Unions???

SpiraMirabilis said:
You're stupid, wheelsup. Just kidding, but that list doesn't mean anything. What the law did was to change the hourly limit minors could work a week, not exempt them altogether. I believe they are limited to 36 hours now (almost a full work week!) when before it was like 20. The list of exempt classes of minors did not change, I do not think.
Click to expand...

You need a laptop!

Following are the hours and times minors may work:

A. Minors under 16 years old

Work Hours


  • Between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. during the school year
  • Between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. during summer vacations only
  • Not during school hours
Maximum Hours


  • 3 hours a day on school days, including Fridays
  • 18 hours in any week during a school week
  • 40 hours in a week with no school
  • 8 hours on days without school (during weekends, holidays, vacations, storm days, etc.)
  • No more than 6 days in a row
B. 16- and 17-Year Olds (enrolled in school, including home-school)

The Maine law which limits hours for 16- and 17-year-old workers includes several exceptions. Federal law does not limit work hours for 16- and 17-year olds.
Work Hours


  • Not before 7 a.m. on a school day
  • Not before 5 a.m. on a nonschool day
  • Not after 10 p.m. the night before a school day
  • Not after midnight if there is no school the next day
  • Minors under 17 cannot work during school hours
Maximum Hours


  • 4 hours a day on a school day; 8 hours a day on the last school day of the week
  • 20 hours a week in any week with 3 or more school days
    Exception: 8 hours each day with unscheduled school closure for a total of 28 hours that week. (e.g., storm day, broken furnace, etc.)
  • 50 hours a week each week with less than 3 scheduled school days, or during the first or last week of the school year
  • 10 hours a day on weekends, holidays, vacations, teacher workshop days
  • No more than 6 days in a row
Click to expand...
You're the one who mentioned a rollback on the exemption of min wage.
​
 
What you are quoting are the current restrictions. I had assumed the bill in Maine had already passed and was signed into law, but the Democrats have slowed it down more than I thought. Below is an article that describes it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/30/maine-gop-legislators-loo_n_842563.html

In any case it demonstrates that labor laws you feel are impossible to change are being steadily whittled away.

The minimum wage in Maine is $7.50 an hour, and there is no training or subminimum wage for students. But under a new piece of legislation introduced in the state's House of Representatives, employers would be able to pay anyone under the age of 20 as little as $5.25 an hour for their first 180 days on the job.

The bill, LD 1346, also eliminates the maximum number of hours a minor 16 years of age or older can work on a school day and allows a minor under the age of 16 to work up to four hours on a school day during hours when school is not in session.
Click to expand...
 
Following are the hours and times minors may work:

A. Minors under 16 years old


Work Hours

  • Between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. during the school year
  • Between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. during summer vacations only
  • Not during school hours
Maximum Hours

  • 3 hours a day on school days, including Fridays
  • 18 hours in any week during a school week
  • 40 hours in a week with no school
  • 8 hours on days without school (during weekends, holidays, vacations, storm days, etc.)
  • No more than 6 days in a row
B. 16- and 17-Year Olds (enrolled in school, including home-school)


The Maine law which limits hours for 16- and 17-year-old workers includes several exceptions. Federal law does not limit work hours for 16- and 17-year olds.
Work Hours

  • Not before 7 a.m. on a school day
  • Not before 5 a.m. on a nonschool day
  • Not after 10 p.m. the night before a school day
  • Not after midnight if there is no school the next day
  • Minors under 17 cannot work during school hours
Maximum Hours

  • 4 hours a day on a school day; 8 hours a day on the last school day of the week
  • 20 hours a week in any week with 3 or more school days
    Exception: 8 hours each day with unscheduled school closure for a total of 28 hours that week. (e.g., storm day, broken furnace, etc.)
  • 50 hours a week each week with less than 3 scheduled school days, or during the first or last week of the school year
  • 10 hours a day on weekends, holidays, vacations, teacher workshop days
  • No more than 6 days in a row
Click to expand...
That kinda takes the old paper-route out of the equation, doesn't it?

No wonder my "paper boy" is in his 40's, comically obese, and tells me to GFO when I complain about having to dig my soaking wet newspaper out of the bushes. (yeah, he's unionized)
​
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
What you are quoting are the current restrictions. I had assumed the bill in Maine had already passed and was signed into law, but the Democrats have slowed it down more than I thought. Below is an article that describes it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/30/maine-gop-legislators-loo_n_842563.html

In any case it demonstrates that labor laws you feel are impossible to change are being steadily whittled away.
Click to expand...

Well not really. It isn't even close to becoming law I don't believe. Doesn't the bill have to pass the House and Senate, then go to the Governor to sign? It isn't even up for debate in the House.
 
Mike H said:
[/LIST]
That kinda takes the old paper-route out of the equation, doesn't it?

No wonder my "paper boy" is in his 40's, comically obese, and tells me to GFO when I complain about having to dig my soaking wet newspaper out of the bushes. (yeah, he's unionized)
[/INDENT]
Click to expand...
Technically paper boys are independent contractors. So I'm not sure how that fits in. I know I delivered papers in grade school and certainly was outside the law on that, but so was every paperboy. So there much be a loophole. I'm not a lawyer though.
 
wheelsup said:
Well not really. It isn't even close to becoming law I don't believe. Doesn't the bill have to pass the House and Senate, then go to the Governor to sign? It isn't even up for debate in the House.
Click to expand...

Is your debating style confined to rhetorically asking questions you already know the answer to? This is the I believe third try. The first one LD516 was much closer to passing. And it wouldn't be debated in the house, this specific bill anyway. Others have been, though. This new one is actually worse than that, in terms of the rollbacks it proposes. This is an important issue for the GOP in Maine.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
Is your debating style confined to rhetorically asking questions you already know the answer to? This is the I believe third try. The first one LD516 was much closer to passing. And it wouldn't be debated in the house, this specific bill anyway. Others have been, though. This new one is actually worse than that, in terms of the rollbacks it proposes. This is an important issue for the GOP in Maine.
Click to expand...
No my debating style is talking about stuff I know nothing about. That being said I'm still pretty sure the bills must pass vote in the House and Senate to become law. Your link refers to two separate bills, one that is going to vote in the Senate, and one that hasn't even been debated on in the House.

I don't know much about the process of bills/laws/etc, something I have been aiming to get better about, so someone might be able to explain more, but just because a previous bill was debated and allowed to die doesn't mean you are any where closer to having a new law passed by proposing new bills. They must be debated just like the ones that died were. And those must be passed by both the House and Senate.

This is the third try? And still no go? I dunno, I guess I wouldn't put that much faith in it.
 
Mike H said:
Kinda like Garlic; never quite enough, but always too much?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I'm going to stay out of this, though; lots of talk that has no basis in reality, and I don't think anything I say will convince anyone otherwise. I'm glad we're close to a contract at my current gig (I'd give details, but best not to air dirty laundry in public), but I'll say this: My favorite flying job so far was non-union. The one I hated most was union.

Minds blown. :)
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
I take that back, it seems like LD516 was passed... This is their attempt to come back for more.
Click to expand...
Passed into law? Well, looks like that is the direction ME wanted to take their state. All power to them, doing it the way the elected officials who speak for their constituents voted.
 
wheelsup said:
Passed into law? Well, looks like that is the direction ME wanted to take their state. All power to them, doing it the way the elected officials who speak for their constituents voted.
Click to expand...

Anyway, back on my laptop... The skinny is this: The GOP in Maine put 2 bills at about the same time. One was akin to A Modest Proposal where they suggest broiling young infants alive, the other rolled back child labor laws only a little (increased hours, now children can work until 11PM on a school night, etc). When there was a huge backlash the Democrats got The Modest Proposal killed, but the other one was passed into law.

In any event, our divergence from the thread has been epic and I gave you an example of a recent change (for the worse) for labor laws in the USA.
 
wheelsup said:
Looks like the compromised some on the one signed into law, I found it, it says 10:15 is the latest they can work, not 11. But midnight if you're working on Fri and Sat.

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_125th/chapters/PUBLIC174.asp
Click to expand...

Looks like you're right. So it is only a little bit terrible then. The interests behind this type of legislation are patient though, and are willing to take small steps until we're back buying from the company store with paychits -- believe it.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
In any event, our divergence from the thread has been epic and I gave you an example of a recent change (for the worse) for labor laws in the USA.
Click to expand...
Yes it has.

I would counter by asking you to define what makes this "bad". By your argument, it seems any relaxation of restriction is "bad", while further restriction is "good". Would it be "good" if we outlawed anyone under 17 from working at all?
 
wheelsup said:
Yes it has.

I would counter by asking you to define what makes this "bad". By your argument, it seems any relaxation of restriction is "bad", while further restriction is "good". Would it be "good" if we outlawed anyone under 17 from working at all?
Click to expand...
What? So you can ask me whether or I not I then approve of sending the jackboots to little Timmy's lemonade stand to shut him down for violation of labor statutes?

The issue is not to prevent children from working, it is to prevent exploitive working conditions for children and to emphasize the importance of the education they're supposed to be receiving. It is, to put it mildly, counter productive to have a child fall asleep in class because he just got off work at 10:15 last night, then spent 45 minutes getting home on public transport and another 30-45 minutes winding down before getting to sleep. To ask when he did his homework doesn't even bare considering.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
The issue is not to prevent children from working, it is to prevent exploitive working conditions for children and to emphasize the importance of the education they're supposed to be receiving. .
Click to expand...

The end result is that "children" are prevented from "working". The "why" doesn't really matter because you're still ultimately defending the "what"
 
Mike H said:
The end result is that "children" are prevented from "working". The "why" doesn't really matter because you're still ultimately defending the "what"
Click to expand...

<edited> Children are not prevented from working, period, end of sentence. They are prevented from working during certain hours of the day, for certain industries and for only a certain amount of hours per day or week. If you think there is something wrong with limits on how many hours, when or for what jobs a child could work perhaps you could elaborate on that view.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
What? So you can ask me whether or I not I then approve of sending the jackboots to little Timmy's lemonade stand to shut him down for violation of labor statutes?
Click to expand...

No, not really. It was to see what your baseline was.

For example, from what I can tell, the only thing that changed was a 10:00 PM -> 10:15 PM window and 4 additional work hours during the week. So for you, in your opinion, you feel that is too much. I only ask because the change isn't very much. Were you OK with the previous law?

The issue is not to prevent children from working, it is to prevent exploitive working conditions for children and to emphasize the importance of the education they're supposed to be receiving. It is, to put it mildly, counter productive to have a child fall asleep in class because he just got off work at 10:15 last night, then spent 45 minutes getting home on public transport and another 30-45 minutes winding down before getting to sleep. To ask when he did his homework doesn't even bare considering.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I gather where you are coming from on the exploitative working conditions. The law, from what I can tell (although you are the expert on ME here) still forbids minors from working in dangerous occupations. The list is available here. So your point is moot. To your other point, as far as education being primo uno, I agree, but that is a function of the parents, not business, don't you agree? After all, these are maximum limits, not minimum.

This is in no way similar to child labor.
 
So, SpiraMirabilis... although you just decried the fact that work rules on "child labor" were being drastically rolled back, you're now defending the rollback as adequate protection. Nice backpeddle.

The term "child labor" itself is only used to evoke visions of shoeless waifs toiling away in smoke-filled, at infested sweatshops. What would be appropriate employment for a 12 year old would clearly not be appropriate for an 8 year old in most cases, and in most cases, a 16 to 17-11/12ths year old can handle most adult job conditons. I could be mistaken, but I believe 17 year olds can enlist in at least some branches of the military.

You're still defending the what whle trying to argue the why
 
wheelsup said:
No, not really. It was to see what your baseline was.

For example, from what I can tell, the only thing that changed was a 10:00 PM -> 10:15 PM window and 4 additional work hours during the week. So for you, in your opinion, you feel that is too much. I only ask because the change isn't very much. Were you OK with the previous law?
Click to expand...

That's not all it did, you were only showing one of the laws it modified. It also repeals certain laws altogether, which wouldn't show up in the text you quoted -- it would simply show up as "Sec. 1. 26 MRSA §774, sub-§1, as amended by PL 2003, c. 53, §1, is repealed." It repealed the limits of age 17 year olds completely, and allows unlimited hours for 16 year olds during non-school days. I was OK with the previous law and saw no reason to change it. Now this will be the new "baseline" and soon expect them to try to move it back a little bit more. It doesn't matter if each individual change is "minor", pardon the pun, if they enact many such changes. The cumulative effect is what I am concerned about. It is a fact that if you give a Republican an inch he will kill your puppy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top