Page 1 of 1

Still not ratified.

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 5:04 pm
by rubato
And rather a surprise. I tried to get my first job in 6th grade. I went to a nearby restaurant and they explained that it was illegal to hire me. That was the first time I had heard of child labor laws and I was unhappy about it, then.


But I am very surprised that this didn't sail through a long time ago.


Image


http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/201 ... une-2-1924
This Day in Labor History: June 2, 1924
[ 36 ] June 2, 2016 | Erik Loomis

childlabor12

On June 2, 1924, a constitutional amendment to ban child labor passed the Senate and was sent out to the states for ratification. Unfortunately, the states never ratified it, although they still could today.

The fight against child labor had been a major part of both the struggle of organized labor and of middle-class reformers for decades. For unionists, they not only saw child labor as degrading to children, but also as undermining the wages of working class. Get rid of the children, they argued, and you eliminate a major source of competition driving wages down. The wages would rise and children could go to school instead of working. For Progressives like Florence Kelley and Lewis Hine, child labor was a horror of American society, contributing to long-term poverty and social unrest that hurt the entire nation. Kelley’s Consumers’ League, as well as the National Child Labor Committee, lobbied Americans, especially middle-class women, to fight against the scourge of child labor through the early twentieth century, first focusing on the state level and then moving into the realm of national politics.

On the other hand, many working families, especially in the South, relied on child labor. But they had little political power. The real opposition came from corporations, especially the textile industry, which relied heavily on children in their mills and which had moved from the northeast to the South during these years in order to take advantage of states that had not passed child labor laws. It was in southern mills where Hine took many of his most powerful images of child labor. The need for a constitutional amendment became apparent when the conservative Supreme Court overturned federal legislation regulating child labor in 1918 and again in 1922. In 1916, the Keating-Owen Act, which the National Child Labor Committee had lobbied for, overwhelmingly passed Congress and was signed by President Wilson. In 1918, the 1918 Supreme Court overturned it in Hammer v. Dagenhart, deciding that Congress had no authority to regulate products made by children. For anti-child labor activists, the only remaining strategy was a constitutional amendment.
On April 26, 1924, the child labor amendment passed the House of Representatives and on June 2, the Senate. The text was simple:

Section 1. The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.

Section 2. The power of the several States is unimpaired by this article except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Congress
Given the relatively easy passage of the amendment through Congress, the failure of it to gain traction at the state level was striking. Between 1924 and 1932, a resounding 6 states ratified it and 32 state legislatures had voted it down. It was seen as a dead letter. Employers rallied to oppose it. Comparing child laborers to Civil War soldiers, Manufactures Record noted that 850,000 soldiers under the age of 18 had fought in the war and opined, “If they were old enough to fight for their country, they ought to be old enough to regulate the matter of their own employment.” The same editorial added a new twist to this old freedom of contract canard: redbaiting. Passing the amendment,
would mean the destruction of manhood and womanhood through the destruction of boys and girls in this country. The proposed amendment is fathered by Socialists, Communists and Bolshevists…aimed to nationalize the children of the land and bring about in this country the exact conditions that prevail in Russia. If adopted, the amendment would be the greatest thing ever done in America in behalf of the activities of hell. It will make millions of young people under eighteen years of age idlers in brain and body, and thus make them the devil’s best workshop.
I wonder if the person who wrote this had to smoke a cigarette and then shower after that rant. ... "

yrs,
rubato

Re: Still not ratified.

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 7:55 pm
by Burning Petard
As was stated in the beginning of this thread, child labor can be, and is, regulated at the local, state, national level now,without any constitutional amendment.

I was working in a printing plant in Kansas City MO when I was 15. A city inspector came around and pointed out that I was not permitted to ride the freight elevator beause it had drive mechanisms accessible from within the cage. And I also was not allowed to operate the small flat bed cylinder press or the paper cutter. The Original Heidelberg presses were OK for me. The union would not let me run the offset presses.

Snail gate

Re: Still not ratified.

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:51 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
I cut lawns when I was 12 with a gas powered lawn mower without fail safe bars and warning labels. :o
:mrgreen:

Re: Still not ratified.

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:22 pm
by Econoline
Me too.

Re: Still not ratified.

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:45 pm
by rubato
I'm surprised that a sufficient majority of states could not agree on something as obviously right as child labor laws.

Rather shocking.


yrs,
rubato

Re: Still not ratified.

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:03 pm
by Big RR
Why do you believe we need a Constitutional amendment? Congress already has the power to legislate in this area and can and does enact labor laws upheld by the courts, as do the states.

Re: Still not ratified.

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:18 pm
by Long Run
Obviously a moot point, but I think the point is that before the Supreme Court essentially changed its mind about the constitutionality of federal child labor laws, why our society in that era would not protect children from workplace abuses.

Re: Still not ratified.

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:28 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
Big RR wrote:Why do you believe we need a Constitutional amendment? Congress already has the power to legislate in this area and can and does enact labor laws upheld by the courts, as do the states.
Perhaps you misconstrue. I don't read that rubato wants a Constitutional amendment, merely that he's surprised something so obvious at the time didn't pass muster in the states.

Re: Still not ratified.

Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2016 11:06 pm
by rubato
Big RR wrote:Why do you believe we need a Constitutional amendment? Congress already has the power to legislate in this area and can and does enact labor laws upheld by the courts, as do the states.

We, obviously, needed such an amendment at that time. it does not shock you that so many states were, essentially, amoral on this topic? Until the present?


yrs,
rubato

Re: Still not ratified.

Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2016 11:27 pm
by Joe Guy
rubato wrote: We, obviously, needed such an amendment at that time. it does not shock you that so many states were, essentially, amoral on this topic? Until the present?
comma comma down dooby doo down down, comma comma...

Re: Still not ratified.

Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2016 11:34 pm
by Scooter
I don't know the history of it, but I see using a cutoff age of 18 as possibly having something to do with it. Congress would not necessarily have banned all child labour under 18, but this amendment would have given them the power to do it. Even by the standards of today that would be extreme, by the standards of the time it would have been economically disastrous for many families.

Re: Still not ratified.

Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2016 11:40 pm
by rubato
Joe Guy wrote:
rubato wrote: We, obviously, needed such an amendment at that time. it does not shock you that so many states were, essentially, amoral on this topic? Until the present?
comma comma down dooby doo down down, comma comma...
Oh look, and intellectual and moral vacuum!


Well if we ever need one there it is!


yrs,
rubato

Re: Still not ratified.

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2016 12:07 am
by Joe Guy
rubato wrote: Oh look, and intellectual and moral vacuum!
comma comma, down dooby doo down down

rubato wrote:Well if we ever need one there it is!
I'd like to buy a comma or two, Pat...

dooby doo down down....

Re: Still not ratified.

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:22 pm
by rubato
Vacuous comma coma comments aside ...


I am still astonished that so many failed to vote for what was (and is, they can still vote to pass it) an obviously morally correct idea. And having made such an enormous and shameful mistake they have not sought to correct it by voting for it later on. They aren't embarrassed?

The exclusion for farm labor was nominally intended to allow children of farmers to work but has been used instead systematically to exploit the children of poor farm laborers. And that needs to be rectified.


yrs,
rubato