Pages

▼

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Absolutely Nothing To Do With The Bakken -- But Lots To Do With North Dakota -- Feds Will Ban 17-Year-Olds From Working On Family Farms

Well, not completely banning 17-year-olds from all farm chores (it appears, like city kids, they could still take out the garbage), but ..... well, .... see how you interpret the news:
The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families’ land.

Under the rules, children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials.”
It was also noted that the education and training traditionally provided by 4H and FFA will be replaced by a 90-hour federal training program. A normal week of school provides about 30 hours of education so I assume we are talking about a 3-week training program written by bureaucrats from DC. Why do the letters USSR keep crossing my mind as I write this?

I assume this also means that the royal daughters would not be allowed to work in the White House garden. It will probably be up to the legal profession to decide. If they are allowed to work in the garden, I assume they, too, would have to take the 90-hour training course. We're talking planting seeds and weeding, aren't we?

Every time I go back to North Dakota I try to take in a county fair. One of the highlights is seeing a 12-year-old (weighing all of 100 pounds) leading a 2,000-lb bull around the auction ring. Under the proposed rules, as I read it, the 12-year-old would not be allowed to "store," "market," or 'transport" this bull. 

Sad.
at

8 comments:

  1. AnonymousApril 25, 2012 at 11:23 AM

    This is just an update to the decades old child labor law and it will still have the "parental exemption" rule included. Which basically nullifies the entire law for children of family owned farms and ranches. Not sure what happens if a parent of a child that doesn't own a farm gives the "okay" for their child to work on farm. I'm sure the law applies to those children.

    http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/whd/WHD20120203.htm

    I really can't decide what makes me more mad. The Department of Labor sticking their nose where it doesn't belong or the "news" article this guy wrote. In the actual DoL news article this guy links to in his article, it says in the 2nd paragraph, "The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents." I still don't agree with the regulations at all, don't get me wrong.

    At 14 years old I'm sure I would have rather been out playing baseball on a summers afternoon than working but now at 26 I wouldn't give up what I learned working for my father on the farm for anything this world could offer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bruce OksolApril 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM

      I agree with you regarding the linked article -- I assumed there were exceptions -- but I will let others defend the DoL.

      If this is just an update, I assume the 90-hours of federal government training is nothing new. I had not heard of this mandatory training before; that alone speaks volumes about the program. Three weeks (30 hours/week) is a long training program by any standard. I know there are two-week truck driving schools in Texas.

      I know I had summer jobs as a 16-year-old including "picking rocks" -- I was certainly not forced to do it -- I was looking for work. But it was tough, tough work. But I certainly would not have been happy to have the federal govt telling me I could not do that. Bagging groceries and flipping burgers, I guess, is okay.

      Bottom line: we're on the same page of music on this one. Thank you for taking time to comment.

      Delete
  2. DonApril 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

    A neighbor of mine who owns a business goes to the local county fair on the livestock judgment auction day and will buy 2 or 3 of the top prize beef animals, along with several pigs. He usuallly ends up paying about double what he would for an animal at the local sales barn.

    So I asked him why?? He explained that this did 2 things: 1) it got his picture in the local paper for buying the Champion and Reserve Champion Steer, and he then would give this meat to customers at Christmas time (more advertising); and, 2) although he knew he was over-paying for the beef, this money is traditionally used by farm/ranch kids for their college money, so they do not have to have so many student loans.

    I have heard of stupid before but this tops all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bruce OksolApril 25, 2012 at 11:42 AM

      I assume this activity can still go on, based on the earlier comments, but an aggressive attorney with a chip on his/her shoulders could certainly disrupt things by questioning the legality.

      If this is just an update, it would be nice for the government to simply put out in language easily understood what has changed from previous rules.

      If I were an FFA teacher at the local high school, I know how I would incorporate the new training manuals from Washington into my curriculum.

      Delete
    2. CRCApril 25, 2012 at 3:50 PM

      'If I wanted America to fail' add more regulation from an out of touch big central government should do it.

      Delete
  3. AnonymousApril 25, 2012 at 4:12 PM

    Note to oil and gas companies....

    CHK made the Towanda, PA, newspaper a couple of years ago. It bought one of the local FFA animals for a very high price. IIRC.

    Think about who own minerals in a farm and ranch area, and who you want goodwill with.

    It is OK to copy a good idea.

    Anon 1

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousApril 25, 2012 at 9:47 PM

    My understanding is that the "Parental Exemption" does not apply to family corporations. For example, if Dad and Grandpa farm together as "Bakken Farms LLC" the parental exemption does not apply.

    I was reflecting on this regulation today and it struck me that the last thing the Obama Administration wants is a pool of self-reliant, capable youth because there is less chance of them relying on the gov't. They are trying to drain the pool of future self-reliant adults.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bruce OksolApril 25, 2012 at 9:50 PM

      It's interesting you picked up on the "corporation" aspect of this.

      This is also a factor with "taxing only the rich." It sounds great to "tax only the rich," defining the rich with incomes greater than $250,000 or $1 million, but in fact, a lot of small business corporations would get caught up in these higher tax rates.

      Thank you for pointing out an aspect of the "parental exemption" that folks may have missed. Interestingly enough, even without the "parental exemption," it sounds like it would not be legal for a 16-year-old to "work" on a grandparents' farm or a friend's/neighbor's farm.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.