sanders plans to sign House Bill 1410, her spokeswoman Alexa Henning said in a Thursday email.

“The governor believes protecting kids is most important, but doing so with arbitrary burdens on parents to get permission from the government for their child to get a job is burdensome and obsolete,” Henning said. “All child labor laws will still apply and we expect businesses to comply just as they are required to do now.”

Quote:We’ve built a generation that says, ‘Roman, you should depend on your government to take care of you. Just stay at home and work on video games.

– State Sen. Tyler Dees
Employment certificates for these children currently require proof of the child’s age, a description of the work and work schedule and a parent or legal guardian’s written consent.

Eliminating this requirement would “restore decision-making to parents concerning their children,” the bill states. Rep. Rebecca Burkes, R-Lowell, the bill’s primary sponsor, repeated this on the House floor Feb. 22.

Rep. Andrew Collins, D-Little Rock, took issue with this clause.

“Parents have to sign off [on the permit] under the current law,” he said. “If this passes, the parents won’t have to sign off, and I think that’s a pretty important distinction.”

The bill passed the House that day and the Senate on Thursday. No Democrats in either chamber voted for the bill, while some Republicans in both chambers voted against it.

House Bill 1410 goes to Sanders’ desk less than two weeks after the U.S. Department of Labor announced it had fined Packers Sanitation Services Inc. for violating child labor laws at 13 plants in eight states, including Arkansas. The company paid $1.5 million in civil penalties for making children as young as 13 work in dangerous conditions.

In Arkansas, Packers paid a fine of $60,552 for using four minors at a George’s Inc. plant in Batesville and $90,828 for using six minors at a Tyson Foods facility in Green Forest.

Laura Kellams, the Northwest Arkansas director with Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, brought up the Packers plants while speaking against House Bill 1410 before the Senate Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee on Wednesday. She said she does not oppose minors having jobs, and she worked at the Green Forest chicken plant as a teenager.

She mentioned that Republican Sen. Bryan King, a member of the committee, lives in Green Forest. King and four other members voted to advance the bill to the Senate.

Legislators should not portray work permits for minors under 16 as overly bureaucratic or “too much to ask of any employer” when they cost nothing and take only a few days to be approved by the Department of Labor, Kellams said.

“This is not red tape, so who is it a burden to?” she said. “It’s a burden to companies who are illegally hiring minors beyond the allowable hours and in conditions that aren’t allowed.”

Ongoing child safety debate

Sanders and several Republican legislators have said repeatedly this legislative session that protecting children should be a high priority for the government.

Some of the bills introduced and advanced with this stated goal have attempted to require a person’s gender assigned at birth to determine where they use the restroom at school or in public, classify gender-affirming health care for transgender youth as potential medical malpractice, restrict where drag shows can be performed and open the door for librarians to be charged with a felony for distributing content that parents and elected officials consider obscene.

Activists have repeatedly said these bills target the LGBTQ community and transgender Arkansans in particular. On Wednesday, Senate Democrats spoke against Senate Bill 270, which would make it a felony for adults to remain in bathrooms that do not align with their biological sex if children are present.
Republicans claimed the bill would protect children’s privacy. The bill was pulled down for amendments and did not receive a vote.

Sen. Tyler Dees, R-Siloam Springs, said Thursday that he saw “irony” in his Democratic colleagues’ opposition to House Bill 1410 with the goal of protecting children when they also opposed Senate Bill 270.

“We talked about the ‘inconvenience’ of making sure people go to the right bathroom with the protection of children in mind,” Dees said. “I don’t believe those [ideas] balance very well. I don’t believe it fits well with that narrative.”

However, Rep. Charlene Fite, R-Van Buren, alluded to these bills on the House floor Feb. 22 to explain her opposition to House Bill 1410.

“In this body, we respect families and their decisions, but we also protect children,” she said.

Kellams told the Senate committee on Wednesday that the bill would make immigrant children who work to support their families more vulnerable to bad outcomes. Fite agreed, saying she used to teach students who were learning English as a second language, and she knew that some of them had jobs.

“That will eventually hurt not only the student but [eventually] their family, as their overall earnings are lowered for a lifetime by not being there to do their homework and by missing additional school time,” she said.

Fite was one of 15 House Republicans to vote against the bill, while 12 did not vote and one voted present. The remaining 54 House Republicans voted to send the bill to the Senate.

All but one of the 18 House Democrats voted against the bill while the other did not vote.

On the Senate side, Sen. Terry Rice, R-Waldron, said he supported House Bill 1410 because he believes children have been protected “to a deficit.”

“They cannot function, they cannot communicate, they cannot do a lot of things that we did at 11 years old,” Rice said. “I don’t want them being abused, but at 14 and 15, if they want to work, that’s the best training they will get.”

Sen. Mark Johnson, R-Ferndale, was one of the few Senate Republicans to oppose the bill, mentioning the Packers Sanitation Services Inc. violations as a reason.

“This permit is just one more little safeguard that maybe we should leave in place,” Johnson said. “I encourage 14- and 15-year-olds to have initiative and seek employment. I certainly think the parents need to know about it … I’m just extra careful when I’m dealing with children, so I’m going to be voting against [the bill].”

Johnson reminded his colleagues that they approved a bill less than an hour earlier regarding who victims of human trafficking can challenge in court.
Senate Bill 282, sponsored by Sen. Missy Irvin, R-Mountain View, would allow victims to take civil action against anyone who was aware of, assisted or benefited from the trafficking. The bill passed with no opposition and will be considered by the House.

Irvin chairs the Senate Public Health committee and voted against House Bill 1410 both Wednesday and Thursday. She said preventing human trafficking is important to her because a friend of hers experienced and survived it.

Sen. Breanne Davis, R-Russellville, joined Irvin, Johnson and all six Senate Democrats in voting against the bill. King was absent and Sen. Jonathan Dismang (R-Beebe) voted present. All 24 other Senate Republicans voted for the bill.

The value of work
Some senators who supported House Bill 1410 said they had jobs as teenagers. Sen. Clint Penzo, R-Springdale, the bill’s Senate sponsor, said he worked for his father’s construction company.

“I worked all through school, and I think we need to see more of that in our society,” Penzo said.

Dees’ 13-year-old son was present in the Senate gallery Thursday, and Dees said he hopes his son learns sooner than later how to work to support a family someday.

“We’ve built a generation that says, ‘Roman, you should depend on your government to take care of you. Just stay at home and work on video games,’” Dees said, pointing at the gallery. “No, you should get out, get off your tail, learn to reject passivity, accept responsibility, get a job [and] be honorable.”
Sen. Gary Stubblefield, R-Branch, who has sponsored some of this year’s bills pertaining to transgender individuals, said he and members of his generation grew up working on farms as young as 10 years old.

“All these people that I grew up with that learned to work how I learned to work — they all grew up to be outstanding community leaders, bankers, lawyers, successful people, pillars of the community,” Stubblefield said.

Senate Minority Whip Linda Chesterfield, D-Little Rock, had a different perspective about working at a young age.

“I know, having started work at the age of seven, that it’s not fun,” she said. “I believe children should be able to enjoy their youth and I don’t envy them that time. I do believe in hard work. We worked hard in my family. Everybody had to work hard and contribute to the family so that we could eat and pay the bills.”

Chesterfield said she did not want to see Arkansas “turning back the clock” on child labor laws that have been in place for about a century.

Sen. Fredrick Love, D-Mabelvale, a member of the Senate Public Health committee, joined Irvin in voting against House Bill 1410 on Wednesday.

“There are kids that have no parents,” he said Thursday. “We have to protect our kids at all costs, so I would implore you to protect our kids today, to make sure that these safeguards stay in place.”

[*pally*]

but those same kids who can work 48 hours a week over school nights will be permanently traumatized if they see a guy wearing a dress and makeup

[GMDino]

(03-07-2023, 03:22 PM)pally Wrote: but those same kids who can work 48 hours a week over school nights will be permanently traumatized if they see a guy wearing a dress and makeup

And certainly not mature enough to decide they don't want to carry a baby....so we'll force them to have a baby.  

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-07-2023, 03:22 PM)pally Wrote: permanently traumatized if they see a guy wearing a dress and makeup

No that is a pic of gov Huckabee Sanders.

[grampahol]

(03-09-2023, 02:49 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: No that is a pic of gov Huckabee Sanders.

He really is that ugly...just like his papa.. I remember delivering newspapers as a kid although it wasn't 48 hours a week, more like 4 or 5 hours.. Still, it was uphill both ways with an old clunky girls bike! Oh the tragedy of it all!   I did get bitten fairly regularly by the same damned dog everyone assured me was a very kind, gentle beast.. 

[Dill]

New Republican governor and already FREEDOM is expanding in her state.

Especially freedom to work.

I predict getting these kids back in the factories/corporate farms and off the streets will lead to less crime too.

See how to do that now, Dems?

[BigPapaKain]

(03-14-2023, 12:48 PM)Dill Wrote: New Republican governor and already FREEDOM is expanding in her state.

Especially freedom to work.

I predict getting these kids back in the factories/corporate farms and off the streets will lead to less crime too.

See how to do that now, Dems?

Hell yeah - can't wait to see all those industrial accidents we wiped out back during the Great Depression when kids get back to work.

Plus it's never too early to create a fresh batch of corporate shills, am I right?

Hint - just because kids CAN go to work, doesn't mean that they WILL go to work. Especially shit jobs where I'm SURE they won't be taken advantage of.

[basballguy]

See, this is why that other post (about PnR being dead) exists.  

Please allow me to interrupt your circlejerk.  :)

Now, I was unfamiliar with this before reading this thread so I did a quick 10min google discovery on it.

• No labor laws are being changed (Age requirements still exist as well as restrictions on what kind of work the kid can do)
• The motivation appears to be a burden on the parents being forced to validate their child's age...which is probably a pain in the ass in instances where the child doesn't have a state issued ID
  

One of the main argument against this is  HUMAN TRAFFICKING?  Arkansas has had about 1500 human trafficking victims in 16 years....so under 100 a year and they think removing this burden is going to increase it?  Keeping in mind, that's all humans, not just kids under 16.  I was unable to find any data to back up the claim that child trafficking would increase with the removal of this age verification requirement.  

Separately, I find it incredibly ironic there would be any outrage from the left over removing any type of ID validation.  

Personally, I would've been annoyed as all **** if I had provide proof of my kids' ages and probably would've taken them straight to the DMV for a state ID so it wouldn't be my problem anymore.  

Ok, the circlejerk can continue now.

[GMDino]

(03-14-2023, 06:50 PM)basballguy Wrote: See, this is why that other post (about PnR being dead) exists.  

Ok...let's see it!

(03-14-2023, 06:50 PM)basballguy Wrote: Please allow me to interrupt your circlejerk.  :)

Ok, the circlejerk can continue now.

Oh...yeah.  Ok. Good job?

[Dill]

(03-14-2023, 04:53 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Hell yeah - can't wait to see all those industrial accidents we wiped out back during the Great Depression when kids get back to work.

Plus it's never too early to create a fresh batch of corporate shills, am I right?

Hint - just because kids CAN go to work, doesn't mean that they WILL go to work. Especially shit jobs where I'm SURE they won't be taken advantage of.

I don't think we'll be seeing those industrial accidents in high numbers

until we roll back more safety regulations in the name of "freedom."  

[BigPapaKain]

(03-14-2023, 08:34 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think we'll be seeing those industrial accidents in high numbers

until we roll back more safety regulations in the name of "freedom."  

Tell me you don't work in an industrial setting without telling me you don't work in an industrial setting. 

[*pally*]

I saw yesterday that child labor violations are already up 117% over last year...led by the meat packing industries. Tyson and their chicken processing centers are Arkansas's 2nd largest private employers

[*Nately120*]

(03-16-2023, 11:00 AM)pally Wrote: I saw yesterday that child labor violations are already up 117% over last year...led by the meat packing industries.  Tyson and their chicken processing centers are Arkansas's 2nd largest private employers

I have a feeling that number will be down to 0 soon.

[GMDino]

How could this possibly go wrong?

We've never tried child labor in this country before...right?  At least that's what the new history books that won't hurt anyone's feelings say.  

At 4am, Republicans in the Iowa Senate passed a bill allowing 14-year-olds to work nightshifts, 15-year-olds to work assembly lines, and 16-year-olds to serve alcohol.

They’re trying to use child labor to fix their labor shortage. pic.twitter.com/Jl0uD6Ydlt

— Sawyer Hackett (@SawyerHackett) April 18, 2023

script>

[Dill]

(03-14-2023, 06:50 PM)basballguy Wrote: See, this is why that other post (about PnR being dead) exists.  

Please allow me to interrupt your circlejerk.  :)

Now, I was unfamiliar with this before reading this thread so I did a quick 10min google discovery on it.

• No labor laws are being changed (Age requirements still exist as well as restrictions on what kind of work the kid can do)
• The motivation appears to be a burden on the parents being forced to validate their child's age...which is probably a pain in the ass in instances where the child doesn't have a state issued ID
  

One of the main argument against this is  HUMAN TRAFFICKING?  Arkansas has had about 1500 human trafficking victims in 16 years....so under 100 a year and they think removing this burden is going to increase it?  Keeping in mind, that's all humans, not just kids under 16.  I was unable to find any data to back up the claim that child trafficking would increase with the removal of this age verification requirement.  

Separately, I find it incredibly ironic there would be any outrage from the left over removing any type of ID validation.  

Personally, I would've been annoyed as all **** if I had provide proof of my kids' ages and probably would've taken them straight to the DMV for a state ID so it wouldn't be my problem anymore.  

Ok, the circlejerk can continue now.

I thought I responded to this. Must have forgotten.

Why would "the left" (whoever that is) be outraged over removing "any type of ID validation"? 

You say "no labor laws are being changed," but one certainly is: the Youth Hiring Act, would delete the portion of existing law that requires an employment certificate “accessible to the Division of Labor and the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education, or local school officials” before a company can hire a child under 16 years of age.

Why in the world won't this make human trafficking easier, since it makes it so much easier for employers to hire children without confirmation of their age, and without interference from parents? 

Child trafficking for labor is also very much UNDER reported in Arkansas. This won't help the reporting/tracking of that crime. 

Where is the "pain in the ass" for parents? They require age identification to register children for public schools. 

Also, how does this "restore decision making to the parent," as Henning says? How did the parent LOSE decision making by having to sign off on a form? Looks like the decision defaults to children and employers. 

[basballguy]

(04-18-2023, 09:05 PM)Dill Wrote: I thought I responded to this. Must have forgotten.

Why would "the left" (whoever that is) be outraged over removing "any type of ID validation"? 

Oh Dill, you know exactly why and you're just making me say it.  

It was a shot at Democrats being very lax on voter ID laws.  Dems care about ID laws only when it benefits them.  

(04-18-2023, 09:05 PM)Dill Wrote: You say "no labor laws are being changed," but one certainly is: the Youth Hiring Act, would delete the portion of existing law that requires an employment certificate “accessible to the Division of Labor and the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education, or local school officials” before a company can hire a child under 16 years of age.

I don't recall seeing this part when i looked at it last month.  What I was specifically referring to, as mentioned, was age laws aren't changing.  The type of work a child can do isn't changing.  The number of hours isn't changing.  The only thing changing is this perceived burden for proof of ID (on the parents). 

(04-18-2023, 09:05 PM)Dill Wrote: Child trafficking for labor is also very much UNDER reported in Arkansas. This won't help the reporting/tracking of that crime. 

Do you have any data to back this up?  I could not find any data indicating child trafficking will increase with this modification (which is a strong position the left has taken against this)

(04-18-2023, 09:05 PM)Dill Wrote: Where is the "pain in the ass" for parents? They require age identification to register children for public schools. 

I only have anecdotal examples for this, hence why gave a personal opinion.  The feedback I saw was this rule was a "burden" on the parents....I don't recall ever needing a photo ID to register my kids for school.  Whereas it seems this eliminates the photo ID requirements for kids under whatever age it is.  

(04-18-2023, 09:05 PM)Dill Wrote: Also, how does this "restore decision making to the parent," as Henning says? How did the parent LOSE decision making by having to sign off on a form? Looks like the decision defaults to children and employers. 

Henning said this, which seems to align with what i'm saying:

Quote:“The governor believes protecting kids is most important, but doing so with arbitrary burdens on parents to get permission from the government for their child to get a job is burdensome and obsolete,” Henning said. “All child labor laws will still apply and we expect businesses to comply just as they are required to do now.”

To me, this whole thing seems reasonable.  

[Dill]

(04-19-2023, 04:44 PM)basballguy Wrote: Child trafficking for labor is also very much UNDER reported in Arkansas. This won't help the reporting/tracking of that crime. 

Do you have any data to back this up?  I could not find any data indicating child trafficking will increase with this modification (which is a strong position the left has taken against this)

LOL again with "the left."  This is rather like looking for data to indicate liquor sales to minors would increase if bartenders were no longer required to ask for IDs (i.e. "get permission from the government").  One can only project the future based on effectiveness of past or current law.

As far as "underreporting data," Dino's article quotes Huckabee's executive order. That is my source. 
https://governor.arkansas.gov/executive_orders/executive-order-to-prevent-human-trafficking-and-to-protect-the-children-and-youth-of-arkansas/ WHEREAS:   Although the Arkansas State Police Child Abuse Hotline has accepted 243 reports of human trafficking involving minors since August 2017, Arkansas lacks a consistent, uniform screening and identification process of human trafficking, which has resulted in underreporting of this horrendous criminal action;

(04-19-2023, 04:44 PM)basballguy Wrote: I only have anecdotal examples for this, hence why gave a personal opinion.  The feedback I saw was this rule was a "burden" on the parents....I don't recall ever needing a photo ID to register my kids for school.  Whereas it seems this eliminates the photo ID requirements for kids under whatever age it is.  

I don't recall any mention of a "photo ID" requirement regarding children's work permits. It's not in the draft bill
https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/FTPDocument?path=%2FBills%2F2023R%2FPublic%2FHB1410.pdf

Arkansas, like most states of the Union, accept birth or baptismal certificates to get children in school. Nothing beyond that is required for the work permit, that I can see. https://a.arlawhelp.org/education/enrollment

The claim the requirement was a "burden" on parents was Huckabee's; it was part of the bill's rationale, not "feedback."  
This is a "burden" which kept parents IN THE LOOP and ON RECORD regarding the hiring of every child. 

And it was a "burden" on employers, who could not hire without parents signing off; now, apparently, they can. 

Only the legal framing is twisted to make this appear the power of decision has somehow been RETURNED to the parents, as if they didn't already have it when the decision was on record.

(04-19-2023, 04:44 PM)basballguy Wrote: You say "no labor laws are being changed," but one certainly is: the Youth Hiring Act, would delete the portion of existing law that requires an employment certificate “accessible to the Division of Labor and the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education, or local school officials” before a company can hire a child under 16 years of age.
I don't recall seeing this part when i looked at it last month.  What I was specifically referring to, as mentioned, was age laws aren't changing.  The type of work a child can do isn't changing.  The number of hours isn't changing.  The only thing changing is this perceived burden for proof of ID (on the parents). 

No one suggested age/hours/type of work laws were changing. 
They don't have to if employers no longer have to document their the age of child labor. 

At issue is the burden on employers to insure children working for them were of proper age. 
That has been removed, making it easier to hire without the parents decision at all, or for parents to lie about a child's age.

So of course where the pro-business right claims parents may now make a decision without "the government's permission, 

"the left" is going to see the real ease of burden here on business, along with greater opportunity for child exploitation

[Dill]

(04-19-2023, 04:44 PM)basballguy Wrote: Why would "the left" (whoever that is) be outraged over removing "any type of ID validation"?  
 
Oh Dill, you know exactly why and you're just making me say it. 
It was a shot at Democrats being very lax on voter ID laws.  Dems care about ID laws only when it benefits them.  

I was hoping that you were NOT referring to voter ID laws.

We've had a number of discussions about voter id laws on this thread, Starting back in 2016 when Trump claimed that 3-5 million illegals 
voted, giving Hilary the popular vote.

New voter ID laws were in big part a response to that "little" lie (in contrast to Trump's BIG LIE). 

Over the years and many threads in this forum, no supporter of voter ID laws has been able to show that they address any actual problem worth the cost of implementing such laws. Those opposed have detailed the costs, and reminded people that organized fraud at the county and state level are much more serious, and these cannot be addressed by voter ID laws.

Further, such laws tend to reduce Dem votes, and appear designed to do that, along with the many other "voter integrity" initiatives put forward by the GOP.


Dems are not "for" or "against" IDs in principle--only those which seem designed to benefit one party and not the public. E.g., Dems would likely be against requiring a gov. ID for getting kids into school, as there are no apparent benefits (the current system works fine) but considerable costs in implementation. "Both sides" have been and continue to be against a national id. 

Since right wingers used to be against any form of gov. id, but suddenly changed tack when Trump took over the party, it is rather odd to claim Dems
care about ID laws "only when it benefits them."  They care about ID laws when it serves the public interest. 

[Millhouse]

It's good to see both parties working together as kids crossing across the border during these Biden times needs somewhere to work.

[*Nately120*]

(04-21-2023, 01:23 PM)Millhouse Wrote: It's good to see both parties working together as kids crossing across the border during these Biden times needs somewhere to work.

Does this mean we are going back to the 80s-2000s where illegal immigrants were here to "do the jobs that Americans are too spoiled and lazy to do" and should be welcomed to keep labor costs low? 

I recall a certain republican messiah granting amnesty to millions of illegals in order to relieve the burden of overpriced American laborers on the job creators of this country.  We rolled with that notion until one person decides to cry rape and turn the whole system on it's ear.  Sad.