What do Prison Inmates and Children Have in Common?

[paft.livejournal.com]

As we know, Newt Gingrich, the current GOP frontrunner has doubled down on his idea of getting rid of all those dumb ol’ child labor laws and paying schoolkids to clean toilets and occasionally mop up vomit in the hallways.



He did amend it slightly from his earlier assertion that “Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school” . Now Gingrich presumably thinks it should involve just laying off some of those unionized janitors. And he has allowed on Curt Sliwa’s radio show, that “kids shouldn’t work in coal mines” or heavy industry.

It’s unclear from the articles quoting from the Sliwa interview whether Gingrich was saying that children should be legally barred from working in coal mines and heavy industry or that we should hope coal mine and factory employers would be nice guys and not hire kids. Since he’s referred to the child labor laws that got children out of mines and mills, as “truly stupid,” I’m going to choose Door Number Two.

At roughly the same time, we’ve learned that the state of Alabama is coping with the labor vacuum left by their draconian anti-illiegal immigrant laws by considering using convict labor instead.

Children, convicts… Both cases involves an essentially helpless, easily exploited work force. Neither kids nor prison inmates are likely to object in any meaningful way when they are overworked or forced into dangerous situations. Not like all those free, voting grown-ups who do things like organizing, striking, or even just speaking up for themselves.

And of course, we can all trust employers not to notice this and take advantage… right?

Now, a lot of people will point out that prison inmates are so much more unattractive than cute, innocent little kids. Fortunately, we have Rush Limbaugh to remind us that we shouldn’t be fooled by children, with their appealing little faces and sad, hungry eyes. They’re really just a bunch of “wanton little waifs and serfs dependant on the state.”

Rush Limbaugh: If you feed them, if you feed the children three square meals a day during the school year, how can you expect them to feed themselves in the summer?... Okay, the school ends, and of course, how can we expect them to feed themselves in the summer, when they haven’t had to for nine months. So this is how it works, they demand to be fed during the summer – or their acolytes demand that they be fed during the summer. Because after all, we’ve conditioned them to not feeding themselves. Plus their parents don’t have to take responsibility of feeding them. And their parents don’t have to take responsibility of paying, not directly, for them to be fed. So, it’s just natural. “Mr. Limbaugh, these children are simply ill-equipped to feed themselves in the summertime, it’s the only compassionate thing we do!’ Yeah, who made that possible? You… by trying to make people helpless. Wanton little waifs and serfs dependant on the state. Pure and simple.

I mean really you give these things food during the school year, they’ll expect to be given food in the summertime too! Any good parent knows that you don’t feed the little beggars after the age of six, but send them out to forage for themselves. How else can they learn dumpster-diving?

In conclusion, for your viewing and listening pleasure – the Old Crow Medicine Show’s version of Woody Guthrie's, Union Maid.

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

If anyone, liberal or conservative, proposed a day when everyone at the school pitched in to do some cleaning, I'd have no problem with it.

Great, would you mind answering the question I actually asked now?

Ok, so you identify that he's saying that they have no work ethic while completely missing what he's saying is the reason for that. (Hint, it's not laziness.)

[paft.livejournal.com]

g: Great, would you mind answering the question I actually asked now?

Your question was based on a false premise i.e, that the Japanese system is identical to what Newt proposed.

g: Ok, so you identify that he's saying that they have no work ethic while completely missing what he's saying is the reason for that. (Hint, it's not laziness.)

It doesn't matter what reason he ascribes to it. (I gather he's also insulting their parents as having no work ethic.) The fact remains he has issued a blanket generalization about the poor.

Many of whom, by the way, work and work hard.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Your question was based on a false premise i.e, that the Japanese system is identical to what Newt proposed.

No, it's not. Try reading the question again. If you want me to clarify something, ask, don't assume.

It doesn't matter what reason he ascribes to it.

It matters because you are ascribing a different reason to it than he is, and then judging him on that reason. He did not make an attack on their character, but you are flailing because you interpret it as exactly that. That's the problem with your analysis.

[paft.livejournal.com]

g: No, it's not. Try reading the question again. If you want me to clarify something, ask, don't assume.

How, in the name of the twelve apostles, would a program in which EVERYBODY pitches in to clean up the school one day a year using the Buddhist rationale connecting cleanliness with morality be "copying the spirit" of firing unionized janitors and replacing them with poor kids using the rationale that poor kids have no work ethic?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Well, for starters, you have the second part of your question wrong, so you're comparing to the wrong thing. Second, the Buddhist rationale for what Japan does is irrelevant to the comparison.

Japan has students clean up their school (along with teachers and whatnot, but that's not relevant to the comparison). So, if a liberal proposed a program for U.S. schools in poor areas to require their students to clean up their schools every day, in exchange for some money, it was treated like it was a job for them except that they couldn't opt out of it, and as a result of that program, the school could get rid of their current janitors, would you oppose it?

[paft.livejournal.com]

g: Japan has students clean up their school (along with teachers and whatnot, but that's not relevant to the comparison).

Of course it's relevant. It's a major point of difference between what Japan does and what Newt proposed.

g: So, if a liberal proposed a program for U.S. schools in poor areas to require their students to clean up their schools every day, in exchange for some money, it was treated like it was a job for them except that they couldn't opt out of it, and as a result of that program, the school could get rid of their current janitors, would you oppose it?

Yes. It sounds like a backdoor effort to get rid of union janitors, and quite possibly a violation of child labor laws.

"A job except you couldn't opt out of it?" That doesn't sound like most people's concept of a "job." A job you can't opt out of is a job where you have no leverage when it comes tor things like worker safety, reasonable hours, wages, etc.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It's not relevant to my question, which is only tangentially related to what Newt proposed.

Kids can't opt out of a lot of things, like school, so there's no reason to expect this to be any different.

Yes. It sounds like a backdoor effort to get rid of union janitors, and quite possibly a violation of child labor laws.

So, now what if they said that the purpose was to be a learning experience for middle-school and high-school students, so they can be prepared for working life? So they can learn what it's like to work a job, get paid for it, etc.