![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsAs 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.”
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
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
(no subject)
Date: 16/12/11 20:10 (UTC)That said, there is also the issue of if the schools can't afford to pay the janitor's current rate what should they do?
Also, would you still object to the idea of children haveing to clean if the income issue were removed from the equation?
(no subject)
Date: 17/12/11 01:20 (UTC)As for removing income from the equation, I'd object strictly on the grounds that child labor is illegal for very good reason, and there's nothing about this that makes it a compelling case for an exception to that rule. To be honest, I'd say safety concerns alone make it a good example of why the law was written. With the cleaning chemicals and freshly waxed floors and whatnot, I'd be surprised if it's the kind of job allowed even for minors who can work legally under our current system (where work can begin at age 14, with restrictions).
If kids had to clean as a disciplinary thing for bad behavior, with no money changing hands and the cleaning kept to appropriate amounts without safety risks, that would be fine by me. In fact that happens pretty commonly, if I'm not mistaken, especially if the job is cleaning up a mess for which the kid was directly responsible. I don't think this is what you were asking about, though.