Labor department wants to end farming

[Quantum Windbag]

As the law clearly states, none of this applies to people working on their parent's farm. So your claims about parent's "caring more about their kids than the government" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

That's a devious proposition. In this day and age, few farms are sole-proprietorships. for tax reasons, they are all incorporated, even the so-called "family owned farms." So, are those farms covered by the new regulations or not? I think you'll find they are.

Only if he actually looks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't see anything about "outlawing kids working on farms" in there.

I see changing of the regulations about what jobs they're allowed to do - which I see no problem with, since those laws hadn't been updated since 1970.


At least you're not claiming that they're stopping kids from doing their chores, like some of the other threads on this did.

Ok, what needed changing? Did we really have a bunch of farm kids dying?

Yes, actually a lot of kids working farms do die or are horribly mutilated by very unforgiving machinery. A kid can't cut a pizza at the local pizza shop or work the oven until he/she is 18 for safety reasons. Letting kids under 18 work on farms close to certain machinery is not a smart idea. Kids do stupid shit all the time, without thinking. It's not that they are dumb, but they are scatter brained. They don't always think about the possible consequences.

Why can't kids cut pizza? Ever try to cut anything other than a pizza with a pizza cutter?

By the way, kids can work ovens in pizza restaurants. Many restaurants don't hire kids to work the kitchen for various reasons, but it is legal. Working the deep fryer at McDonald's is a lot more dangerous than taking a pizza out of an oven, yet kids do that all the time.

 

[uscitizen]

I dont care if kids under 16 run powered equipment. Farm kids have done that forever, now the nanny state tells them what they can do. I'll trust the parents care more about their kids safety than the governemt. In other words it's not about safety, it's a power grab, kinda like how liberals want to call child services on people who spank their kids. None of your business.

So do you take the same stance on child abuse laws? Do you trust the parents to decide how much or if to beat their children? Sexually abuse them?

Many parents do not deserve to be parents.
Which is unfortuante and the reason such child protection laws exist.

The BLS data showed that the majority of the deaths of youths under age 16 and one-fourth of the deaths of youths aged 16 and 17 were in the agriculture industry.
www.cdc.gov/niosh/nas/agforfish/pdfs/​AFFchapter4NAS12-06.pdf

 

[Conservative]

As the law clearly states, none of this applies to people working on their parent's farm. So your claims about parent's "caring more about their kids than the government" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

That's a devious proposition. In this day and age, few farms are sole-proprietorships. for tax reasons, they are all incorporated, even the so-called "family owned farms." So, are those farms covered by the new regulations or not? I think you'll find they are.

Only if he actually looks.

I think BRIT and Quant need to research before they ASSume things...

Family Farms

Family Farms Overview

The vast majority of farms and ranches in the United States are family owned and operated. USDA classifies family farms as “any farm organized as a sole proprietorship, partnership, or family corporation. Family farms exclude farms organized as nonfamily corporations or cooperatives, as well as farms with hired managers” (USDA, Economic Research Service 2007 Family Farm Report). Under this definition, the National Agricultural Statistics Service’s 2007 Census of Agriculture reported that family farms account for almost 96 percent of the 2,204,792 farms in the United States.

So, this wouldn't apply to 96% of the farms in the country.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I dont care if kids under 16 run powered equipment. Farm kids have done that forever, now the nanny state tells them what they can do. I'll trust the parents care more about their kids safety than the governemt. In other words it's not about safety, it's a power grab, kinda like how liberals want to call child services on people who spank their kids. None of your business.

As the law clearly states, none of this applies to people working on their parent's farm. So your claims about parent's "caring more about their kids than the government" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

It does not clearly sate any such thing. There is an exception for a small farm that is run by the parents and is unincorporated, but 95% of all farms are incorporated in order to avoid the death tax the government collects if you don't. Thanks for proving you are on the side of big government, and that you are willing to use lies to support it, just like all big government people do. Tell me something, if big government is so wonderful, why do you have to lie?

You know, for someone who seems to be all about intellectual honesty, you're making quite a few leaps in terms of what you think that I believe.

Also, as Conservative pointed out, 96% of farms in this country qualify as "Family farms".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You don't see a problem with kids not working with livestock, which would eliminate the FFA and 4H, and make it a lot harder for farm kids to afford college? You don't see a problem with kids not being allowed to work at grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges or livestock auctions?

Why don;t you go talk to some farmers instead of just assuming you know what is best for everyone?

It doesn't apply to FFA or 4H because it only applies to employment. Neither FFA or 4H "employ" children.

And no, I don't a problem restricting kids under 16 from being employed in dangerous jobs on farms.

Are you aware that many kids make money off of FFA and 4-H projects? If making money is not cause for the government to consider something employment, what is?

By the way, the revisions in 1970, which didn't apply to chores, ended up being applied to chores, it is now illegal for children to shear sheep unless their parents own the farm directly, not through a corporation. If you thought those revisions were good, you should understand that these revisions will work the same way. Since FFA and 4-H are both corporations, it would apply to them, unless a parent was on site for all activities, just like the 1970 revisions do.

Are you aware that those so called dangerous jobs result in no more fatalities than other activities that are considered perfectly safe? about 11 in 100,000 people under 20 die in farm related accidents every year, which is statistically equal to the rate for non farm deaths in the same age group.

Sounds really dangerous to me.

Link to back up your claims about the 1970 law applying to "chores"?

Also, neither 4H nor FFA are "corporations". 4H is a government-run youth program, and FFA is a non-profit. Neither of them "employ" any children.

You've got a lot of claims to back up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a devious proposition. In this day and age, few farms are sole-proprietorships. for tax reasons, they are all incorporated, even the so-called "family owned farms." So, are those farms covered by the new regulations or not? I think you'll find they are.

Only if he actually looks.

I think BRIT and Quant need to research before they ASSume things...

Family Farms

Family Farms Overview

The vast majority of farms and ranches in the United States are family owned and operated. USDA classifies family farms as “any farm organized as a sole proprietorship, partnership, or family corporation. Family farms exclude farms organized as nonfamily corporations or cooperatives, as well as farms with hired managers” (USDA, Economic Research Service 2007 Family Farm Report). Under this definition, the National Agricultural Statistics Service’s 2007 Census of Agriculture reported that family farms account for almost 96 percent of the 2,204,792 farms in the United States.

So, this wouldn't apply to 96% of the farms in the country.

The USDA classifies them that way, how does the Labor department classify them?

If you want to make me look stupid I suggest you try a little harder. Apparently the uproar over the new rule from actual farmers, including a bunch of Democratic ones who actually pay union dues, led them to realize they were wrong. It wasn't people who like to look for excuses for the government that made them back off.

Labor dept. backs off rule to limit farm work by kids | Minnesota Public Radio News

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Only if he actually looks.

I think BRIT and Quant need to research before they ASSume things...

Family Farms

Family Farms Overview

The vast majority of farms and ranches in the United States are family owned and operated. USDA classifies family farms as “any farm organized as a sole proprietorship, partnership, or family corporation. Family farms exclude farms organized as nonfamily corporations or cooperatives, as well as farms with hired managers” (USDA, Economic Research Service 2007 Family Farm Report). Under this definition, the National Agricultural Statistics Service’s 2007 Census of Agriculture reported that family farms account for almost 96 percent of the 2,204,792 farms in the United States.

So, this wouldn't apply to 96% of the farms in the country.

The USDA classifies them that way, how does the Labor department classify them?

If you want to make me look stupid I suggest you try a little harder. Apparently the uproar over the new rule from actual farmers, including a bunch of Democratic ones who actually pay union dues, led them to realize they were wrong. It wasn't people who like to look for excuses for the government that made them back off.

Labor dept. backs off rule to limit farm work by kids | Minnesota Public Radio News

Bandwagon fallacy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As the law clearly states, none of this applies to people working on their parent's farm. So your claims about parent's "caring more about their kids than the government" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

It does not clearly sate any such thing. There is an exception for a small farm that is run by the parents and is unincorporated, but 95% of all farms are incorporated in order to avoid the death tax the government collects if you don't. Thanks for proving you are on the side of big government, and that you are willing to use lies to support it, just like all big government people do. Tell me something, if big government is so wonderful, why do you have to lie?

You know, for someone who seems to be all about intellectual honesty, you're making quite a few leaps in terms of what you think that I believe.

Also, as Conservative pointed out, 96% of farms in this country qualify as "Family farms".

Classified by whom? The different departments of the government often use different definition, which is one reason to reduce the size of the government. Did you know that the part of the government in charge of making sure there is enough electricity disagreed with the EPA about how bad the new coal power plant rules would be?

Tell me something, if you were actually right, why did Labor decide to back off rather than implement perfectly harmless rules?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It does not clearly sate any such thing. There is an exception for a small farm that is run by the parents and is unincorporated, but 95% of all farms are incorporated in order to avoid the death tax the government collects if you don't. Thanks for proving you are on the side of big government, and that you are willing to use lies to support it, just like all big government people do. Tell me something, if big government is so wonderful, why do you have to lie?

You know, for someone who seems to be all about intellectual honesty, you're making quite a few leaps in terms of what you think that I believe.

Also, as Conservative pointed out, 96% of farms in this country qualify as "Family farms".

Classified by whom? The different departments of the government often use different definition, which is one reason to reduce the size of the government. Did you know that the part of the government in charge of making sure there is enough electricity disagreed with the EPA about how bad the new coal power plant rules would be?

Tell me something, if you were actually right, why did Labor decide to back off rather than implement perfectly harmless rules?

As your link stated, they backed off the rules because "thousands" of people complained.

The fact that "thousands" of people were hysterical about it doesn't make it true.

 

[Conservative]

You know, for someone who seems to be all about intellectual honesty, you're making quite a few leaps in terms of what you think that I believe.

Also, as Conservative pointed out, 96% of farms in this country qualify as "Family farms".

Classified by whom? The different departments of the government often use different definition, which is one reason to reduce the size of the government. Did you know that the part of the government in charge of making sure there is enough electricity disagreed with the EPA about how bad the new coal power plant rules would be?

Tell me something, if you were actually right, why did Labor decide to back off rather than implement perfectly harmless rules?

As your link stated, they backed off the rules because "thousands" of people complained.

The fact that "thousands" of people were hysterical about it doesn't make it true.

thousands of people think we never went to the moon, and that Castro shot JFK, and that 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It doesn't apply to FFA or 4H because it only applies to employment. Neither FFA or 4H "employ" children.

And no, I don't a problem restricting kids under 16 from being employed in dangerous jobs on farms.

Are you aware that many kids make money off of FFA and 4-H projects? If making money is not cause for the government to consider something employment, what is?

By the way, the revisions in 1970, which didn't apply to chores, ended up being applied to chores, it is now illegal for children to shear sheep unless their parents own the farm directly, not through a corporation. If you thought those revisions were good, you should understand that these revisions will work the same way. Since FFA and 4-H are both corporations, it would apply to them, unless a parent was on site for all activities, just like the 1970 revisions do.

Are you aware that those so called dangerous jobs result in no more fatalities than other activities that are considered perfectly safe? about 11 in 100,000 people under 20 die in farm related accidents every year, which is statistically equal to the rate for non farm deaths in the same age group.

Sounds really dangerous to me.

Link to back up your claims about the 1970 law applying to "chores"?

Also, neither 4H nor FFA are "corporations". 4H is a government-run youth program, and FFA is a non-profit. Neither of them "employ" any children.

You've got a lot of claims to back up.

The FFA is a federally chartered corporation.

https://www.ffa.org/documents/about_publiclaw.pdf

How is 4-H not a corporation?

4-H History - 4-H Story | 4-H

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think BRIT and Quant need to research before they ASSume things...

Family Farms
So, this wouldn't apply to 96% of the farms in the country.

The USDA classifies them that way, how does the Labor department classify them?

If you want to make me look stupid I suggest you try a little harder. Apparently the uproar over the new rule from actual farmers, including a bunch of Democratic ones who actually pay union dues, led them to realize they were wrong. It wasn't people who like to look for excuses for the government that made them back off.

Labor dept. backs off rule to limit farm work by kids | Minnesota Public Radio News

Bandwagon fallacy.

Wrong.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you aware that many kids make money off of FFA and 4-H projects? If making money is not cause for the government to consider something employment, what is?

By the way, the revisions in 1970, which didn't apply to chores, ended up being applied to chores, it is now illegal for children to shear sheep unless their parents own the farm directly, not through a corporation. If you thought those revisions were good, you should understand that these revisions will work the same way. Since FFA and 4-H are both corporations, it would apply to them, unless a parent was on site for all activities, just like the 1970 revisions do.

Are you aware that those so called dangerous jobs result in no more fatalities than other activities that are considered perfectly safe? about 11 in 100,000 people under 20 die in farm related accidents every year, which is statistically equal to the rate for non farm deaths in the same age group.

Sounds really dangerous to me.

Link to back up your claims about the 1970 law applying to "chores"?

Also, neither 4H nor FFA are "corporations". 4H is a government-run youth program, and FFA is a non-profit. Neither of them "employ" any children.

You've got a lot of claims to back up.

The FFA is a federally chartered corporation.

https://www.ffa.org/documents/about_publiclaw.pdf

How is 4-H not a corporation?

4-H History - 4-H Story | 4-H

Ok, in a technical sense you're correct, they're both "corporations".

4H is a government-run "corporation", and FFA is a non-profit "corporation".

They still don't "employ" children.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The USDA classifies them that way, how does the Labor department classify them?

If you want to make me look stupid I suggest you try a little harder. Apparently the uproar over the new rule from actual farmers, including a bunch of Democratic ones who actually pay union dues, led them to realize they were wrong. It wasn't people who like to look for excuses for the government that made them back off.

Labor dept. backs off rule to limit farm work by kids | Minnesota Public Radio News

Bandwagon fallacy.

Wrong.

How so?

Are you not trying to claim that your hysterics about this law are correct because other people think so too?

 

[ogibillm]

if farming ends who will herd all the sheople that believe crap like the dol is trying to shut down farms?

 

[Douger]

I don't see anything about "outlawing kids working on farms" in there.

I see changing of the regulations about what jobs they're allowed to do - which I see no problem with, since those laws hadn't been updated since 1970.


At least you're not claiming that they're stopping kids from doing their chores, like some of the other threads on this did.

Ok, what needed changing? Did we really have a bunch of farm kids dying?

Just from eating the shit your masters allow you to buy at the store.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I don't see anything about "outlawing kids working on farms" in there.

I see changing of the regulations about what jobs they're allowed to do - which I see no problem with, since those laws hadn't been updated since 1970.


At least you're not claiming that they're stopping kids from doing their chores, like some of the other threads on this did.

Ok, what needed changing? Did we really have a bunch of farm kids dying?

Not dying nearly so often as being maimed.

Why in the world would the rw be against better safety condition for children?

For that matter, why do rw's always have to lie about the contents of a link and then have to have others tell them what their link REALLY said!

 

[gallantwarrior]

I dont care if kids under 16 run powered equipment. Farm kids have done that forever, now the nanny state tells them what they can do. I'll trust the parents care more about their kids safety than the governemt. In other words it's not about safety, it's a power grab, kinda like how liberals want to call child services on people who spank their kids. None of your business.

As the law clearly states, none of this applies to people working on their parent's farm. So your claims about parent's "caring more about their kids than the government" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

Unless the family farm has been incorporated. Then it becomes illegal to have the children learn how to run the family farm.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bandwagon fallacy.

Wrong.

How so?

Are you not trying to claim that your hysterics about this law are correct because other people think so too?

No, I challenged you to explain why, if you are right,m they dropped the proposal. It seems to me that, if these regulations didn't apply to 95% of farms, they could have ignored all the comments and implemented them.