Is the left really against schools hiring students or is the issue Gingrich said it?

[kaz]

Someone once said:

"Gingrich is the Stupid Man's idea of what a Smart Man sounds like."

...boy, does that nail it!!

I thought you said you were a stupid woman, not a stupid man???

 

[JoeB131]

Here is Newt's plan, applied in a realistic situation.

You have a large middle school, with 6th to 9th graders, 2 custodians on the day shift, 5 cleaners on the night shift.

1. Newt eliminates all but 1 'master' janitor (a term that doesn't exist in real life so Newt is already off in fantasy land).

2. Newt replaces the other 6 'janitors' with kids aged about 11 to 15.

3. His one master janitor is supposed to now supervise 2 shifts of kids cleaning the buildings at night, roughly from 3 pm to 11 pm, because that's a typical cleaner shift, PLUS he's got kids on the day shifts doing custodial day work.

4. You've got health and safety training that is required for these people.

5. You've got labor laws probably at both the state and federal level that had to be repealed or rewritten to put these kids to work.

6. You've got a union to decertify or terminate the school's relationship with.

7. You've got to get all of this approved by school board.

8. And, you have to educate your new crew of child cleaners, because afterall, that is primarily what they are there for.

9. ...and everything I've left out...

Now, Newt fans, all of you who think Newt is the brains of the Right, the intellectual thinker of the GOP...

...let's see your program laid out to make all of this work.

Thank you for pointing out what is completely wrong with the way government does much of anything. You bring up eight points why it would be difficult, and maybe two that are valid points.

So maybe instead of 6 Night shift janitors working for 8 hours, you get a team of 24 kids working for two hours. They get it done in about a fourth of the time, and you can shut the place down for the night.

Of course, that would cut down on the Union Thug scratching their ass and drinking coffee time.... And we can't have that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That this issue is generating so much attention is important and telling about what is wrong with the GOP today:

Blatant reactionaryism – utter, irrational contempt for the most sensible of regulations, including child labor laws.

Irrational, hateful contempt for public sector employees and the working class in general; implying that much of what they do for a living can be done by a child.

Irrational, hateful contempt for labor unions, whose very existence is a result of the cruel and capricious treatment of workers by business – and given Gingrich’s proposals, are very much needed today.

Ignorance and contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, where poor children are singled out for punitive measures in the context of ‘presumption of guilt.’

This issue alone demonstrates Gingrich is unqualified to be president, or any other republican politician who supports such idiocy.

 

[kaz]

So when he says 9 in the above quote, that's not an age other than 14? Are you a fucking retard?

His only reference to a nine year old was that some successful people got their first jobs at 9.... So you are being disingenous to imply that there's going to be some kind of work camp for 9 years olds.

Thanks Joe, I understand what she's saying now. It never occurred to me her point could have been inane enough to actually be that the comment that successful people worked starting from "9" to 14 could be the basis of an argument supporting that we're going to force 9 year old to clean schools. The left always astounds me. No matter how low you make the bar they can't clear it.

And NYcarineer, you still failed to come up with any reference to your idiotic claim that it's 10 year olds who will be forced to work. Or that they will be forced to work. Or that Newt's proposing to eliminate all child labor laws. You are consistent, you back up nothing, ever.

 

[kaz]

That this issue is generating so much attention is important and telling about what is wrong with the GOP today:

Blatant reactionaryism – utter, irrational contempt for the most sensible of regulations, including child labor laws.

Irrational, hateful contempt for public sector employees and the working class in general; implying that much of what they do for a living can be done by a child.

Irrational, hateful contempt for labor unions, whose very existence is a result of the cruel and capricious treatment of workers by business – and given Gingrich’s proposals, are very much needed today.

Ignorance and contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, where poor children are singled out for punitive measures in the context of ‘presumption of guilt.’

This issue alone demonstrates Gingrich is unqualified to be president, or any other republican politician who supports such idiocy.

Dude, that's some good shit you're on. Can I have a hit?

 

[Full-Auto]

That this issue is generating so much attention is important and telling about what is wrong with the GOP today:

Blatant reactionaryism – utter, irrational contempt for the most sensible of regulations, including child labor laws.

Irrational, hateful contempt for public sector employees and the working class in general; implying that much of what they do for a living can be done by a child.

Irrational, hateful contempt for labor unions, whose very existence is a result of the cruel and capricious treatment of workers by business – and given Gingrich’s proposals, are very much needed today.

Ignorance and contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, where poor children are singled out for punitive measures in the context of ‘presumption of guilt.’

This issue alone demonstrates Gingrich is unqualified to be president, or any other republican politician who supports such idiocy.

LOL I am going to take some words out of context so I can throw a fit.


Well Done.......

 

[JoeB131]

That this issue is generating so much attention is important and telling about what is wrong with the GOP today:

Blatant reactionaryism – utter, irrational contempt for the most sensible of regulations, including child labor laws.

Irrational, hateful contempt for public sector employees and the working class in general; implying that much of what they do for a living can be done by a child.

Irrational, hateful contempt for labor unions, whose very existence is a result of the cruel and capricious treatment of workers by business – and given Gingrich’s proposals, are very much needed today.

Ignorance and contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, where poor children are singled out for punitive measures in the context of ‘presumption of guilt.’

This issue alone demonstrates Gingrich is unqualified to be president, or any other republican politician who supports such idiocy.

A "sensible" regulation that was written for another time period isn't necessarily "sensible", is it?

The Child Labor laws were written for a time period when Children were used to work in coal mines and factories... Not cleaning up a school or doing chores.

Same thing with Labor Unions. Made sense back in the day, but now they are more about excluding workers than including them. Point is, very few workplaces are clamoring for union representation right now, and the unions aren't even trying to organize in a lot of places anymore, just hold on to what they have.

Had a friend of mine I used to work with who got what he thought was a coveted union job. Until he actually started working there, and found out that there was no real hope for advancement or improvement, no matter how hard he worked. He got sick of it pretty quickly and went back to the private sector. That's what the hostility towards unions is today, they are nests of mediocrity.

And teaching people the value of work is "punative"? Really? You are seriously going with that?

 

[Dragon]

Thank you. At least you used the accurate word unlike the other liberals. He's referring to "hiring" them, not "forcing" them as your brethren keep saying. Though you should challenge them on that since they keep saying what you know is not true. I'd do that if it were my side.

They're guilty of sloppy language is all. The same people who would be hiring them would not be guilty of forcing them, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be forced. The analogy I like to use is this. Suppose you and I and a third party are in the same room, which is a mess. I offer you a dollar to clean up my room. You refuse. The third party pulls a gun and puts it to your head and says, "You heard what the man said. Clean up his room and he'll pay you a buck. Now get moving!" I stand silently. I do nothing, and make no threatening moves. You clean my room and I pay you a dollar.

I, personally, have not forced you to do a damned thing. But that doesn't mean you did it voluntarily.

Children may be forced to take these jobs not by the schools, but by their families or by economic circumstances. In fact, in many cases they certainly would be. That's exactly how it worked in the bad old days. The labor market has coercive elements to it that conservatives seldom recognize, but all of them are even stronger and more pernicious when children are involved, as minor children are subject to coercive pressures that adults generally are not. The only way to prevent this coercion is to outlaw child labor.

But why do you say it's "not acceptable?"

Because I know my labor history. I know that children would be paid less than adults, which would further lower prevailing wages in an economy where they are already too low. I know that this would inevitably lead to gross forms of exploitation. Child labor is outlawed for all these very good reasons. They remain valid reasons today, and so it should remain outlawed.

 

[candycorn]

Arguments used against me by the left on this include:

- It's "forcing" students to work to pay them to do jobs around the school
- If students are to do jobs, we should force all students to do them, not pay some of them to do them
- It's depriving janitors of their livelihood.
- 10 year old will be forced to clean bathrooms
- Newt saying our child labor laws are stupid can only mean he wants to repeal all labor laws.

I have a hard time seeing in real life that if schools offered students work for chores around the school that the liberals would say or even think any of these things. I think they'd be OK with it. But you tell me, is that really the issue? Or is it a partisan attack against Gingrich?

I'd like you liberals to think about this and just be honest. Would you seriously make these arguments if your local school just did it? They offered kids money to perform chores around the school?

There are 2 arguments here:

First what Newt said; "get rid of the unionized janitor" if I recall.

Do you really want kids mopping floors instead of learning computers? Do you really want a 9 year old 3rd grader to be told to close his history text book and go do the windows?

I would think not...I don't know. I would rather have kids learning instead of cleaning.

---------------

The 2nd argument is what Newt likely meant--or at least what I hope he meant; teach kids the value of labor. For a politician to couch the comment the way he did is frankly stupid. What he should have said is that perhaps you can have students shadow some persons who work at schools including janitors, administrators, teachers, facility crews and see what they do and perhaps get a first hand feel for the tasks. It would make a lot more sense that what Gingrich came up with.


----------------


Our polisci professor charged us to come up with some "big ideas" for the next decade or so. One of the ones that we came up with converting the abandoned buildings into schools. A great many schools are decaying and crumbling so my group came up with (among other things) using the vacated offices of the companies that either go out of business or move to the suburbs as schools. Enron had recently collapsed and, while not the model of what we were stating, it served well. Why not use the building nobody else is using as a classroom. The theory was that the City Centers would provide the synergy of allowing students to take field trips of a few blocks to see how business is conducted. Parents who work in the cities downtown could take their kids to work, have lunch with them, and then take them home instead of having a generation of latch-key kids that hasn't especially helped the educational standing of the country from all signs.

The professor gave us a trophy for it. I don't know if the entire New Schools Initiative was the reason or not--we had a lot of ideas but I liked it a lot.

 

[NoNukes]

Kids are used as cash machines by the school already. They are sent out as salesmen several times during the year at my kids' school. It was even worse when they were in Portland.

Good point. I owe you some rep...

Frankly, I've always been bothered by this. With the level of taxes we pay, kids should not be going door to door (which really, can be a LOT more dangerous than mopping a floor) selling candy to God Knows Who is on the other side of the door.

Incidently, most parents I know sell the kid's candy for them at work.

My children attend a school where most of the money to run the school is raised by the parents. The kids are NEVER sent out to raise money.

 

[Sunshine]

The responses of all of those who have responded to Occupied demonstrates that he is right.

It's meaningless to say that you are attacking "union thugs" and not "labor." Anyone who would use the phrase "union thugs" reveals his opinion about collective bargaining, which is the sine qua non for support for labor's interests. Unions have historically demonstrated themselves to be the best way for labor to advance its interests against capital. Government can't be counted on for that purpose, as it is too easily bought off by corporate campaign contributions, and in any case empowering workers themselves is inherently a better idea than government paternalism.

Prohibition of child labor was one of the first legislative victories of the labor movement, along with the eight-hour day. That prohibition must remain in force, and to even the most seemingly-innocuous breaching of the barrier we must say not just no but HELL NO!

Yes, all of this is true. BUT some unions have gotten so powerful that they can shut this country down. And that shouldn't be allowed. Being a nurse, I also don't agree with nurses striking. The ANA has been very instrumental with getting our pay where it needs to be without strikes. Also, now when there is a labor dispute, the party involved is able to mediate it without a union involved. Mediation is the up and coming thing in this country.

 

[JoeB131]

Thank you. At least you used the accurate word unlike the other liberals. He's referring to "hiring" them, not "forcing" them as your brethren keep saying. Though you should challenge them on that since they keep saying what you know is not true. I'd do that if it were my side.

They're guilty of sloppy language is all. The same people who would be hiring them would not be guilty of forcing them, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be forced. The analogy I like to use is this. Suppose you and I and a third party are in the same room, which is a mess. I offer you a dollar to clean up my room. You refuse. The third party pulls a gun and puts it to your head and says, "You heard what the man said. Clean up his room and he'll pay you a buck. Now get moving!" I stand silently. I do nothing, and make no threatening moves. You clean my room and I pay you a dollar.

I, personally, have not forced you to do a damned thing. But that doesn't mean you did it voluntarily.

Children may be forced to take these jobs not by the schools, but by their families or by economic circumstances. In fact, in many cases they certainly would be. That's exactly how it worked in the bad old days. The labor market has coercive elements to it that conservatives seldom recognize, but all of them are even stronger and more pernicious when children are involved, as minor children are subject to coercive pressures that adults generally are not. The only way to prevent this coercion is to outlaw child labor.

I would think that if parents are exploiting the children, then those are the children you don't give the jobs to. You act as though absolutely no judgment would be excercised.

I think it would depend on WHY the parent was making the kid work. If they were doing it so that the kid would develop a sense of a work ethic, which is why my dad insisted I get a summer job when I was 16, that would be one thing.

If they were doing it so they could sit home and buy crack with the money, that would be another. But that parent would probably be the one who would rent out their kid to be a lookout for the street gang, so he might be better off mopping floors.

Newt was calling for revisiting these 100 year old laws that might not make as much sense now... or maybe could be modified, as they already are.

As pointed out, the schools are already putting these young kids to work selling candy for fundraisers or being on sports teams to raise revenues. SO they are already getting around the spirit if not the letter of the law.

But why do you say it's "not acceptable?"

Because I know my labor history. I know that children would be paid less than adults, which would further lower prevailing wages in an economy where they are already too low. I know that this would inevitably lead to gross forms of exploitation. Child labor is outlawed for all these very good reasons. They remain valid reasons today, and so it should remain outlawed.

Except that as a practical matter, you can just move your factory to Malaysia or Mexico and get child labor done there on the cheap. And a Democrat will happily sign the treaty to let that happen.

 

[Sunshine]

But you tell me, is that really the issue?

If mandatory, it is illegal to single out a particular group of persons – in this case students of low-income families – and subject them to a punitive measure because they might do something wrong. Such actions are also likely to provoke a civil suit.

If voluntary, it is the policy of most, if not all, public sector entities to not fire paid employees and replace them with volunteers; such actions are likely in violation of union contracts and consequently subject to legal action.

Whether voluntary or mandatory, there are health codes, safety policies, and other like regulations that ensure public restrooms meet sanitation standards as a condition of sound public policy. Minor children as ‘volunteers’ can not be adequately trained for such duties nor expected to executed such duties responsibly; it is impossible for a ‘head janitor’ to follow behind every child to make sure health standards are adhered to.

The popular perception of a janitor is inaccurate, it’s not just ‘pushing a mop,’ it requires training and experience with regard to the proper use of cleaning materials and techniques to ensure public health and safety.

Not to mention minor children would be exposed to dangerous chemicals and diseases.

Or is it a partisan attack against Gingrich?

No, it’s a logical and sensible rejection of an idiotic idea for the reasons noted above, among others. A democrat making a similar proposal would be just as ridiculed.

A child can be required to do work if it is part of his/her 'treatment plan.' There is a school for learning disabled children here that requires a child to clean the bathrooms when he/she gets a certain number of infranctions. They have VERY clean bathrooms!

Also, it is not true that mental patients cannot be required to work. If it is part of his/her treatment plan he/she can be required to do certain tasks.

 

[JoeB131]

Kids are used as cash machines by the school already. They are sent out as salesmen several times during the year at my kids' school. It was even worse when they were in Portland.

Good point. I owe you some rep...

Frankly, I've always been bothered by this. With the level of taxes we pay, kids should not be going door to door (which really, can be a LOT more dangerous than mopping a floor) selling candy to God Knows Who is on the other side of the door.

Incidently, most parents I know sell the kid's candy for them at work.

My children attend a school where most of the money to run the school is raised by the parents. The kids are NEVER sent out to raise money.

I'm very happy for you.

So fucking what?

Point is, there are schools that DO make the kids sell candy.

Now sometimes they are lucky enough to have parents that will bring that stuff to work and sell chocolate to their coworkers.

And sometimes they are stuck with parents who are too busy watching Jerry Springer and waiting for the welfare check to arrive.

Good luck, kid!

 

[Katzndogz]

Children have been idolized into some thing they aren't and never were. They are little gods and goddesses needed all to bow down and give them eveything they want.

The left doesn't believe anyone should work, unless they are rich, then they should work and the payment for that work distributed to those who refuse to work.

 

[American Horse]

Newt is correct. The poor have horrible work ethics and making 9 year olds work will fix this. Trust fund babies exemplify what good work ethics are all about and as long was we only make "poor" 9 year olds work, whats the problem.

I can imagine some students, particularly needy ones, vying for an opportunity to take a turn at this kind of work, and being encouraged to improve their daily attendance and scholastic skills. Doing all the things needed done in that kind of work amounts to learning basic skills they will later appreciate, and so will their bosses. This would be a foot up, an experience in competition for those who are so often excluded from the very concept. Keep in mind that schools are still not really federally but locally controlled. Wages and salaries come from local government units.

We don’t even know to what extent school janitors are union members, and I really doubt that Newt had that aspect even cross his mind.

I think it would need to be a supplemental program, and wouldn’t want to see working janitors lose their permanent employment, but if attrition occurred because position were temporary, all the better.

 

[Dragon]

I would think that if parents are exploiting the children, then those are the children you don't give the jobs to. You act as though absolutely no judgment would be excercised.

What I actually think is that no judgment on this COULD be exercised effectively. The school is simply not in a position to know everything that goes on in the family life of every kid enrolled in it. Nor is it reasonable to ask the already-overworked school administration to keep on top of this.

Newt was calling for revisiting these 100 year old laws that might not make as much sense now

I distrust that argument, especially at a time like the present when conservatives are looking to roll back the rights of labor all across the board.

Except that as a practical matter, you can just move your factory to Malaysia or Mexico and get child labor done there on the cheap. And a Democrat will happily sign the treaty to let that happen.

Let's not make this a partisan issue. If you look over my posts on this forum, you'll find I'm under no illusions about the Democratic Party. Which in fact goes back to the poll question, does it not? It's definitely the issue, and not the fact that Gingrich said it. I strongly opposed NAFTA and GATT. Remember what president pushed those through, and which party he belonged to? I strongly oppose continuing to detain accused terrorists at Guantanamo. While that was something Bush did initially, who is doing it now?

We cannot -- literally CANNOT -- compete with dirt-cheap foreign labor by lowering our own wages. There is simply no way that Americans can accept pay low enough to do that and survive. So there is no point in trying. The jobs that will stay here are those that have to stay here because they can't effectively be outsourced (janitorial services being one of those, in fact), or those that the government discourages companies from outsourcing. Under either of those circumstances, there is no reason not to push for high wages.

 

[candycorn]

Children have been idolized into some thing they aren't and never were. They are little gods and goddesses needed all to bow down and give them eveything they want.

The left doesn't believe anyone should work, unless they are rich, then they should work and the payment for that work distributed to those who refuse to work.

I hope you're not as insipid as that statement makes you sound.

The number of people below the poverty line in Texas is quite high and it's the reddest state in the union. I guess they are all liberals down there?

I think what you meant to say is this:

Conservative dad sits down for dinner with his family and asks Jenny what she did in school today, she answers, "The principal told me to wash windows in Social Studies". The Conservative dad says something to the effect of, "Well, you learned a valuable lesson. Maybe you can work your way up to mopping the floor some day"

Liberal dad sits down for dinner with his family and asks Jenny what she did in school today, she answers, "The principal told me to wash windows in Social Studies". The Liberal dad says something to the effect of, "That won't happen tomorrow. I'll put an end to it."

Apparently you guys think working in a school doing janitorial work is preferable to studying in the school. I don't think that is what Newt was trying to state or at least I hope it wasn't. Maybe the GOP is just that far off the rails in terms of Presidential candidates????

 

[Katzndogz]

Rich kids don't work.

Actually that's just another lie of the left. The children of the rich start working early. Like 6.

Myers, Fla. Advice from a millionaire dad

But that's not how things were going to work in the Dunn household. For starters, his seven kids, ages 3 to 16, do not get allowances. Instead, they have to work for their money -- not by doing chores around the house ("Why should they get money to be a productive member of the household?" Dunn asks) but by starting their own businesses.

His 6-year-old son, for example, bakes and sells cookies and makes $85 an hour, his father says. His 13-year-old son, Trestan, runs a video-production company. His kids are not always thrilled with the idea of working for their supper, but they understand their dad's reasoning.

"Sometimes I wish they gave me money," Trestan says of his parents, "but I know I need to (work) because it will help my future."

What the rich teach their kids - MSN Money

All the very wealthy families that I have known in my life have required that their children work starting at quite young ages. The myth that the children of the rich don't work is right up there with the rich don't pay any taxes.

The left lies, it's all they do.

 

[JoeB131]

Let's not make this a partisan issue. If you look over my posts on this forum, you'll find I'm under no illusions about the Democratic Party. Which in fact goes back to the poll question, does it not? It's definitely the issue, and not the fact that Gingrich said it. I strongly opposed NAFTA and GATT. Remember what president pushed those through, and which party he belonged to? I strongly oppose continuing to detain accused terrorists at Guantanamo. While that was something Bush did initially, who is doing it now?

We cannot -- literally CANNOT -- compete with dirt-cheap foreign labor by lowering our own wages. There is simply no way that Americans can accept pay low enough to do that and survive. So there is no point in trying. The jobs that will stay here are those that have to stay here because they can't effectively be outsourced (janitorial services being one of those, in fact), or those that the government discourages companies from outsourcing. Under either of those circumstances, there is no reason not to push for high wages.

Except that eventually, the janitorial services have to be paid for by the guys doing the manufacturing. And that's the problem, the whole economy has to get more efficieint. Not just the parts that have to compete with overseas labor.

Perpetuation of lazy union jobs because they have good wages that companies and government can no longer afford is not an answer either.

I think we need stronger trade laws, but I think we also need to get our own houses in order. The Japanese are beating the pants off of us in Auto Sales with factories they have here.

A lot of things need to get fixed. One of them is education. The fact 20% of our graduates can't read their diplomas is a huge problem, but just try to fire an underperforming teacher who is just phoning it in because she has "tenure".

So again, the main reason I support what Newt is suggesting is that it will instill a work ethic at an early age.