Editorial: Child labor overhaul creates new risks for teens without much new benefit
Proponents of bills to “modernize” the laws governing child labor in Iowa paint some appealing pictures: teenagers working a little later in the evening to save money for college, or being allowed to gain valuable experience in a trade or another career that could become a lifelong pursuit.
Here are a few other pictures:
Parents signing paperwork explaining an employer’s strict guidelines to ensure a 14-year-old’s safety at a manufacturer that uses dangerous equipment, and then getting a call from the hospital a few weeks later because, well, somebody called in sick and the teenager had seemed so capable and was right there …
A high school freshman leaving school at 2:45 and going straight to the pizza place to work until 9 p.m. five nights a week; his family needs the money because his single dad is in and out of work and can’t get the same unemployment benefits he would have received a few years ago.
A 16-year-old girl bringing beers to a table of rowdy men at 10 at night in the summer and being propositioned in lewd terms, retreating, and then being stiffed on a tip when they leave.
Some lawmakers complained last week that critics of the bills were lying about and exaggerating what the legislation would do. Sen. Adrian Dickey, R-Packwood, dismissed protesters who chanted “our kids are not for sale” inside the Statehouse. And, no, the bills would not put 10-year-olds to work or send minors onto slaughter lines or into coal mines.
More:'Our kids are not for sale': Unions protest proposed changes to Iowa child labor law
Some of the guardrails in the proposal are not egregious on their face. They delete some offensively outdated language and give 14- and 15-year-old teenage employees the same driving rights as their peers involved in sports and other school activities. Children would also be able to use microwaves at work.
The trouble is that it takes little imagination to see how plans for “adequate supervision and training” could slip, innocuously even, into teenagers doing more dangerous work.
It’s inevitable that some people will try to bend rules. Lawmakers don’t need to help with stretching them at the outset.
ANOTHER VIEW: Protect Iowa's children from harm in the workplace
One outcry after the bills were introduced in early February shouldn’t have been surprising: An odious passage absolved businesses of civil liability when their teenage employees or other people were hurt or killed, unless “gross negligence” or “willful misconduct” was involved. Committees amended those provisions out last week, but that shouldn’t let Republicans off the hook. How did such an error, if it was an error, make it all the way through the drafting process?
Unions and other opponents said the change doesn’t make the rest of that bill better.
The bills would grant state officials, in cooperation with schools, parents and employers, the ability to waive some prohibitions that remain in the law if it’s in service of the particular needs of an apprenticeship or other work experience – another place where bright lines become dependent on discretion.
Some Republicans took issue with concerns about the possibility of sexual harassment if younger teens are allowed to serve and ring up drinks that are consumed on site. It’s true that harassment is unacceptable whether patrons are drunk or sober or whether servers are 16, 18, 21 or 55. But we haven’t managed to stamp out sexual harassment inside the Capitol building, so it seems fair to expect it will occur in taverns and diners, too. Why subject younger children to that risk?
Proponents of the bill might wish it hadn’t faced a deadline for committee debate the same week the New York Times published the headline “Alone and exploited, migrant children work brutal jobs across the U.S.,” or a few weeks after revelations that a sanitation company had used children as young as 13 to clean meatpacking equipment in Nebraska and other states. The stories reflect bad actors blatantly breaking existing laws, to be sure. But they also underscore the need for greater enforcement.
Lawmakers should either reject these bills or pare them down drastically, retaining only the less controversial updates, and figure out more direct ways to help Iowa’s children.
— Lucas Grundmeier, on behalf of the Register editorial board
This editorial is the opinion of the Des Moines Register's editorial board: Carol Hunter, executive editor; Lucas Grundmeier, opinion editor; Rachelle Chase, opinion columnist; and Richard Doak and Rox Laird, editorial board members.
Want more opinions? Read other perspectives with our free newsletter, follow us on Facebook or visit us at DesMoinesRegister.com/opinion. Respond to any opinion by submitting a Letter to the Editor at DesMoinesRegister.com/letters.
What backers are saying
“This legislation is common sense and a much needed update to archaic youth employment laws that exist in Iowa," Matt Everson, National Federation of Independent Business state director in Iowa, said in a statement. "It’s disingenuous that some who oppose these updates are claiming this will send kids back to the coal mines. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. There are guardrails that include parental consent requirements which will ensure safety for our youth workforce. Luckily, these phony scare tactics won’t deter legislators from doing what’s right for Iowa and these bills will allow those who were not blessed with a trust fund to be able to work a few more hours a week to earn money for school, gas, food, or any other expense they incur in this highly inflationary economy. Right now our business owners are struggling to fill job openings. According to the latest NFIB survey, of the small-business owners who were trying to hire in January, 91% couldn’t find a qualified worker to fill that position. This legislation gives Iowa small-business owners access to another pool of people who want to work.”
This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Opinion: Child labor overhaul creates new risks, little new benefit
