Is this the death of the family farm?

[NotNow]

It is apparent that some of you did not grow up in an agricultural area.  There are problems with this rule.  What folks fear is the abuse of Federal power.  The assumption of jurisdiction first of all, and then the power to define "dangerous" or "employee/employer relationship".  There is not enough space here to describe every situation, but the rule can be rewritten with broad authority resting where it should....with the parents. 

[finehoe]

It is apparent that some of you did not grow up in an agricultural area.  There are problems with this rule.  What folks fear is the abuse of Federal power.  The assumption of jurisdiction first of all, and then the power to define "dangerous" or "employee/employer relationship".  There is not enough space here to describe every situation, but the rule can be rewritten with broad authority resting where it should....with the parents.

The Fair Labor Standards Act has been around since 1938.  Any assumptions of jurisdiction and power to define have been around for three-quarters of a century.

[finehoe]

But then I guess who cares about historical or governmental fact when one can always, 'tell the lie often enough to become truth.'

Rather than trying to redefine political movements to fit your own world view, the take away from articles like the one that started this is to remember we are in a period of growing hysteria.

Demagogues will attempt to sway people and move them to action, often to counter legitimate complaints and efforts at reform, and to undermine legitimate protests.

This sort of urban mythology and demonization can become very dangerous, especially when it starts looking for scapegoats.   The haters are coming, at least according to history, and you do not want any part of it.

I had never heard of this proposed regulation, yet it took me less than five minutes to do a search that revealed the Daily Caller article was bullshit.

Look for the facts and make up your own mind rather than mindlessly swallowing whatever is put out there.

[NotNow]

I'm talking about the rule proposal that we are discussing on this thread.  The DOL is reaching into regulating areas that they have not until now.  The "assumed jurisdiction" that I am talking about is the proposed rules effect on farm families, agricultural familiarization and training for children, and the existing culture of rural communities including neighbor to neighbor relationships and ag clubs. 

Like most issues, the rep/dem politics is detrimental to the entire discussion.  If the DOL is legitimately trying to ensure the protection and safety of children (which I am assuming), then they will listen to the legitimate concerns of the affected citizens.  If the political noise making can't be left out of it, then DOL should leave these people alone until it can be done.  This is the lives and livelihood of citizens that we should be concerned about here, not an election or "point making". 

[finehoe]

The DOL is reaching into regulating areas that they have not until now. 

Yet another untruth. 

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division has published a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise the child labor regulations issued pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act which sets forth the criteria for the employment of minors years of age in agriculture.

How is it an area they haven't regulated until now?

[BridgeTroll]

Five Facts about the Proposed Child Labor in Agriculture Rule

Fact # 1: The proposed Child Labor in Agriculture rule will not prohibit all people under the age of 18 from working on a farm.

The proposed rule would not change any of the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum age standards for agricultural employment. Under the FLSA, the legal age to be employed on a farm without restrictions is 16. The FLSA also allows children between the ages of 12 and 15 years, under certain conditions, to be employed outside of school hours to perform nonhazardous jobs on farms. Children under the age of 12 may be employed with parental permission on very small farms to perform nonhazardous jobs outside of school hours.

Young people can be employed to perform many jobs on the farm – and this would be true even if the proposed rule were adopted as written. The proposed rule would, however, prohibit the employment of workers under the age of 18 in nonagricultural occupations in the farm-product raw materials wholesale trade industries. Prohibited establishments would include country grain elevators, grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, feed yards, stockyard, livestock exchanges, and livestock auctions not on a farm or used solely by a single farmer. What these locations have in common is that many workers, including children, have suffered occupational deaths or serious injuries working in these facilities over the last few years.

Fact # 2: The proposed rule would not eliminate the parental exemption for owners/operators of a family farm.

The parental exemption for the owner or operator of a farm is statutory and cannot be eliminated through the regulatory process. A child of any age may perform any job, even hazardous work, at any age at any time on a farm owned by his or her parent. A child of any age whose parent operates a farm may also perform any task, even hazardous jobs, on that farm but only outside of school hours. So for children working on farms that are registered as LLCs, but operated solely by their parents, the parental exemption would still apply.

Fact # 3: This proposed regulation will not eliminate 4-H and FFA programs.

The Department of Labor fully supports the important contributions both 4-H and the FFA make toward developing our children. The proposed rule would in no way prohibit a child from raising or caring for an animal in a non-employment situation — even if the animal were housed on a working farm — as long as he or she is not hired or “employed” to work with the animal. In such a situation, the child is not acting as an “employee” and is not governed by the child labor regulations. And there is nothing in the proposed rule that would prevent a child from being employed to work with animals other than in those specific situations identified in the proposal as particularly hazardous.

Fact # 4: Under the proposed rule, children will still be able to help neighbors in need of help.

In order for the child labor provisions of the FLSA to apply, there must first be an employer/employee relationship. The lone act of helping a neighbor round up loose cattle who have broken out of their fencing, for example, generally would not establish an employer/employee relationship.

Fact # 5: Children will still be able to take animals to the county fair or to market.

A child who raises and cares for his or her animal -- for example, as part of a 4-H project -- is not being employed by anyone, and thus is outside the coverage of the FLSA. Even if the child needs to rent space from a farm, the animal is not part of the farm’s business and with regard to the care of the animal no employer/employee relationship exists, so the child labor provisions would not apply. Likewise, there would be no problem with taking the animal to the county fair or to market, since the child is doing this on his/her own behalf – not on behalf of an employer. The proposed prohibitions would apply only if the child was an employee of the exchange or auction.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/CL/truthNPRM.htm

This would all be very good news.  Time will tell... Are you saying we should not be vigilant?   

[NotNow]

Finehoe,

They are substituting Federal training for what traditionally has been the purview of local ag clubs.  They are regulating the work hours of farm families children.  They are regulating the working relationships between neighboring farms.  They are defining what constitutes "dangerous work".  I could go on but the point is that this is new regulation.  This is a new, proposed rule.  All I am saying is that DOL needs the input of the folks affected by this rule so that it can be modified so that it does not interfere with traditional rural and ag culture. 

Perhaps before we propose new rules, we should state the reason that the proposal is justified. 

Please don't call me a liar.  If this was previouly regulated there would not be a need for any new rule, would there? 

[finehoe]

All I am saying is that DOL needs the input of the folks affected by this rule so that it can be modified so that it does not interfere with traditional rural and ag culture.

I would imagine that is one of the reasons they set up this site:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=WHD-2011-0001-0001 

Perhaps before we propose new rules, we should state the reason that the proposal is justified. 

Perhaps if you read the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (http://webapps.dol.gov/FederalRegister/HtmlDisplay.aspx?DocId=25286&Month=9&Year=2011) you'll see that they do just that, in quite lengthy detail.

[NotNow]

OK,  I hope that the parties can come to agreement.

I didn't much justification other than a NIOSH study in 2002.  Other than that it looked like a lot of "we think it is needed".  I'm not arguing the intent of the proposed rule.  I am arguing that, as written, it will interfere with the current "culture" of rural America.  It can be fixed, and that is what should take place.

Like I said though, if this thing is or becomes political, it should be dropped.  These rediculous partisan arguments pervade too much of American lives these days.

[Garden guy]

Those against this regulation are  most likely againt most regulation so nothing anyone can say will sway them. Personally i feel that there has been lots of study and numbers crunching and some real work done on this and they wouldnt propose this unless theres some science behind it...farmers could take it as a personal attack but its safety thats at the matter..

[NotNow]

I do admit that I am against unneeded regulation.  And I trust parents much more than I trust the government.  Disclaimer ends.

[finehoe]

I do admit that I am against unneeded regulation.  And I trust parents much more than I trust the government.  Disclaimer ends.

Then you are no doubt happy that this proposed rule has nothing to do with parents, that the parental exemption for the owner or operator of a farm is statutory and cannot be eliminated through the regulatory process, that a child of any age may perform any job, even hazardous work, at any age at any time on a farm owned by his or her parent, and that a child of any age whose parent operates a farm may also perform any task, even hazardous jobs, on that farm but only outside of school hours.

[NotNow]

Yes, I am aware of that. 

You are aware that no provision is made for home schooling, or other school hours outside of the local district.  That the government can define "employer/employee relationship" when it comes to helping neighbors or other family members on their farms.  This can be affected by the use of farm equipment like trucks or trailers being counted as "renumeration".  You must be aware that the responsibilities traditionally given to ag clubs like 4H are being usurped by the Federal government.

Finehoe, we can bicker all day about this.  It is stupid to do so.  If the farm community doesn't like this rule, there are many reasons for it.  At first I thought that this could be pretty harmless, and that the rule could be amended through common sense.  But I have been reminded once again here at MJ of the mindless pursuit of argument, and how the petty tyrants of government bureaucracy can (and do) use minor points and arguments regardless of truth, logic, or results.   Most of these tyrants have no experience or qualification to actually do the work they are attempting to regulate, and we end up with the kind of bloated inefficient mess of a government such as we have now.  So my mind is changed, and we should do away with this idiocy altogether before it is used as a bludgeon over the heads of our agricultural families by the desk bound bureaucrats.

Thanks!

[Ocklawaha]

But then I guess who cares about historical or governmental fact when one can always, 'tell the lie often enough to become truth.'

Rather than trying to redefine political movements to fit your own world view, the take away from articles like the one that started this is to remember we are in a period of growing hysteria.

How did I redefine political movements to fit my own world view? How about you tell me what the difference is between the collective fascist states and those which are socialist. Explain to me why communists would order their party members to vote for the national socialists (Nazi's) in Germany in 1933. Even though the popular culture, revisionist historians and media would agree with you that Nazi's were 'the extreme right', having studied their collective creeds I submit that fascists, socialists and communists are all cut from the same cloth.

Demagogues will attempt to sway people and move them to action, often to counter legitimate complaints and efforts at reform, and to undermine legitimate protests.

Where are the legitimate protests? I'm serious, I haven't heard of one in farm country... 

Conservative? You realize of course that you are quoting National Socialism, to wit, Joseph Goebbels.

And you realize of course that fascism is on the right side of the spectrum.

This sort of urban mythology and demonization can become very dangerous, especially when it starts looking for scapegoats.   The haters are coming, at least according to history, and you do not want any part of it.

Mythology? Where? What do you consider mythology in this discussion? You are the one that stated fascism is on the right and all I did was offer reasons why that is incorrect even though it might be 'politically correct.'

I had never heard of this proposed regulation, yet it took me less than five minutes to do a search that revealed the Daily Caller article was bullshit.

Look for the facts and make up your own mind rather than mindlessly swallowing whatever is put out there.

I haven't swallowed anything, just some observations from the farm belt. As many of you know I went to Oklahoma State University, and from the pre - 'War of Yankee Aggression' era, until today, my extended family owns considerable acreage between 'Black Oak Arkansas' *(yeah really!) and Oklahoma City. Not all that long ago I was a 'city' councilman in Cashion, Oklahoma, where traffic was considered bad during harvest season and the mobile combine operators would come pouring through from the Dakota's, Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas, at about 5 mph. So I do know a few things about how this will be received in the high plains. As the Okie's say, don't piss off a farmer with your mouth full!

[Ocklawaha]

Just to mess with everyone and to add some color, here are a couple of shots of Oklahoma farm country...









Tell ya what  "Kemo Sabe"* why don'tcha saddle up, come on out and try to enforce these rules. Really?

*actually a bastardization of the spanish "Quien no sabe"