Maine Republicans Looking to Loosen Child Labor Laws

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 01, 2011 10:17 AM GMT
    Well you wanted proof that the republicans weren't gonna bring back draconian labor measures once they weakened organized labor
    well .... here's the proof that they will

    The republican run Maine legislature is trying to pass legislation that will roll back child labor laws that have been around for Decades
    The minimum wage in Maine is $7.50 an hour, and there is no training or subminimum wage for students. But under a new piece of legislation introduced in the state's House of Representatives, employers would be able to pay anyone under the age of 20 as little as $5.25 an hour for their first 180 days on the job.
    The state Senate is also currently considering a bill (LD 516) that would allow 16- and 17-year-old students to work until 11:00 p.m. on school nights. Currently, they're allowed to work until 10:00 p.m. It would also allow students to work for a total of 24 hours per week, four more than current law allows. Senators on the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee are split along party lines on the bill, but it's likely to pass when the full body votes on it--the Senate, like the House, is controlled by Republicans.


    Democrats have countered that there is no need to loosen these laws esp now when the labor market has no extra jobs to fill
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 01, 2011 11:16 AM GMT
    The ruling class have always considered human beings to be nothing more than resources...and treated no differently than trees, land, animals, etc.

    The United States was created to protect people FROM the ruling class. This is why the republicans are working towards a Theocracy. Anybody who believes the ruling class needed somebody to give them "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness"...or were enthused about the "All People Created Equal' concept...is a total moron.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 01, 2011 11:22 AM GMT
    This is a disgrace. IT also tells us all why they're attacking public education. They don't want a smart, educated and informed citizenry, because those are notoriously hard to control. Better to put kids to work, undercutting adults as the prime source of labor, and forget about educating them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 01, 2011 11:22 AM GMT
    Those 18-20 year olds affected by such a law should sue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 01, 2011 11:55 AM GMT
    if this law goes through then watch the employment lengths of 18 to 20 year olds will be set for up to 180 days, then those companies willing to "use" our young people will be rehiring every 180 days, they'll be rejoicing with temp help that they will not have to pay any benefits to at all.

    This is amazing that all these repubs think of is employers, the survival of workers is not a concern to them.

    When I was a teenager (mid 60's to early 70's), my $1.25 hourly minimum wage was enough to buy at least a good meal at lunch time, now these repubs want to take our young peoples hourly wage to less than what they'd need in the north east for a meal at lunch time. (I don't count McDonalds as a real meal which can be had for about $4.00)

    Are these repubs sure the workers under 20 need shoes to work in ? at this rate of pay they suggest for up to 180 days, these young people would have to work for nearly a week for a pair of shoes, right at 4 to six hours for a pair of pants, about a week for a coat, for them its a loosing proposition.

    Maybe some shoes should be thrown at these bastards in protest !!!! Or some books, because at the rate of pay they suggest, it would cost more that a weeks worth of wages per class per book. Good luck Students !! the repubs want to cut pell grants too. what are those dumb fucks thinking ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 01, 2011 12:29 PM GMT
    realifedad saidwhat are those dumb [Republican] fucks thinking ?

    They're thinking that corporations give them political donations. Close to unlimited now that the right-wingers on the US Supreme Court removed campaign contribution limits in place for many decades. Whereas children do not contribute any significant monies to the republican Party. Not dumb, very smart on their part.

    Also why Republicans have begun attacking unions. Unions were also included in that Supreme Court ruling, and are generally considered to be friendly to the Democratic Party. But if you can weaken or eliminate unions, Republican-friendly corporations will have the campaign donation field to themselves.

    Very effective campaign strategies, to keep the Republicans in power indefinitely. And once again gives the lie to Republican claims that allowing corporations a free hand will create jobs. Do the math -- this will REDUCE jobs, while reducing incomes and the quality of life for ordinary Americans, gains that their ancestors fought for.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 01, 2011 1:17 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    realifedad saidwhat are those dumb [Republican] fucks thinking ?

    They're thinking that corporations give them political donations. Close to unlimited now that the right-wingers on the US Supreme Court removed campaign contribution limits in place for many decades. Whereas children do not contribute any significant monies to the republican Party. Not dumb, very smart on their part.


    Exactly.

    Reagan, Bush, Quayle, etc. were controlled by smart, powerful people. Looking back over 30 years, it doesn't take a genius to figure out where they're going...a few rich people who live like kings...surrounded by throngs of religious poor people who kill 'infidels' on commands from their religious leaders.

    This is boilerplate stuff in so many third world countries.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 01, 2011 1:20 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    realifedad saidwhat are those dumb [Republican] fucks thinking ?

    They're thinking that corporations give them political donations.
    /thread
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 01, 2011 1:37 PM GMT
    .
    And we thought it was the 1950's the Republicans wanted to "TAKE AMERICAN BACK TO"

    MORE LIKE 1850's

    child-labor.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSI

    child-labor2.jpg
    B1EC19324A4340638C4457E577997CC5.jpg

    child-labor_7866.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2011 4:21 AM GMT
    can you look at the potential benefits of such a law? and why republicans support lowering the min wage?

    First off its well known that the min wage prices out many teens from the workforce. Why, because it makes employers more selective in who they choose to hire. For instance an employer will be less likely to hire a teen with no exp and no kind of resume, and instead they would hire the teens with some kind of exp or high grades or something on their resume (such as community service to show they have cooperative skill..etc). And because employers would have to hire less teens, that means that they would have to put more work on a smaller work force, which would become burdensome and stressful for the teen.

    Republicans in Maine actually have a good idea, because it lowers the minimum wage temporarily so that teens who don't have exp, skill, or and kind of resume will be more likely to be hired. And after the 180 days the teen would be paid the minimum wage.


    And I do believe you said the law would "allow teens to work till 11pm", keyword there is "allow" not force or make. Plus being only 18 myself and growing up in the same generation as current 16 -17 year olds, I can say that the majority of 16-17 year olds are up as late as 11 or later.

    Also you say that the law "allows" teens to work up to 24 hours. The word "allows" is key yet again..

  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Apr 02, 2011 4:43 AM GMT
    gayboi11 saidcan you look at the potential benefits of such a law? and why republicans support lowering the min wage?

    First off its well known that the min wage prices out many teens from the workforce. Why, because it makes employers more selective in who they choose to hire. For instance an employer will be less likely to hire a teen with no exp and no kind of resume, and instead they would hire the teens with some kind of exp or high grades or something on their resume (such as community service to show they have cooperative skill..etc). And because employers would have to hire less teens, that means that they would have to put more work on a smaller work force, which would become burdensome and stressful for the teen.

    Republicans in Maine actually have a good idea, because it lowers the minimum wage temporarily so that teens who don't have exp, skill, or and kind of resume will be more likely to be hired. And after the 180 days the teen would be paid the minimum wage.


    And I do believe you said the law would "allow teens to work till 11pm", keyword there is "allow" not force or make. Plus being only 18 myself and growing up in the same generation as current 16 -17 year olds, I can say that the majority of 16-17 year olds are up as late as 11 or later.

    Also you say that the law "allows" teens to work up to 24 hours. The word "allows" is key yet again..



    Your views seem to be a little bit naive. I'm not meaning to be insulting...but when you pick up on the semantics of "allow" vs "force/make," you seem to be assuming that somehow in the workplace, if the teen is hired, he or she will be the one who decides whether they will be working until 11pm or not.

    That's not how it works. Outside of a unionized workplace, the terms of employment are dictated by the employer. For the worker, if you don't like the terms, the base right you have is to leave the job.

    In other words...if a 19 year old only wants to work until 9PM, but his employer says he must work until 11PM, guess what he'll be doing?

    Moreover, consider how this works for seasonal jobs, which are the mainstay for most teens as they usually work hard during the summer months, and often focus on school during the school year.

    Those jobs, which are typically instrumental to young University and College students, would be subject to lower wages because the season typically lasts less than 180 days!

    You know, it's kind of wierd: Gen Xers are the first generation who have it worse on the living standard front than did their parents. Now it seems their kids will have it worse than they did!

    Start saving your pennies for your kids education now, those of you who want kids...because when the time comes, your kids will need all the help you can give them to even break even with the standard of living that you had to trade down for!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2011 4:52 AM GMT

    Been there, done that under our now defunct Premier, Mr ultra right wing Gordon Campbell.

    Now that he's been given the royal boot, we have a woman and this is what she's doing...

    "Clark said she will remove the province's training wage, which paid new workers $6 per hour." (first 6 months, sound familiar?)

    Our minimum wage WAS 8 dollars an hour. She stated it's going to $10.25.

    finally, sanity.

    -Doug


    http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=1b899e6d-8213-4a88-a694-4217d55306ac
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2011 4:58 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    Been there, done that under our now defunct Premier, Mr ultra right wing Gordon Campbell.

    Now that he's been given the royal boot, we have a woman and this is what she's doing...

    "Clark said she will remove the province's training wage, which paid new workers $6 per hour." (first 6 months, sound familiar?)

    Our minimum wage WAS 8 dollars an hour. She stated it's going to $10.25.

    finally, sanity.

    -Doug


    http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=1b899e6d-8213-4a88-a694-4217d55306ac



    On a more hypothetical level, I have to wonder, given the choice if you believe it would be better to have more unemployment because people are prevented from working, or more employment but lower wages?

    Why shouldn't students or anyone else for that matter be allowed to work for whatever wages they want? Given that the investment businesses and employers also make into training, do you support internships that pay less?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2011 5:00 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said
    Been there, done that under our now defunct Premier, Mr ultra right wing Gordon Campbell.

    Now that he's been given the royal boot, we have a woman and this is what she's doing...

    "Clark said she will remove the province's training wage, which paid new workers $6 per hour." (first 6 months, sound familiar?)

    Our minimum wage WAS 8 dollars an hour. She stated it's going to $10.25.

    finally, sanity.

    -Doug


    http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=1b899e6d-8213-4a88-a694-4217d55306ac



    On a more hypothetical level, I have to wonder, given the choice if you believe it would be better to have more unemployment because people are prevented from working, or more employment but lower wages?

    Why shouldn't students or anyone else for that matter be allowed to work for whatever wages they want? Given that the investment businesses and employers also make into training, do you support internships that pay less?


    omg, lol. You are so redundant. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2011 5:00 AM GMT
    Actually I currently work in a non-unionized workplace and I can happily say that I get to choose my hours and that I have been able to since I started working there. I can also add that the majority of teens my age are able to tell their employer what their particular availability is during the week ( all from different workplaces i.e. I doubt many are unionized).

    Also I think any partially educated teen would be smart enough to ask their potential employer what their perspective hours might be. It is up to the teen to decide whether or not they will comply with how that particular employer decides to run his/her business.

    Although I will admit you have me on seasonal employment. But I must add that since I don't know the actual specifics of the bill I don't know if there is any kind of amendment for seasonal work.

    But I do believe that this bill is ultimately to help teens who have no experience in the workplace.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2011 5:01 AM GMT
    meninlove said omg, lol. You are so redundant. icon_wink.gif


    Once again adding to the quality of the discussion I see. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2011 5:03 AM GMT
    Riddler, what would make you think anyone would want to work for 2 dollars an hour below the minimum wage in one of the most expensive places to live?
    There has been a habit to 'let go' of workers once they reach their 5th hundredth plus hours. Hire more newbies and keep underpaying. The market was tight. People were forced. Let's not be simply ignorant here.

    Quite frankly, if you'd been living here and living through it, you'd likely be ranting on behalf of your slave-labour students; the ones you lament over that they can't get a doctor. So let's also underpay them for their work while they try to live and pay off loans.

    icon_lol.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2011 5:08 AM GMT
    meninlove said Riddler, what would make you think anyone would want to work for 2 dollars an hour below the minimum wage in one of the most expensive places to live?
    There has been a habit to 'let go' of workers once they reach their 5th hundredth plus hours. Hire more newbies and keep underpaying. The market was tight. People were forced. Let's not be simply ignorant here.



    That's the point. If no one would want to work for $2 an hour below the minimum wage, then it would be unnecessary to raise the minimum wage. Further, if someone were to choose to work for less there had best be a benefit to doing so.

    Do you feel that wages are simply an entitlement or do you think that there's a benefit/cost that businesses received? You do understand of course that "in one of the most expensive places to live" this also means that it's also one of the most expensive places to operate? It's not as if by increasing wages, businesses will make more - what's worse is that it squeezes the smaller businesses and startups most.

    You do realize of course that in many districts and nationally in the US, companies like Walmart push for higher minimum wages - first because they already pay more, and second, they know it will affect their competition far more.

    But again I ask you - if the choice were:

    (a) higher unemployment but higher wages when you are employed or,

    (b) lower employment but more variable and lower starting wages,

    Which would you choose?

    [Addendum]

    meninlove said Quite frankly, if you'd been living here and living through it, you'd likely be ranting on behalf of your slave-labour students; the ones you lament over that they can't get a doctor. So let's also underpay them for their work while they try to live and pay off loans.

    icon_lol.gif


    Quite seriously, is unemployment or living off unemployment a better option then?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2011 5:11 AM GMT
    Sorry Riddler, gabble away.
    You don't live here and you don't know what it was like for people here. We saw it first hand. Our Christy is a right wing gal through and through and knows what she's doing, unlike her nut-bar predecessor.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2011 5:15 AM GMT
    meninlove said Sorry Riddler, gabble away.
    You don't live here and you don't know what it was like for people here. We saw it first hand. Our Christy is a right wing gal through and through and knows what she's doing, unlike her nut-bar predecessor.


    Irrespective of where one lives, whether or not it's better to be unemployed versus employed for a lower wage sadly is also a reality that many need to face - and I have known those in that position. It's not fun - people won't hire you because you don't have any experience and no one will hire you so that you can get experience.

    Do you accept that while governments may be able to force people to pay a specific wage, but they can't force them to hire?
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Apr 02, 2011 10:05 AM GMT
    gayboi11 saidActually I currently work in a non-unionized workplace and I can happily say that I get to choose my hours and that I have been able to since I started working there. I can also add that the majority of teens my age are able to tell their employer what their particular availability is during the week ( all from different workplaces i.e. I doubt many are unionized).

    Also I think any partially educated teen would be smart enough to ask their potential employer what their perspective hours might be. It is up to the teen to decide whether or not they will comply with how that particular employer decides to run his/her business.

    Although I will admit you have me on seasonal employment. But I must add that since I don't know the actual specifics of the bill I don't know if there is any kind of amendment for seasonal work.

    But I do believe that this bill is ultimately to help teens who have no experience in the workplace.



    Really? You have the contractual right to pick and choose what hours you work...even if tomorrow your boss was replaced by someone who suggested that your availability no longer meets the company's needs?

    Wow...that is amazing...though you seem to be spinning a tale off of both sides of the coin: after all, if young employees are so emancipated that they can pick and choose their hours as you indicate, it seems at odds with the concept of changing labour law to pay them less for 6 months than they would normally be due in order to "help" them gain experience in the workplace!

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you've misunderstood my meaning about choice of hours. After all, you do realize there's a big difference between having the right to tell your employer what hours (ie. shift) you will work, and providing your employer with your availability and having him/her work with you, don't you?

    Ah, but if you've never worked in a Unionized environment, then you wouldn't likely understand the practical means by which this right is exerted...even by part time employees! As it happens, I've worked in both Unionized and non-Unionized workplaces...and I know that each has their own advantages and disadvantages.

    And as for your comment about what partially educated teens might ask about their hours...well if every teen faced the same hurdles, it might be an obvious point to make: however that is not always the case.

    Some teens are desperate for work because they have to try to save up money for school. Some are desperate for work because they played a part in producing a baby way too early. Some left an abusive home, and they need to support themselves. It's these teens who are the big losers because ultimately they don't feel as if they have the luxury to turn down a job because they don't like the hours.

    Unfortunately for people like you who reside in Maine, your 5-9 weekday availability looks far less appealing when prospective employers can coerce those desperate young people to accept 4:30-11 shifts, and can get an almost 30% break on their pay for the first 6 months of their employment.

    And of course, I love when people are so naive that they believe that employers do not understand the probation period, and how to milk it!

    My younger brother loved his job in a factor and worked very hard...only to lose it after 89 days...one day short of the end of his probation period as mandated by labour law here!

    Of course by doing that, his employer did not require cause for dismissal, and could avoid paying the benefits they'd used to sell him on the job in the first place.

    If anything, the legislation proposed in Maine would make it even more attractive to dismiss employees before the end of their probation period...because then you could hire another teen and pay him/her 30% less than they should be entitled to for the first 179 days.

    Only someone totally naive would believe that this won't be used by employers!
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Apr 02, 2011 10:15 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    Been there, done that under our now defunct Premier, Mr ultra right wing Gordon Campbell.

    Now that he's been given the royal boot, we have a woman and this is what she's doing...

    "Clark said she will remove the province's training wage, which paid new workers $6 per hour." (first 6 months, sound familiar?)

    Our minimum wage WAS 8 dollars an hour. She stated it's going to $10.25.

    finally, sanity.

    -Doug


    http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=1b899e6d-8213-4a88-a694-4217d55306ac


    Gordon Campbell was a disappointment as Premier...or so I always believed. When he was Mayor of Vancouver, he seemed like a very intelligent man...and during a Social Policy thesis I completed in University, he did more to help the victims of HIV/AIDS in Vancouver during his time as Mayor than did the Federal and Provincial governments combined.

    Now true...kinda easy to do more than Brian Mulroney (who capped social transfers to BC, Alberta and Ontario) and Bill Vander Zalm...but still: it's like, when he was Mayor, he had good ideas and was a decent politician...who became a total let down as Premier...mixing the Socialist line of hiking taxes with the Conservative line of cutting services!!!

    My Dad was from Richmond, and we still have family out there...so BC has always held something of an allure for me! icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2011 10:53 AM GMT
    Trent, I have a family member who worked with Gordo when he was Mayor. He was a micro managing freak, and when he left to go to Provincial politics,the same Party and council got re-elected with a different Mayor. They claimed Gordo 'left the books in a mess' and promptly raised taxes, lol!



    Gordo, as premier, also brought in the two hour call-out. For those unable to afford to live close to work, roughly four hours were used earning 16.00 minus transit costs and income tax.


    The experience here was training wage earners began displacing full time minimum wage earners. The joke was there was no middle class left to degrade so the the next level down was now being sucked dry.

    It very quickly became a game of who you knew, or were related to as no business was forced to pay the training wage to all newbies in the work force. Managers kids, relatives etc got to start at higher wages. And as you suggested, some businesses began implementing a 500 hour rule. Once they (the newbs) approach 500 hours out they go, and the business gets some more newbies.
    Then those ex-newbies faced the situation of competing for jobs with newbies that would make 2.00 an hour less who had 500 hours of cheap labour to be mined, and the ex newbies STILL didn't have the 500 hundred hours for them to make minimum wage.

    As for Riddler, another topic he created recently was all about the dire warning of inflation coming to America and blah-blah. Now here he is on this topic espousing even lower wages for those inflation will hurt the most.

    -Doug



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2011 2:45 PM GMT
    meninlove saidAs for Riddler, another topic he created recently was all about the dire warning of inflation coming to America and blah-blah. Now here he is on this topic espousing even lower wages for those inflation will hurt the most.


    Er, no. I am truly concerned about potential inflation. I also believe that that people should be allowed to sell their own time at a price of their choosing - and not have it forced on them.

    What I don't understand is why you seem to believe there is no trade off between hiring and the cost of hiring. Wages aren't determined by magic pixie dust. It's often not even big businesses that pay minimum wage - it's smaller ones who are willing to pay a certain cost for a service performed. If the costs exceed the benefits - costs including inefficiencies from new employees, benefits and the actual labor costs themselves, then they don't hire.

    What I don't understand is why it is so inconceivable to you that employees themselves get more than just the benefits of the wages themselves (like experience and knowledge) and might actually find those benefits valuable - as gayboi11 points out. What's the mechanism here to force businesses to hire?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2011 4:30 PM GMT
    "It's often not even big businesses that pay minimum wage"

    Well, you've got Bill laughing this morning, so thanks for that.

    Shall we begin with Safeway? The Bay? JP Morgan?

    ...but you know what? Never mind, because we found out people will believe what they WANT to believe, no matter what opposing reality is staring them plainly in the face. icon_rolleyes.gif