Metro Jacksonville

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/rural-kids-parents-angry-about-labor-dept-rule-banning-farm-chores/

Quote
Rural kids, parents angry about Labor Dept. rule banning farm chores
Published: 1:31 AM 04/25/2012
By Patrick Richardson

A proposal from the Obama administration to prevent children from doing farm chores has drawn plenty of criticism from rural-district members of Congress. But now it’s attracting barbs from farm kids themselves.

The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families’ land.

Under the rules, children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials.”

“Prohibited places of employment,” a Department press release read, “would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.”

The new regulations, first proposed August 31 by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, would also revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA, replacing them instead with a 90-hour federal government training course.

Rossie Blinson, a 21-year-old college student from Buis Creek, N.C., told The Daily Caller that the federal government’s plan will do far more harm than good.

“The main concern I have is that it would prevent kids from doing 4-H and FFA projects if they’re not at their parents’ house,” said Blinson.

“I started showing sheep when I was four years old. I started with cattle around 8. It’s been very important. I learned a lot of responsibility being a farm kid.”

In Kansas, Cherokee County Farm Bureau president Jeff Clark was out in the field â€" literally on a tractor â€" when TheDC reached him. He said if Solis’s regulations are implemented, farming families’ labor losses from their children will only be part of the problem.

“What would be more of a blow,” he said, “is not teaching our kids the values of working on a farm.”

The Environmental Protection Agency reports that the average age of the American farmer is now over 50.

“Losing that work-ethic â€" it’s so hard to pick this up later in life,” Clark said. “There’s other ways to learn how to farm, but it’s so hard. You can learn so much more working on the farm when you’re 12, 13, 14 years old.”

John Weber, 19, understands this. The Minneapolis native grew up in suburbia and learned the livestock business working summers on his relatives’ farm.

He’s now a college Agriculture major.

“I started working on my grandparent’s and uncle’s farms for a couple of weeks in the summer when I was 12,” Weber told TheDC. “I started spending full summers there when I was 13.”

“The work ethic is a huge part of it. It gave me a lot of direction and opportunity in my life. If they do this it will prevent a lot of interest in agriculture. It’s harder to get a 16 year-old interested in farming than a 12 year old.”

Weber is also a small businessman. In high school, he said, he took out a loan and bought a few steers to raise for income. “Under these regulations,” he explained, “I wouldn’t be allowed to do that.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/rural-kids-parents-angry-about-labor-dept-rule-banning-farm-chores/#ixzz1t3w4Jp4r

I don't get this at all.  I have to be missing something.

Typical right-wing dishonesty.  It says right in the DoL press release linked to in the article:

QuoteThe proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents.

Quote from: finehoe on April 25, 2012, 11:58:28 AM
Typical right-wing dishonesty.  It says right in the DoL press release linked to in the article:

QuoteThe proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents.

True.  But how much of this:

Quote“I started working on my grandparent’s and uncle’s farms for a couple of weeks in the summer when I was 12,”

will it affect.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on April 25, 2012, 12:03:10 PM
But how much of this will it affect.

Since the proposal is just updating the Fair Labor Standards Act which already establishes a minimum age of 18 for hazardous work in nonagricultural employment and 16 in agricultural employment, probably not much.

Spoken like someone who has never worked on a family farm... Family farms are owned and run by... um... er... families.  Grandfather, uncle, aunt, brother.  The labor pool of the family generally works on everyone elses farms... incuding the neighbors.  Most children begin working on those farms well before the teen years.  Waiting until 16 is just plain ignorant.

This is government intruding where it does not belong...

If this passes then FFA and 4-H are dead.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 25, 2012, 01:29:46 PM
This is government intruding where it does not belong...

No, it's just another right-wing lie.  The government is not "banning farm chores" it's updating a 50-year-old law that already prohibits certain hazardous tasks that is directed at hired laborers.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 25, 2012, 01:29:46 PM
Most children begin working on those farms well before the teen years.  Waiting until 16 is just plain ignorant.

No, the ignorant part is trying to pretend this law affects children working on their families' farm when it clearly is aimed at hired employees, like other child labor laws.  Or do you agree with disgraced former Speaker Gingrich's statement that child labor laws are "truly stupid"?

Quote
In February the Labor Department seemingly backed away from what many had called an unrealistic reach into farmers’ families, reopening the public comment period on a section of the regulations designed to give parents an exemption for their own children.

But U.S. farmers’ largest trade group is unimpressed.

“American Farm Bureau does not view that as a victory,” said Kristi Boswell, a labor specialist with the American Farm Bureau Federation. “It’s a misconception that they have backed off on the parental exemption.”

Boswell chafed at the government’s rationale for bringing farms strictly into line with child-labor laws.

“They have said the number of injuries are higher for children than in non-ag industries,” she said. But everyone in agriculture, Boswell insisted, “makes sure youth work in tasks that are age-appropriate.”

The safety training requirements strike many in agriculture as particularly strange, given an injury rate among young people that is already falling rapidly.

According to a United States Department of Agriculture study, farm accidents among youth fell nearly 40 percent between 2001 and 2009, to 7.2 injuries per 1,000 farms.

Clark said the regulations are vague and meddlesome.

“It’s so far-reaching,” he exclaimed, “kids would be prohibited from working on anything ‘power take-off’ driven, and anything with a work-height over six feet â€" which would include the tractor I’m on now.”

The way the regulations are currently written, he added, would prohibit children under 16 from using battery powered screwdrivers, since their motors, like those of a tractor, are defined as “power take-off driven.”

And jobs that could “inflict pain on an animal” would also be off-limits for kids. But “inflicting pain,” Clark explained, is left undefined: If it included something like putting a halter on a steer, 4-H and FFA animal shows would be a thing of the past.

In a letter to The Department of Labor in December, Montana Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg complained that the animal provision would also mean young people couldn’t “see veterinary medicine in practice … including a veterinarian’s own children accompanying him or her to a farm or ranch.”

Boswell told TheDC that the new farming regulations could be finalized as early as August. She claimed farmers could soon find The Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division inspectors on their land, citing them for violations.

“In the last three years that division has grown 30 to 40 percent,” Boswell said. Some Farm Bureau members, she added, have had inspectors on their land checking on conditions for migrant workers, only to be cited for allowing their own children to perform chores that the Labor Department didn’t think were age-appropriate.

It’s something Kansas Republican Senator Jerry Moran believes simply shouldn’t happen.

During a March 14 hearing, Moran blasted Hilda Solis for getting between rural parents and their children.

“The consequences of the things that you put in your regulations lack common sense,” Moran said.

“And in my view, if the federal government can regulate the kind of relationship between parents and their children on their own family’s farm, there is almost nothing off-limits in which we see the federal government intruding in a way of life.”

The Department of Labor did not respond to repeated requests for comment



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/rural-kids-parents-angry-about-labor-dept-rule-banning-farm-chores/#ixzz1t4ub1nGo

“It is important to note that our proposed rule is designed to strike the right balance. (It) doesn’t change the parental exemption, which allows the child of a farmer to do anything at any age, at any time of day, on a farm owned by his or her parents.”

-Labor Secretary Hilda Solis

All of what the DOL proposes “is within the confines of legislation.” Legislation not only allows the children of farmers to work unimpeded on the (family) farm without any age restriction, (there are) a number of different exceptions that allow children even under 12 years old to work in agriculture under certain, circumscribed conditions. That’s been in the legislation since the beginning and nothing in (the new proposals) will disturb that.”

-Michael Hancock, DOL Assistant Administrator for Policy

Quote from: finehoe on April 25, 2012, 02:37:05 PM
“It is important to note that our proposed rule is designed to strike the right balance. (It) doesn’t change the parental exemption, which allows the child of a farmer to do anything at any age, at any time of day, on a farm owned by his or her parents.”

-Labor Secretary Hilda Solis

So what happens when you and your family are a couple of farms down trying to help out the neighbors when Mr. Inspector shows up while your 14 yr old is driving a tractor?

What about owned by his or her grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins, neighbors, etc.?

What happens to FFA and 4-H those meetings and events usually take place somewhere other than your farm.  I guess I shouldn't have worked on my grandfathers far every July growing up.

If you're that concerned, enter your comments here:

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

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on April 25, 2012, 02:41:25 PM
So what happens when you and your family are a couple of farms down trying to help out the neighbors when Mr. Inspector shows up while your 14 yr old is driving a tractor?

The same thing that happens you and your family are a couple of houses down trying to help out the neighbors when Mr. Inspector shows up while your 14 yr old is pushing a lawn mower:  NOTHING.

Let's see how simple I can make this. 

If you have people on payroll, and some of them are under 18 and not your family, this regulation may cause you to change some of your business practices.  Otherwise, you do not have to worry about the government preventing your minor children from doing their chores. 

WooHoo!  That is great news!

so this only applies to people on your payroll?

Apparently.  Kids like me... when I was young... many of my first jobs were on farms.  Picking apples... helping bale hay, picking potatos left by the combine etc...  I was doing this stuff for spending money long before age 16.  We got paid less than minimum wage... but didnt care as it was a way to make some cash and have some fun.

Thank god washington is putting a stop to it... :)

http://www.farms.com/news/Should_Farm_Kids-46892.aspx

QuoteShould Farm Kids Be Allowed To Drive A Tractor? Some Say It's Too Dangerous

For a lot of farm kids, "learning to drive" means learning to drive a tractor before ever driving a car.

Tractors are a big part of family farm life, which is one reason advocacy groups and dozens of congressional representatives have heavily criticized a U.S. Department of Labor proposal that would bar children under age 16 from doing many dangerous farm jobs, such as driving a tractor and handling pesticides. The outcry has been so strong that on Monday, the agency backed away from the Nov. 1 deadline it had set for public comment and extended it another month.

But while traditional family farmers say the change threatens the future of agriculture, child and labor advocates say the plans are a much-needed update to protect vulnerable young workers.

The changes do include a legal exemption for farm families that would allow children to work on the farms owned by their parents. But it would still affect many small farmers who hire kids in the summer or who have extended family members work on their land.

At the 20-acre farm of Julie and Scott Wilber near Boone, Iowa, for example, Drew, 14, and Jade, 12, could still do any work their parents ask of them under the changes. But the Wilber's employee, MacKenzie Lewis, 15, would be prohibited from driving the four-wheelers used on many farms, mowing grass or working around animals.

The Wilbers say finding part-time seasonal workers is difficult; they can't spend a lot on wages and need sporadic help for hard, manual labor.

"It's easier to hire kids or teachers, because people who have regular full-time jobs aren't going to quit their job to work in the summer," Julie Wilber says.

Ag advocacy groups are also outraged about the changes. They say the government doesn't understand how agriculture gets done today.

Most farms are now organized under a corporation that includes multiple members of an extended family â€" uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, grandparents â€" but having that status would mean many families that count on their kids wouldn't be exempt, says Jordan Dux, national affairs coordinator with the Nebraska Farm Bureau.

"So kids of individuals who are involved in a family corporation would no longer be able to help mom and dad on the ranch, on the farm. They wouldn't be able to work with animals. They wouldn't be able to work on hay wagons stacking bales six feet tall," he said. "There are lots of ... typical farm practices, that ... would be outlawed by the Department of Labor."

The plan's critics also say the regulations would hinder the recruitment of the next generation of farmers and ranchers, calling it a direct hit on youth groups like 4-H and Future Farmers of America.

Farm work is one of the most dangerous occupations and it frequently affects the 1.26 million children under the age 20 who live on farms in the U.S. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, an average of 104 children die each year as a result of a farm-related injury and more than 22,000 kids are injured.

Child safety advocates and others applauded the Labor Department's announcement and said the changes are long overdue. Others, like Barry Estabrook, a food journalist who has done extensive reporting on farm labor, particularly in Florida tomato fields, says given the extent of injuries, the proposal was "timid at best."

Children who work in agriculture have little protection under the Fair Labor Standards Act, unlike their counterparts who work in other occupations, Estabrook said. Young people who work on farms "have suffered under a federally mandated double standard," Estabrook writes on his "Politics of the Plate" blog.

"I don't see it as any more ludicrous to envision a child driving a bulldozer or a back hoe on a construction site than driving a back hoe in the farm fields," he said in an interview. "What is the fundamental difference?"

In a separate update, the Labor Department also proposed preventing anyone under age 18 from working at stockyards, livestock auctions, commercial feed lots or grain elevators â€" sites of several high-profile deaths. Six of the 26 people who suffocated in grain elevator deaths last year were under the age of 16, according to a Purdue University study.

Public Citizen, a congressional watchdog, supports the increased protections. Justin Feldman, a worker health and safety advocate with the group, points to the case of two 17-year-old boys in Oklahoma who were caught in a grain auger in an accident last summer.

"It took the fire department an hour to cut through the grain auger and each one lost a leg. They were athletes," Feldman says. "They were going into their senior year in high school. And now their lives have been very much changed."

The law may need to be expanded to cover more family. But come on rightys this faux outrage is laughable child labor laws are important we are not just drones born to work.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 25, 2012, 03:31:46 PM
Thank god washington is putting a stop to it... :)

The conservative mantra.  If you repeat a lie over and over, it must be true.

lol... perhaps the goal is to increase the number of corporate farms... and increase the number hired hands.  You know... taxable income... :)

Yeah more regulations. That will help encourage hiring.

Quote from: bill on April 25, 2012, 04:15:53 PM
Yeah more regulations. That will help encourage hiring.

+1

QuoteMacKenzie Lewis, 15, would be prohibited from driving the four-wheelers used on many farms, mowing grass... or working around animals.

This would cut deeper then just the family farms, decades of young boys making spending money off of the family lawn mower would be eliminated. Four-wheelers? Let's see, kid's at the family marina, kid's on hunting or camping trips.

It would also be a nearly unenforceable regulation... Trust me, hundreds of family farmer's in exotic places like Alpha and Omega, Oklahoma, will be hard to police.

Not working around animals? REALLY? Let's see do we count Kittens? Dogs? Chickens? Sheep? Cattle? Do we divide the dogs up by breed? Okay, everyone with a Pit Bull is out, and you Shepherd and Rottweiler fans can kiss the pooch good bye... Four H and FFA, will be a thing of the past. The thousands of dollars bid by meat packer's and breeders for 4-H project animals would be lost, so forget the earned scholarship to Oklahoma State boys and girls.

(http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Georgia+v+Oklahoma+State+FJiuc6DljT_l.jpg)
More then an image, it's a way of life!

Quote from: finehoe on April 25, 2012, 03:45:21 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 25, 2012, 03:31:46 PM
Thank god washington is putting a stop to it... :)

The conservative mantra.  If you repeat a lie over and over, it must be true.

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

Quote from: JeffreyS on April 25, 2012, 03:42:47 PM
The law may need to be expanded to cover more family. But come on rightys this faux outrage is laughable child labor laws are important we are not just drones born to work.

I doubt many family farms are stocked with legions of drones bred strictly for labor.....

Quote from: Gators312 on April 25, 2012, 06:31:37 PM

Quote from: JeffreyS on April 25, 2012, 03:42:47 PM
The law may need to be expanded to cover more family. But come on rightys this faux outrage is laughable child labor laws are important we are not just drones born to work.

I doubt many family farms are stocked with legions of drones bred strictly for labor.....

Correct which is why the law isn't aimed at the family farm. It is just a feeble attempt at propaganda that it will effect our Norman Rockwell vision of the kids helping the family out. Come on guys you are just making yourselves look gullible trying to buy into this. I know that seems condisending but well you apparently need some of that. Child labor laws are important many times in history parents have abused child labor.

Tempest, meet Teapar...uh...pot.

There is a real fundamental disconnect between the Obama administration and rural Americans. My family never had the money to buy land growing up, but my brothers and I all helped on farm of a close family friend. Under these regulations, my brothers and I would have missed on a ton of formational experiences. It's not just about putting kids to work to make money. It's how a way of life is passed on from one generation to the next. I just wonder why the government feels the need to get involved. Do you mean to tell me that these families are less concerned with their children's safety than Uncle Sam? That's BS.

Quote from: JeffreyS on April 25, 2012, 06:44:01 PM

Quote from: Gators312 on April 25, 2012, 06:31:37 PM

Quote from: JeffreyS on April 25, 2012, 03:42:47 PM
The law may need to be expanded to cover more family. But come on rightys this faux outrage is laughable child labor laws are important we are not just drones born to work.

I doubt many family farms are stocked with legions of drones bred strictly for labor.....

Correct which is why the law isn't aimed at the family farm. It is just a feeble attempt at propaganda that it will effect our Norman Rockwell vision of the kids helping the family out. Come on guys you are just making yourselves look gullible trying to buy into this. I know that seems condisending but well you apparently need some of that. Child labor laws are important many times in history parents have abused child labor.

Wouldn't be the first stupid law around here:

FLORIDA STATUTES:

It is illegal for a doctor to ask a patient whether they own a gun.

The state constitution allows for freedom of speech, a trial by jury, and pregnant pigs to not be confined in cages.
Full text of the law.

One may not commit any “unnatural acts” with another person.
Full text of the law.

Unmarried couples may not commit “lewd acts” and live together in the same residence.
Full text of the law.

Corrupting the public morals is defined as a nuisance, and is declared a misdemeanor offense.
Full text of the law.

Doors of all public buildings must open outwards.
Why does this law exist?
Full text of the law.

It is illegal to sell your children.
Full text of the law.

Women may be fined for falling asleep under a hair dryer, as can the salon owner.

A special law prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on Sunday or she shall risk arrest, fine, and/or jailing.

If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid just as it would for a vehicle.

It is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a swimsuit.

Men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown.

Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal.

It is illegal to skateboard without a license.

When having sex, only the missionary position is legal.

You may not fart in a public place after 6 P.

It is considered an offense to shower naked.

You are not allowed to break more than three dishes per day, or chip the edges of more than four cups and/or saucers.

Oral sex is illegal.(THANK GOD LADIES, IT'S NOT IN COLOMBIA!)

You may not kiss your wife’s breasts.

The whole thing sounds like a solution desperately looking for a problem. Sounds like something dreamed up by GS-12's with eyes on Gs-14 jobs

Maybe in exchange for this law, the gov't meant can send some welfare recipients out there to do some labor.

Ock,

What is your source for these?  Do you have Florida Statute #'s?

Quote from: civil42806 on April 25, 2012, 08:18:16 PM
The whole thing sounds like a solution desperately looking for a problem. Sounds like something dreamed up by GS-12's with eyes on Gs-14 jobs

Particularly disturbing to me is this part.
"The new regulations, first proposed August 31 by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, would also revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA, replacing them instead with a 90-hour federal government training course."

Quote from: finehoe on April 25, 2012, 11:58:28 AM
Typical right-wing dishonesty.  It says right in the DoL press release linked to in the article:

QuoteThe proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents.

Just thought I would bump this comment so we could add some truth back into this propaganda piece.

Quote from: JeffreyS on April 26, 2012, 01:31:18 AM

Quote from: finehoe on April 25, 2012, 11:58:28 AM
Typical right-wing dishonesty.  It says right in the DoL press release linked to in the article:

QuoteThe proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents.

Just thought I would bump this comment so we could add some truth back into this propaganda piece.

So... if I give you that(and Im not) what about the rural kids working on the farms for summer jobs?  I picked uncountable apples and potatoes, milked and herded many cows, mucked and cleaned a few barns, lifted many bales of hay.

Clearly there is a disconnect from urbanites who have never lifted a finger on a farm and have no idea who does what and how it gets done...

QuoteAg advocacy groups are also outraged about the changes. They say the government doesn't understand how agriculture gets done today.

Most farms are now organized under a corporation that includes multiple members of an extended family â€" uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, grandparents â€" but having that status would mean many families that count on their kids wouldn't be exempt, says Jordan Dux, national affairs coordinator with the Nebraska Farm Bureau.

"So kids of individuals who are involved in a family corporation would no longer be able to help mom and dad on the ranch, on the farm. They wouldn't be able to work with animals. They wouldn't be able to work on hay wagons stacking bales six feet tall," he said. "There are lots of ... typical farm practices, that ... would be outlawed by the Department of Labor."

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 25, 2012, 05:13:27 PM

Quote from: finehoe on April 25, 2012, 03:45:21 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 25, 2012, 03:31:46 PM
Thank god washington is putting a stop to it... :)

The conservative mantra.  If you repeat a lie over and over, it must be true.

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

Yep... and call something a lie often enough... and there will be plenty who believe it...

The death of family farms came at the hands of big agcorps....the rich ceo killed the family farm and that happened years and years ago...stop blaming it on the democrats and most of the large agcorps ceos are republican so in a way we can say they killed it.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 25, 2012, 05:13:27 PM
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.

Old paradigm.

The political spectrum is more like a circle, with Fascism and Communism being much closer to each other with chaos/anarchy separating the two.

In reality, no pure political system has ever been tried. They always stray from their designs because humans will inevitably seek their own self interests.

That said, I agree the US is marching ever faster toward fascism.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 26, 2012, 07:19:27 AM
Yep... and call something a lie often enough... and there will be plenty who believe it...

And apparently you are one to believe the lies, since you continue to deny the first two premises in the article you posted are flat out lies:

QuoteA proposal from the Obama administration to prevent children from doing farm chores

"Chores" are not "rural kids working on the farms for summer jobs" which you try to deflect the argument with.

QuoteThe Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families’ land.

Lies, lies, lies.

As near as I can tell from reading the proposal, both sides have valid points here.  It is true that the children of farmers are exempt from the rule.  It is also true that the rule will seriously impact other traditional means that children have been incorporated into learning agriculture.  The rule does impact 4H and FFA programs quite negatively.  The intent of the rule is obviously to safeguard against improper or unsafe child labor. 

It seems that the rule should be revisited and rewritten in such a way as to allow traditional forms of agricultural training for children, while still providing protection against misuse of their labor.  Whether that can be done in this kind of political climate remains to be seen.  If it cannot, then the status quo should remain in force until we can leave the politics out of it.

Quote from: finehoe on April 26, 2012, 07:45:59 AM

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 25, 2012, 05:13:27 PM
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.

If being a liberal is to be on the left, and if being a conservative is to be on the right, then how do these common labels fit? I've always questioned that the extreme right is fascism, and the extreme left socialism or communism, as Fascism and Socialism differ in superficial ways, but are essentially the same. We tend to think of fascism only in terms of Hitler's Germany, but Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, Peron's Argentina, were all fascist governments. Germany was racist, Italy was not, Spain was not a belligerent nationalist government and Iatly's was. The definition of fascism or socialism is a strong state government that controls property, industrial, commercial enterprises and the affairs of it's people for a supposed greater good.

Did you know for example, that in the German elections of 1933, the communist party ordered it's members to vote for the Nazi's? Why? To defeat 'common enemies.' Could it be that they are not that far apart? Finally if conservatives are the right, the fact that fascism is absolutely opposed to conservatism would seem to shoot the popular 'right wing Nazi' label in the foot. But then I guess who cares about historical or governmental fact when one can always, 'tell the lie often enough to become truth.' I realize these are NOT the popular culture labels, but they would seem to be historically correct.

OCKLAWAHA

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 â€" 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 â€" even if the animal were housed on a working farm â€" 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 â€" 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

Thanks Fine Hoe, that should end this thread.

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. 

Quote from: NotNow on April 26, 2012, 11:13:51 AM
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.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 26, 2012, 10:13:39 AM
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.

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". 

Quote from: NotNow on April 26, 2012, 11:45:45 AM
The DOL is reaching into regulating areas that they have not until now. 

Yet another untruth. 

QuoteThe 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?

Quote from: finehoe on April 26, 2012, 10:19:57 AM
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?   

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? 

Quote from: NotNow on April 26, 2012, 01:34:12 PM
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 

Quote from: NotNow on April 26, 2012, 01:34:12 PM
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.

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.

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..

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

Quote from: NotNow on April 26, 2012, 04:07:13 PM
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.

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! :)

Quote from: finehoe on April 26, 2012, 11:41:46 AM

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 26, 2012, 10:13:39 AM
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.

QuoteDemagogues 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... 

Quote from: finehoe on April 26, 2012, 07:45:59 AM

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 25, 2012, 05:13:27 PM
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.

QuoteThis 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.'

QuoteI 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!

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

(http://inlinethumb08.webshots.com/50055/2694002760104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)

(http://inlinethumb22.webshots.com/49237/2325905400104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)

(http://inlinethumb28.webshots.com/28827/2737686900104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)

(http://inlinethumb40.webshots.com/50599/2173123200104969885S600x600Q85.jpg)

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"

Boom!

QuoteUnder pressure from farming advocates in rural communities, and following a report by The Daily Caller, the Obama administration withdrew a proposed rule Thursday that would have applied child labor laws to family farms.

Critics complained that the regulation would have drastically changed the extent to which children could work on farms owned by family members. The U.S. Department of Labor cited public outcry as the reason for withdrawing the rule.

“The decision to withdraw this rule â€" including provisions to define the ‘parental exemption’ â€" was made in response to thousands of comments expressing concerns about the effect of the proposed rules on small family-owned farms,” the Department said in a press release Thursday evening. “To be clear, this regulation will not be pursued for the duration of the Obama administration.”

The rule would have dramatically changed what types of chores children under the age of 16 could perform on and around American farms. It would have prohibited them from working with tobacco, operating almost all types of power-driven equipment and being employed to work with raw farm materials.

Quote from: finehoe on April 26, 2012, 02:38:53 PM

Quote from: NotNow on April 26, 2012, 01:34:12 PM
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 

Quote from: NotNow on April 26, 2012, 01:34:12 PM
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.

I have to thank you for the link... apparently quite a few people used it...  ;)

Quote from: fsquid on April 26, 2012, 11:58:54 PM
Boom!

QuoteUnder pressure from farming advocates in rural communities, and following a report by The Daily Caller, the Obama administration withdrew a proposed rule Thursday that would have applied child labor laws to family farms.

Critics complained that the regulation would have drastically changed the extent to which children could work on farms owned by family members. The U.S. Department of Labor cited public outcry as the reason for withdrawing the rule.

“The decision to withdraw this rule â€" including provisions to define the ‘parental exemption’ â€" was made in response to thousands of comments expressing concerns about the effect of the proposed rules on small family-owned farms,” the Department said in a press release Thursday evening. “To be clear, this regulation will not be pursued for the duration of the Obama administration.”

The rule would have dramatically changed what types of chores children under the age of 16 could perform on and around American farms. It would have prohibited them from working with tobacco, operating almost all types of power-driven equipment and being employed to work with raw farm materials.

The Republicans are on fire. They score again as Republicans continue to utterly dominate in their game against children.

Quote from: JeffreyS on April 27, 2012, 11:15:12 AM

Quote from: fsquid on April 26, 2012, 11:58:54 PM
Boom!

QuoteUnder pressure from farming advocates in rural communities, and following a report by The Daily Caller, the Obama administration withdrew a proposed rule Thursday that would have applied child labor laws to family farms.

Critics complained that the regulation would have drastically changed the extent to which children could work on farms owned by family members. The U.S. Department of Labor cited public outcry as the reason for withdrawing the rule.

“The decision to withdraw this rule â€" including provisions to define the ‘parental exemption’ â€" was made in response to thousands of comments expressing concerns about the effect of the proposed rules on small family-owned farms,” the Department said in a press release Thursday evening. “To be clear, this regulation will not be pursued for the duration of the Obama administration.”

The rule would have dramatically changed what types of chores children under the age of 16 could perform on and around American farms. It would have prohibited them from working with tobacco, operating almost all types of power-driven equipment and being employed to work with raw farm materials.

The Republicans are on fire. They score again as Republicans continue to utterly dominate in their game against children.

Sigh....could it be possible that "farming advocates" are those that would have been affected by this rule? 

"Republican game against children"?  Really Jeffrey?  Your too intelligent to post this kind of drivel. 

We should be happy that the system worked.  It seems an honest but misguided attempt was made to protect children, and that the affected population pointed out the errors in the proposal and managed to persuade DOL to withdraw it. 

The vast majority of this country does not care about or want to be involved in the Democrat v. Republican game. 

I admit it was a shot and not as funny when I read it as it was in my head.  The spin (mine) was born from the idea that spin caused the backlash we see that eliminated this effort to ensure child safety in a work place.  I am sure it was not perfect but I did not hear arguments against it that seemed reasonable.  No one citing laws that cover the kids already or records of farm safety that make regulation review unnecessary.  Just anecdotes that kids have had to work hard in the past to support their parents chosen field of work and lifestyle so lets keep at it. 

Quote from: JeffreyS on April 27, 2012, 11:15:12 AM

Quote from: fsquid on April 26, 2012, 11:58:54 PM
Boom!

QuoteUnder pressure from farming advocates in rural communities, and following a report by The Daily Caller, the Obama administration withdrew a proposed rule Thursday that would have applied child labor laws to family farms.

Critics complained that the regulation would have drastically changed the extent to which children could work on farms owned by family members. The U.S. Department of Labor cited public outcry as the reason for withdrawing the rule.

“The decision to withdraw this rule â€" including provisions to define the ‘parental exemption’ â€" was made in response to thousands of comments expressing concerns about the effect of the proposed rules on small family-owned farms,” the Department said in a press release Thursday evening. “To be clear, this regulation will not be pursued for the duration of the Obama administration.”

The rule would have dramatically changed what types of chores children under the age of 16 could perform on and around American farms. It would have prohibited them from working with tobacco, operating almost all types of power-driven equipment and being employed to work with raw farm materials.

The Republicans are on fire. They score again as Republicans continue to utterly dominate in their game against children.

First women... now children... next up... puppies and kittens.   :o ::)

^ We already covered the puppies when Mitt strapped his mutt to the roof.

We are just happy he didnt eat it...

Quote from: JeffreyS on April 27, 2012, 11:44:07 AM
I admit it was a shot and not as funny when I read it as it was in my head.  The spin (mine) was born from the idea that spin caused the backlash we see that eliminated this effort to ensure child safety in a work place.  I am sure it was not perfect but I did not hear arguments against it that seemed reasonable.  No one citing laws that cover the kids already or records of farm safety that make regulation review unnecessary.  Just anecdotes that kids have had to work hard in the past to support their parents chosen field of work and lifestyle so lets keep at it.

If you were going for spin you should have praised Obama for reversing such a bad idea.

That may have been a good spin for him politically but counter to what I would praise him for.  It is telling to me that in the objections to new Child safety laws no one seems to be saying it isn't needed because this workplace is safe.  I hope the reason is not that the opposition does not care about that point.  How ever since I posted my concern over no one vouching for Children's safety in the agricultural experience a few hours ago no one has stepped forward to say it is safe. So perhaps that just isn't the priority to the opposition that say calling out Obama for trying to protect children is.

So I am wondering if someone is willing to say it is by in large safe workplace for children now.

Wouldn't it be incumbent upon the regulatory authority to show that unsafe practices exist?  And then show that the proposed regulation would mitigate those practices while respecting the property and liberty of those affected?  I haven't read of any huge loss of children on farms. 

Probably the best thing that could be done would be to retrofit roll over protection on every tractor in the nation.  The second thing that would help would be a "tractor class" by 4H and similar clubs to educate young farmers on handling tractors on other than dry, level ground as well as PTO operations and hazards.   The third thing is to keep kids off of the large animals but I don't think that any amount of lecture or "corporal punishment" will keep farm boys off of bulls and farm girls off of horses.  :)

I agree that we need to safeguard ALL of our children, but we should focus on the real hazards here and how the problems can be solved IN the community...not by decree. 

A reasonable position.  I was specifically talking about the discussion here not having a voice trying to convince me that the farming industry is already safe for children.

A little buzzing around on the internet first glance it seems like we could solve a lot of rural child safety issues if we could just 1. get kids off ATVs 2. away from tractors and balers and 3. keep the ponds and other water on the farms supervised.

Sounds about right.  We didn't have ATV's when I was a kid, but I tore up a few dirt bikes and got banged up a good bit.  No doubt tractors and balers are dangerous, I've seen a few of those accidents.   Supervision by the parents is probably the best short term answer.  Country kids don't do a lot of the dangerous stuff city kids do, but they have some of their own daredevil totems of youth.

Tractors are pretty safe, you can trust a kid about ten to do that.

No doubt the fatality rate for Farming is higher, for all ages.  I think that part of that is there is no one around when these things happen.  Just the nature of the business.

Quote from: finehoe on April 25, 2012, 03:45:21 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 25, 2012, 03:31:46 PM
Thank god washington is putting a stop to it... :)

The conservative mantra.  If you repeat a lie over and over, it must be true.

+1000000

Quote from: NotNow on April 27, 2012, 11:27:53 AM
We should be happy that the system worked.  It seems an honest but misguided attempt was made to protect children, and that the affected population pointed out the errors in the proposal and managed to persuade DOL to withdraw it. 

Unfortunately what we will probably never know is how many of the "thousands of comments expressing concerns about the effect of the proposed rules on small family-owned farm" were based on actual problems with the proposed regulations and how many were the result of the blatant lies like "the Obama Administration wants to prevent children from doing farm chores" promulgated by hackish outfits like the Daily Caller.

Which brings me back to the point I was making (and seemed to go over Ock's head) when I said "demagogues will attempt to sway people and move them to action, often to counter legitimate complaints and efforts at reform."  Several of you have conceded that there are indeed dangerous situations for children on farms, and that there may be a place for some regulation.  But instead of addressing whatever problems there may have been in the proposed rules and debating them on their own merit, we have ideologues trying to shut down debate with outlandish lies.  And this isn't a one-time thing.  Remember "death panels"?

Quote"demagogues will attempt to sway people and move them to action, often to counter legitimate complaints and efforts at reform."

We certainly see that often enough here don't we...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 28, 2012, 08:51:07 AM

Quote"demagogues will attempt to sway people and move them to action, often to counter legitimate complaints and efforts at reform."

We certainly see that often enough here don't we...

cough...cough

finehoe, with all due respect, have you read your own posts?

Quote from: finehoe on April 28, 2012, 07:37:53 AM

Quote from: NotNow on April 27, 2012, 11:27:53 AM
We should be happy that the system worked.  It seems an honest but misguided attempt was made to protect children, and that the affected population pointed out the errors in the proposal and managed to persuade DOL to withdraw it. 

Unfortunately what we will probably never know is how many of the "thousands of comments expressing concerns about the effect of the proposed rules on small family-owned farm" were based on actual problems with the proposed regulations and how many were the result of the blatant lies like "the Obama Administration wants to prevent children from doing farm chores" promulgated by hackish outfits like the Daily Caller.

Which brings me back to the point I was making (and seemed to go over Ock's head) when I said "demagogues will attempt to sway people and move them to action, often to counter legitimate complaints and efforts at reform."  Several of you have conceded that there are indeed dangerous situations for children on farms, and that there may be a place for some regulation.  But instead of addressing whatever problems there may have been in the proposed rules and debating them on their own merit, we have ideologues trying to shut down debate with outlandish lies.  And this isn't a one-time thing.  Remember "death panels"?

I simply commented on your (and the popular media) view of fascism as a 'right wing' government. My comment had nothing to do with the farm bill, but focused on this historical myth. FACT: National socialism, fascism, socialism and communism are kissing cousins. In spite of the typical headlines about 'Right Wing Nazi's,' the Nazi government was in fact on the far left, as it was simply a different version of socialism. The far right fringes are populated by people that want little or no government, or government control, to the point of anarchy.

As for dangers, the number one killer of persons under 20 is the highway. For teens aged 15 to 19 years, over three- quarters of unintentional injury deaths are motor vehicle-related. On the basis of miles driven, this age group is involved in three times as many fatal crashes as are all drivers. Fifty-eight percent of teen fatalities were not wearing seat belts.

Now there is something I could get behind.

Quote from: NotNow on April 28, 2012, 09:35:58 AM
finehoe, with all due respect, have you read your own posts?

I defy anyone to point out where I've posted a known lie.

Finehoe, you called me and others "liars" over our differences.  "Demagogery" works both ways.  You couldn't seem to concede that the proposed rule went too far...even after the DOL has withdrawn the rule in apparent agreement.  I'll admit to my hard headedness on some of these issues.  But we all have to be able to discuss facts and not lower debate to personal insult.

Quote
FACT: National socialism, fascism, socialism and communism are kissing cousins. In spite of the typical headlines about 'Right Wing Nazi's,' the Nazi government was in fact on the far left, as it was simply a different version of socialism. The far right fringes are populated by people that want little or no government, or government control, to the point of anarchy.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

It's also worth noting that anarchism is, in most cases, a far-left ideology. That's why "libertarian socialism" is synonymous with anarchism. In fact, until the mid to late 20th century when the wackos in the Libertarian Party stole the word, "libertarian" traditionally meant anarchist.

Quote from: stephendare on April 28, 2012, 03:39:19 PM
It is against our rules to call other posters liars directly.  If this has occurred, please point out the post so that it can be amended

Read the thread.

Quote from: Adam W on April 28, 2012, 03:51:25 PM

Quote
FACT: National socialism, fascism, socialism and communism are kissing cousins. In spite of the typical headlines about 'Right Wing Nazi's,' the Nazi government was in fact on the far left, as it was simply a different version of socialism. The far right fringes are populated by people that want little or no government, or government control, to the point of anarchy.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

Not at all. I said I simply disagree with the labels. As Stephen has pointed out, the popular tendency is to label the Nazi's as right wing due to their actions... IE racism, aggression, overt nationalism etc., but sweeping that aside, the governing concept of state controls in national socialism, socialism, fascism and communism is nearly identical. And while their activities might appear on the right, they have very little common ground with a system of less and less government control, assistance or aid. THIS is why the communists supported Hitler in 1933, they were told to support him in order to rid the state of the old 'right wing' conservative types that wanted zero change. They also thought that after Hitler was installed and his government was set up, it would be very easy to slide the state into communism... But again as Stephen would say, "HOW'D THAT WORK OUT FOR YOU?"

In other words, if you can wrap your head around this... For example the 'right' wants no part of Amtrak, mass transit, welfare, food stamps, medical care, etc., all things the 'left' supports. Germany had a state run railroad system, state run mass transit and the equivalent of welfare, food stamps and medical care. A state, no matter how evil, that takes care of its citizens, or its 'preferred citizens' with social programs would just seem to be on the left. No embarrassment, just observations of a historian, MJ is after all a place to discuss ideas and theories.

not really

Quote from: NotNow on April 28, 2012, 03:37:18 PM
You couldn't seem to concede that the proposed rule went too far...even after the DOL has withdrawn the rule in apparent agreement.

If you re-read the thread, I never came out for or against the proposed rule.  The problem I had was the misrepresentation of the FACTS, namely the ridiculous assertion that the Federal government was going to ban farm children from doing their chores.  Similarly, we had numerous posters that due to their having been raised on a farm, or having worked on a farm, or once having driven past a farm, proclaimed themselves experts on agricultural labor practices, yet NOT ONCE did any of them state why prohibiting the employment of workers under the age of 18 in nonagricultural occupations in the farm-product raw materials wholesale trade industries like 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 would be a bad thing.  All of the "arguments" against consisted of

1) All government regulation in any way, shape or form is bad.
2) Continuing to argue against how the government shouldn't be preventing children from doing their chores, even after it had been definitivly shown that this wasn't the case
3) Silly hypotheticals along the lines of "but what if it's their mother's cousin's half-brother's grandpappy's farm?"

You say we "have to be able to discuss facts" but no facts were ever presented on why this particular rule was a bad thing.

For the record, I did not personally insult anyone.  I called out the original article for spreading an outright lie, and I said that your assertion that this was a new area that the DoL had never entered before was untrue.  And I gave facts to back up both statements.

And I said if the DOL had prevously regulated this area, then there would be no need for a new proposal, would there? 

Anyway, thanks for the lively debate!

Quote from: stephendare on April 28, 2012, 05:04:25 PM

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 28, 2012, 04:51:04 PM

Not at all. I said I simply disagree with the labels. As Stephen has pointed out, the popular tendency is to label the Nazi's as right wing due to their actions... IE racism, aggression, overt nationalism etc., but sweeping that aside, the governing concept of state controls in national socialism, socialism, fascism and communism is nearly identical. And while their activities might appear on the right, they have very little common ground with a system of less and less government control, assistance or aid. THIS is why the communists supported Hitler in 1933, they were told to support him in order to rid the state of the old 'right wing' conservative types that wanted zero change. They also thought that after Hitler was installed and his government was set up, it would be very easy to slide the state into communism... But again as Stephen would say, "HOW'D THAT WORK OUT FOR YOU?"

In other words, if you can wrap your head around this... For example the 'right' wants no part of Amtrak, mass transit, welfare, food stamps, medical care, etc., all things the 'left' supports. Germany had a state run railroad system, state run mass transit and the equivalent of welfare, food stamps and medical care. A state, no matter how evil, that takes care of its citizens, or its 'preferred citizens' with social programs would just seem to be on the left. No embarrassment, just observations of a historian, MJ is after all a place to discuss ideas and theories.

Meh. 

This is like saying that the confederate and Yankee forces were actually the same thing since they both stood for representative democracy.

In today's milieu, fascism is definitely to the right of the spectrum, and the sight wing is actually advocating to previctorian notions of government, usually under the aegis of radical nationalism

In today's milieu, fascism is definitely to the right of the spectrum, which is what I said before Fine hoe and Adam jumped off the cliff with it.

Quotequote author=Ocklawaha link=topic=14905.msg275982#msg275982 date=1335449619]
If being a liberal is to be on the left, and if being a conservative is to be on the right, then how do these common labels fit? I've always questioned that the extreme right is fascism, and the extreme left socialism or communism, as Fascism and Socialism differ in superficial ways, but are essentially the same. We tend to think of fascism only in terms of Hitler's Germany, but Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, Peron's Argentina, were all fascist governments. Germany was racist, Italy was not, Spain was not a belligerent nationalist government and Iatly's was. The definition of fascism or socialism is a strong state government that controls property, industrial, commercial enterprises and the affairs of it's people for a supposed greater good.

Did you know for example, that in the German elections of 1933, the communist party ordered it's members to vote for the Nazi's? Why? To defeat 'common enemies.' Could it be that they are not that far apart? Finally if conservatives are the right, the fact that fascism is absolutely opposed to conservatism would seem to shoot the popular 'right wing Nazi' label in the foot. But then I guess who cares about historical or governmental fact when one can always, 'tell the lie often enough to become truth.' I realize these are NOT the popular culture labels, but they would "seem" to be historically correct.

OCKLAWAHA

Just a counter popular culture hypothesis which I think would be fun to research a bit more. We are in general agreement.

Quote from: NotNow on April 28, 2012, 08:00:16 PM
And I said if the DOL had prevously regulated this area, then there would be no need for a new proposal, would there?

"The Department of Labor (Department or DOL) is proposing to
revise the child labor regulations issued pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, which set forth the criteria for the permissible
employment of minors under 18 years of age in agricultural and
nonagricultural occupations. The proposal would implement specific
recommendations made by the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, increase parity between the agricultural and
nonagricultural child labor provisions, and also address other areas
that can be improved, which were identified by the Department's own
enforcement actions. The proposed agricultural revisions would impact
only hired farm workers and in no way compromise the statutory child
labor parental exemption involving children working on farms owned or
operated by their parents.
    In addition, the Department proposes to revise the exemptions which
permit the employment of 14- and 15-year-olds to perform certain
agricultural tasks that would otherwise be prohibited to that age group
after they have successfully completed certain specified training. The
Department is also proposing to update the General Statements of
Interpretation to incorporate all the regulatory changes to the
agricultural child labor provisions made since they were last revised.
    Finally, the Department is proposing to revise its civil money
penalty regulations to incorporate into the regulations the processes
the Department follows when determining both whether to assess a child
labor civil money penalty and the amount of that penalty."

You can't "revise" and "update" something brand new.

Quote from: NotNow on April 28, 2012, 08:00:16 PM
Anyway, thanks for the lively debate!

Your welcome!

Like my converstations with Mrs. NotNow, I know when to quit.  Thanks again.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 28, 2012, 04:51:04 PM

Quote from: Adam W on April 28, 2012, 03:51:25 PM

Quote
FACT: National socialism, fascism, socialism and communism are kissing cousins. In spite of the typical headlines about 'Right Wing Nazi's,' the Nazi government was in fact on the far left, as it was simply a different version of socialism. The far right fringes are populated by people that want little or no government, or government control, to the point of anarchy.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

Not at all. I said I simply disagree with the labels. As Stephen has pointed out, the popular tendency is to label the Nazi's as right wing due to their actions... IE racism, aggression, overt nationalism etc., but sweeping that aside, the governing concept of state controls in national socialism, socialism, fascism and communism is nearly identical. And while their activities might appear on the right, they have very little common ground with a system of less and less government control, assistance or aid. THIS is why the communists supported Hitler in 1933, they were told to support him in order to rid the state of the old 'right wing' conservative types that wanted zero change. They also thought that after Hitler was installed and his government was set up, it would be very easy to slide the state into communism... But again as Stephen would say, "HOW'D THAT WORK OUT FOR YOU?"

In other words, if you can wrap your head around this... For example the 'right' wants no part of Amtrak, mass transit, welfare, food stamps, medical care, etc., all things the 'left' supports. Germany had a state run railroad system, state run mass transit and the equivalent of welfare, food stamps and medical care. A state, no matter how evil, that takes care of its citizens, or its 'preferred citizens' with social programs would just seem to be on the left. No embarrassment, just observations of a historian, MJ is after all a place to discuss ideas and theories.

You are absolutely incorrect. The Nazis (and their friends in Italy) practiced corporatism. If you've seen Schindler's list you may remember the title character, a wealthy capitalist, setting up a private business and selling wares to the government.

You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about.

As a socialist and a former member of a communist party, I find your comments offensive. And you may be surprised that lots of socialists don't consider the USSR to have been a communist or socialist. Many socialists (and communists) don't believe in 'big government'.

I've got to throw in with Ock here.  While the Italians were more classic fascist, the Third Reich was really about the National SOCIALIST and their charismatic leader.  The fascists closely controlled their private industries, and in Germany the government even provided slave labor.  Germany clearly sank quickly into totalitarianism, but the Nazi state was largely socialist. 

Perhaps there is confusion between "conservative" or "right" and "totalitarian" on the part of some.

Adam, I would be curious to hear your description of a socialist or communist state with a "small government".  Could you point me to a past or current example?

Sorry - I don't really feel like explaining something when there is a lot of information available on the internet and beyond.

Socialism and communism have long histories and a variety of different schools of thought. The Bolshevik version of socialism was the view of a minority that, through its success, became the version most widely exported and practiced (to the detriment of other approaches). The only notable exception (in terms of governments) was Yugoslavia, but even for all its differences, it still had its roots in Marxism-Leninism.

If you'd like to learn more about other, democratic (and decentralised) versions of socialism and communism, I would refer you to the works of Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxemburg, Antonio Gramsci and Karlk Korsch (among others).

You may also want to read up on council communism and autonomism.

The Nazi party was as socialist as the current Communist Party of China is communist. The Nazi Party was a minor, socialist party that moved away from its slightly workerist roots once Hitler and his cronies assumed leadership. The party did not oppose private property and rejected the materialist conception of history.

I think it's worth pointing out that not only do socialists and communists reject the notion that Nazism was a form of socialism - Nazis themselves reject it. The only people who seem content to further this idea are right wingers who use the fact that the word 'socialist' was in the party name as an effort to discredit leftists.

But then again, a lot of uninformed morons also seem to think that the Democratic Party is socialist or Marxist.

Of course, stephendare! is talking about me.  I'll defer to your expertise on the subject Adam, although many of the Nazi domestic policies seem to have been socialist policies. 

I would still be interested in hearing about a socialist or communist state with "small government".  It seems to be a contradiction.  Since you brought it up, it would seem that you would have a citation rather than telling me to "look it up".  As a suggestion, calling names does nothing to further a discussion.  If you really wish to convey your ideas, stick to facts and back them with verifiable citations.  Otherwise you sound like....stephendare!.

Stephendare!, before you accuse others of being "so ignorant and deeply propagandized that they literally can't be educated", you should check your use of Huffington Post citations.  We all have our bias's.  It is important that we recognize our own.  Perhaps your lack of post secondary education has you overcompensating?

Quote

I would still be interested in hearing about a socialist or communist state with "small government".  It seems to be a contradiction.  Since you brought it up, it would seem that you would have a citation rather than telling me to "look it up".

All so-called "communist" states to date have been built on the Soviet ("Marxist-Leninist") model. And the Stalinist variety, in fact. The Spartakists in Germany attempted something (that might've been different), but failed. There is also the Paris Commune - worth reading up on.

I never claimed there was a communist state with a "small government." I said a lot of socialists and communists don't believe in "big government." There's a difference. They still exist.

Yes, I am referring to the domestic policies early in Hitler's career.  That's why I said that Germany sank quickly into totalitarianism.  And I agree with you, that this occurred around 1934. 

I am aware that your post secondary education seems to be quite the privacy issue with you.  As is your right.  You lead a very public life and yet are quite coy about that education.  You are obviously an intelligent guy, but your practice of debate is....immature. 

I have stated before that the smartest and wisest man I have ever known did not have a high school diploma.  Heck, he never saw the inside of a high school.  But he was well read, worked and socialized with the brightest and most successful people, and educated himself when he needed information.  This was before the internet when self education was much more difficult.  So the fault with your arguments here are not with your education, but with your ignorance of your own shortcomings. But, in the words of another poster, I am embarking on a lost cause.

As for me, I have learned a little bit about Pannekoek, Ms. Luxemburg, and council communism.  I think Adam is a young man.  There is a reason he can't point to a socialist or communist nation with a "small" governtment".  And I freely admit that I am NOT an expert on everything.  Which is OK.  Learning is a constant part of the journey.

Quote from: NotNow on April 29, 2012, 11:41:30 AM
Yes, I am referring to the domestic policies early in Hitler's career.  That's why I said that Germany sank quickly into totalitarianism.  And I agree with you, that this occurred around 1934. 

I am aware that your post secondary education seems to be quite the privacy issue with you.  As is your right.  You lead a very public life and yet are quite coy about that education.  You are obviously an intelligent guy, but your practice of debate is....immature. 

I have stated before that the smartest and wisest man I have ever known did not have a high school diploma.  Heck, he never saw the inside of a high school.  But he was well read, worked and socialized with the brightest and most successful people, and educated himself when he needed information.  This was before the internet when self education was much more difficult.  So the fault with your arguments here are not with your education, but with your ignorance of your own shortcomings. But, in the words of another poster, I am embarking on a lost cause.

As for me, I have learned a little bit about Pannekoek, Ms. Luxemburg, and council communism.  I think Adam is a young man.  There is a reason he can't point to a socialist or communist nation with a "small" governtment".  And I freely admit that I am NOT an expert on everything.  Which is OK.  Learning is a constant part of the journey.

I'm 40. I don't know if you consider that old or young. I used to consider it old...

Quote

There is a reason he can't point to a socialist or communist nation with a "small" governtment".

And that reason, in large part, has to do with Comintern, Comecon, the Warsaw Pact (and Soviet hegemony in general). That's not to say the West didn't play its part, too.

Quote from: Adam W on April 29, 2012, 11:49:09 AM

Quote from: NotNow on April 29, 2012, 11:41:30 AM
Yes, I am referring to the domestic policies early in Hitler's career.  That's why I said that Germany sank quickly into totalitarianism.  And I agree with you, that this occurred around 1934. 

I am aware that your post secondary education seems to be quite the privacy issue with you.  As is your right.  You lead a very public life and yet are quite coy about that education.  You are obviously an intelligent guy, but your practice of debate is....immature. 

I have stated before that the smartest and wisest man I have ever known did not have a high school diploma.  Heck, he never saw the inside of a high school.  But he was well read, worked and socialized with the brightest and most successful people, and educated himself when he needed information.  This was before the internet when self education was much more difficult.  So the fault with your arguments here are not with your education, but with your ignorance of your own shortcomings. But, in the words of another poster, I am embarking on a lost cause.

As for me, I have learned a little bit about Pannekoek, Ms. Luxemburg, and council communism.  I think Adam is a young man.  There is a reason he can't point to a socialist or communist nation with a "small" governtment".  And I freely admit that I am NOT an expert on everything.  Which is OK.  Learning is a constant part of the journey.

I'm 40. I don't know if you consider that old or young. I used to consider it old...

Older than I thought.  And you really believe that "council communism" could exist for any appreciable time in the real world?  And work?

Quote
Older than I thought.  And you really believe that "council communism" could exist for any appreciable time in the real world?  And work?

I don't know. I think it might but that would really depend. I tend to favour a more 'blended' approach. I don't have any issue with nationalised industry. I prefer workers co-ops for smaller businesses. I like the idea of democratic decision making at all levels of society.

I'm not a council communist, but I think it has just as much a chance of working as anything else. Capitalism, for all of its strengths (and I think there are many) apparently is not compatible with representative democracy (or republicanism or whatever you want to call it).

Quote from: stephendare on April 29, 2012, 11:50:02 AM

Quote from: NotNow on April 29, 2012, 11:41:30 AM
Yes, I am referring to the domestic policies early in Hitler's career.  That's why I said that Germany sank quickly into totalitarianism.  And I agree with you, that this occurred around 1934. 

I am aware that your post secondary education seems to be quite the privacy issue with you.  As is your right.  You lead a very public life and yet are quite coy about that education.  You are obviously an intelligent guy, but your practice of debate is....immature. 

I have stated before that the smartest and wisest man I have ever known did not have a high school diploma.  Heck, he never saw the inside of a high school.  But he was well read, worked and socialized with the brightest and most successful people, and educated himself when he needed information.  This was before the internet when self education was much more difficult.  So the fault with your arguments here are not with your education, but with your ignorance of your own shortcomings. But, in the words of another poster, I am embarking on a lost cause.

As for me, I have learned a little bit about Pannekoek, Ms. Luxemburg, and council communism.  I think Adam is a young man.  There is a reason he can't point to a socialist or communist nation with a "small" governtment".  And I freely admit that I am NOT an expert on everything.  Which is OK.  Learning is a constant part of the journey.

Actually not now, you and I have never debated, as you have never allowed that to happen.

Lake and I have debated constantly since we met.  Ock and I debate constantly as well.  Stjr and tacachale are also wonderful debaters.

You rarely debate.  You simply argue.  At least with me.

Our exchanges usually streak down to you simply disagreeing to basic word definitions, and whether or not you think I'm qualified to have an opinion.

This is not debate, nor is it even very adult.

Debate is an exploration of the available material with the option open that either side might be either right or wrong.

You have never once opened a conversation with me on this basis, so please....while I thank you for your opinion, I have never debated anything with you.

Hmm...based on actual history, it is you who has crashed into several recent conversations (threads) claiming that it was me who had no right to offer an opinion.

I have never questioned your right to an opinion, I have simply pointed out those instances where you have no training, education, or experience.  That is simply ignorance, and we all suffer from that malady. 

Last I checked, debate does not involve name calling or demeaning others, which you may have been involved in a few times here in the past.  ;)

Quote from: stephendare on April 29, 2012, 11:59:07 AM
It is also impossible to point to a true democracy anywhere amongst the nations of earth.  This doesn't mean that democracy is actually a police state.

There are small communist and socialist nations including scores of them here in the United States.

You really have to look no further than many native American tribes.

Which tribe would you hold forth as the best example of a small socialist or communist example?

They seem to be capitalist...

http://careers.choctawnation.com/

with a remarkably representative democratic governance...

http://thorpe.ou.edu/constitution/choctaw/index.html

OK, I can see where you get "socialism" out of the commonly owned property.  What throws me is the unequal return.  But I suppose the control of the "state" over the profit is a common denominator.

Of course, American Indian tribes still wouldn't meet our definition of "small government", since the tribal governments control vast majorities of the economies of the tribes.   

Girls, girls, your both pretty... can we quit now? SMILE!

We are talking about "small government", not small "governments".  The tribal government controls most of the tribal economy and is thus a "large government" for the purposes of this discussion.