This research will examine and analyse the situation and conditions of working children in the agricultural labour force of the United States, to find what social progress has to be made in order to protect children against any form of exploitation or harmful labour enhanced with examples from Quebec situations, which may have negative physical or psychological consequences on them.
I. Minimum Age Standard
A. Federal standard
1. Non-agricultural employment
2. Agricultural Employment
3. Hazardous work
B. Federal standard violation consequences
1. On family farms
2. On commercial farms
II. Work conditions
A. Hours of work on a school day
1. Non-agricultural employment
2. Agricultural employment
3. Consequences on children
B. Health and safety risks
1. Pesticides exposure and consequences
2. Sanitation requirements and violations
III. Education
A. Compulsory school attendance
B. Poverty, constant move and long hours of work consequences
IV. Social progress
A. Regulations and improvements regarding the minimum age standard
B. Regulations and improvements regarding education
C. Regulations and improvements regarding the work conditions
Appendix 1: Hazardous occupations
Appendix 2: Personal protective equipment requirements to handle pesticides
Appendix 3: Organophosphate pesticides
Appendix 4: Field sanitation requirements
Appendix 5: Compulsory school attendance
Friday, March 30, 2007
Monday, March 5, 2007
Review of the literature
Review of the Literature;Emotional, Physical and Psychological Consequences of Using Children in the Rural American Labour Force
Of nearly 250 million children engaged in child labor around the world, the vast majority- 70 percent, or some 170 million-are working in agriculture. Child agricultural workers frequently work for long hours in scorching heat, haul heavy loads of produce, are exposed to toxic pesticides, and suffer high rates of injury from sharp knives and other dangerous tools. Their work is gruelling and harsh, and violates their rights to health, education, and protection from work that is hazardous or exploitative. (Human Rights Watch)
Child Labour and Child Work
First of all, there is a distinction to be made in order to really understand the problem of child labour, and it is to classify what is child labour and what it is not. “At one end, certain work activities can be beneficial to children, or, toward the center, at least not harmful”, which is qualified as child work, and “at the other end […] harmful work” and “work that keeps children from attending to school”(Hindman; continuetolearn.com), which is considered as child labour. However, what has been recognised to be harmful work according to the law?
Historically; Towards Regulations
Child labour was present in every industry, mines, mills, and factories at the beginning of the 1900’s, says Hindman. Even though there were some king of an attempt to regulate child labour before 1903, in his historical overview of child labour, Todd Postol mentions that the first person who really brought up the child labour issue in the United States is a woman called Mary “Mother” Jones. Her main goal was to get “national attention to the health risks faced by working children,” and has one of her achievements, “on May 29, 1903, [she had] 100 000 textile workers, including 16 thousand children below 16, [walk] off their jobs at mills in and around Philadelphia” (2). This strike was one of the first steps taken towards child labour regulation in the United States. Then, as mentioned by Todd Postol and in continuetolearn.com, in 1904, the National Child Labor Committee was founded, and for forty years, fought child labour industry by industry. Afterwards, the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act was adopted by the congress in 1916 and voted unconstitutional in 1918. Consequently, Julie Novkov demonstrates in her research that the reason why “the legislation did not succeed through out the country is because of the fear the government had and that the manufacturers knew how to play with it” (3). In result of that pressure on the government, she divides the outcomes of the fight against child labour in two categories, the fact that the successes were on the state level and the failures on the federal level (Novkov, 2), and as a result, the government was not able to put in place one law that regulated child labour all over the country. However, in 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act, which for the first time regulated child labour on the federal level. Finally, the Convention 182 was adopted on June 17th, 1999 by the International Labour Organisation as the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, which “condemns certain forms of child labor including slavery, sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and other forms of forced labor, child prostitution and pornography, and use of children in illicit activities such as drug trafficking” (Hindman; ILO). However, not all forms of child labour had disappeared from the United States. As expressed by Jongsoog Kim, Lydia Zepeda, and Paula Kantor in their research, still today there is a major lack in child labour regulation concerning the United States’ rural area, more precisely in agricultural labour force(2).
Rural Child Labour
Unfortunately, children working on farms work in poor conditions, such as being exposed to dangerous pesticides, that encounter suffering from headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, many of them are forced to work without access to sanitary facilities, they are not feed properly, they work under temperatures over 100 degrees Fahrenheit and are somewhat kept from going to school because of the long hours of work they have to attend (Human Rights Watch). Moreover, in a research on children working on family farms, it was found that the parents are more likely to let their children do hazardous work, like driving tractors at a really young age, because they do not really feel the danger of it, but see the benefits working on the farm and having responsibilities will bring to the children (Kim, Zepeda, Kantor, 3). However on family farms, children most of the time, still go to school and work after school with their parents. On the contrary, when it come to immigrant or seasonal farm workers, children do not attempt school and work alongside with their parents as young as 4-5 years old (Fingers to the Bone, 10). Most children who work on farms do so, because of poverty in their families and because, the only place of employment available for them is on rural farms (Fingers to the Bone, 10-11). Compared to family farms, where children work because their parents think that by living and working on the family farm, their children learn responsibilities, work ethics, skills, and how to solve problems (Kim, Zepeda, Kantor, 6). In the same manner, psychologists suggest that children are more likely to develop moral and financial responsibility through family interaction rather than through work experiences outside the home because the family is still the primary place for child development (Kim, Zepeda, Kantor, 7), therefore working on the family farm is beneficial psychologically for children. Meanwhile, children working on farms in general encounter many psychological problems, because their work is not supervised by their loving parents, but exploitative bosses and their conditions are far from being adequate, working long hours, not attending to school, brain damages from heat illness, depression caused by jobs uncertainty and frequent moves, social stigmatisation, isolation, among others (continuetolearn.com; Human Rights Watch; Finger to the Bones; Kim, Zepeta, and Kantor; International Labour Organization). In result to high pressure, a studied had shown that farm workers are vulnerable to substances abuse, which can take away pain and temporary make them think their life is better (Fingers to the Bone, 25). They also get down to taking drugs for performances, especially those who work at peace rate, where the pace of work determines the earnings (Fingers to the Bone, 26). Nonetheless, there are special risks faced by girls working on farms, such as, sexual harassments, and the rate of teen pregnancy on the United States farms is 54.4 per 1,000. Moreover, most of them do not know that sexual harassment is a crime and endure it (Fingers to the Bones, 35). The worst of it is if they say no, they lose their employment.
All those extremely inadequate consequences on children are caused because the laws concerning agricultural labour are not strict enough regarding children on the federal level in the United States. Therefore, this is the reason why my research will examine and analyse what has to be improved in the regulations regarding the rural child labour force of the United States, in order to protect children against any form of exploitations or harmful labour, which may have emotional, physical or mental consequences on their health.
Of nearly 250 million children engaged in child labor around the world, the vast majority- 70 percent, or some 170 million-are working in agriculture. Child agricultural workers frequently work for long hours in scorching heat, haul heavy loads of produce, are exposed to toxic pesticides, and suffer high rates of injury from sharp knives and other dangerous tools. Their work is gruelling and harsh, and violates their rights to health, education, and protection from work that is hazardous or exploitative. (Human Rights Watch)
Child Labour and Child Work
First of all, there is a distinction to be made in order to really understand the problem of child labour, and it is to classify what is child labour and what it is not. “At one end, certain work activities can be beneficial to children, or, toward the center, at least not harmful”, which is qualified as child work, and “at the other end […] harmful work” and “work that keeps children from attending to school”(Hindman; continuetolearn.com), which is considered as child labour. However, what has been recognised to be harmful work according to the law?
Historically; Towards Regulations
Child labour was present in every industry, mines, mills, and factories at the beginning of the 1900’s, says Hindman. Even though there were some king of an attempt to regulate child labour before 1903, in his historical overview of child labour, Todd Postol mentions that the first person who really brought up the child labour issue in the United States is a woman called Mary “Mother” Jones. Her main goal was to get “national attention to the health risks faced by working children,” and has one of her achievements, “on May 29, 1903, [she had] 100 000 textile workers, including 16 thousand children below 16, [walk] off their jobs at mills in and around Philadelphia” (2). This strike was one of the first steps taken towards child labour regulation in the United States. Then, as mentioned by Todd Postol and in continuetolearn.com, in 1904, the National Child Labor Committee was founded, and for forty years, fought child labour industry by industry. Afterwards, the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act was adopted by the congress in 1916 and voted unconstitutional in 1918. Consequently, Julie Novkov demonstrates in her research that the reason why “the legislation did not succeed through out the country is because of the fear the government had and that the manufacturers knew how to play with it” (3). In result of that pressure on the government, she divides the outcomes of the fight against child labour in two categories, the fact that the successes were on the state level and the failures on the federal level (Novkov, 2), and as a result, the government was not able to put in place one law that regulated child labour all over the country. However, in 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act, which for the first time regulated child labour on the federal level. Finally, the Convention 182 was adopted on June 17th, 1999 by the International Labour Organisation as the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, which “condemns certain forms of child labor including slavery, sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and other forms of forced labor, child prostitution and pornography, and use of children in illicit activities such as drug trafficking” (Hindman; ILO). However, not all forms of child labour had disappeared from the United States. As expressed by Jongsoog Kim, Lydia Zepeda, and Paula Kantor in their research, still today there is a major lack in child labour regulation concerning the United States’ rural area, more precisely in agricultural labour force(2).
Rural Child Labour
Unfortunately, children working on farms work in poor conditions, such as being exposed to dangerous pesticides, that encounter suffering from headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, many of them are forced to work without access to sanitary facilities, they are not feed properly, they work under temperatures over 100 degrees Fahrenheit and are somewhat kept from going to school because of the long hours of work they have to attend (Human Rights Watch). Moreover, in a research on children working on family farms, it was found that the parents are more likely to let their children do hazardous work, like driving tractors at a really young age, because they do not really feel the danger of it, but see the benefits working on the farm and having responsibilities will bring to the children (Kim, Zepeda, Kantor, 3). However on family farms, children most of the time, still go to school and work after school with their parents. On the contrary, when it come to immigrant or seasonal farm workers, children do not attempt school and work alongside with their parents as young as 4-5 years old (Fingers to the Bone, 10). Most children who work on farms do so, because of poverty in their families and because, the only place of employment available for them is on rural farms (Fingers to the Bone, 10-11). Compared to family farms, where children work because their parents think that by living and working on the family farm, their children learn responsibilities, work ethics, skills, and how to solve problems (Kim, Zepeda, Kantor, 6). In the same manner, psychologists suggest that children are more likely to develop moral and financial responsibility through family interaction rather than through work experiences outside the home because the family is still the primary place for child development (Kim, Zepeda, Kantor, 7), therefore working on the family farm is beneficial psychologically for children. Meanwhile, children working on farms in general encounter many psychological problems, because their work is not supervised by their loving parents, but exploitative bosses and their conditions are far from being adequate, working long hours, not attending to school, brain damages from heat illness, depression caused by jobs uncertainty and frequent moves, social stigmatisation, isolation, among others (continuetolearn.com; Human Rights Watch; Finger to the Bones; Kim, Zepeta, and Kantor; International Labour Organization). In result to high pressure, a studied had shown that farm workers are vulnerable to substances abuse, which can take away pain and temporary make them think their life is better (Fingers to the Bone, 25). They also get down to taking drugs for performances, especially those who work at peace rate, where the pace of work determines the earnings (Fingers to the Bone, 26). Nonetheless, there are special risks faced by girls working on farms, such as, sexual harassments, and the rate of teen pregnancy on the United States farms is 54.4 per 1,000. Moreover, most of them do not know that sexual harassment is a crime and endure it (Fingers to the Bones, 35). The worst of it is if they say no, they lose their employment.
All those extremely inadequate consequences on children are caused because the laws concerning agricultural labour are not strict enough regarding children on the federal level in the United States. Therefore, this is the reason why my research will examine and analyse what has to be improved in the regulations regarding the rural child labour force of the United States, in order to protect children against any form of exploitations or harmful labour, which may have emotional, physical or mental consequences on their health.
Notes: Review of the literature
Historicizing the Figure of the Child in Legal Discourse: The Battle over the Regulation of Child Labor written by Julie Novkov
She states that two distinctions between these outcomes are the time difference between them (the successes were early and the failures were later) and the fact that the successes were on the state level and the failures were on the federal level (p.2)
She states that the reason why the legislations did not succeed through out the country is because of the fear the government had and that the manufacturers knew how to play with it (p.3)
Interpretation and political pressures had impacts on the child labour question (p.3)
Interpretation includes political people inside and outside the legal system (p.3)
The conflict in the debate had first worked in favour of the progressive forces that got the regulation. But afterwards, anti-regulation advocates manipulated the same concepts to get to their point (p.4)
The campaigns for child labour also explains the role of the interested organisations and the courts’ dealing with statutes regulating child labour. (p.4)
She tells that child labor has always been seen as a problem since industrialization age in the US, but it did not get under way until the progressive era. (p.4) Before that children were seen to be valuable to their parents where they were seen to be a good way to earn extra wages.
Important organization: The National Consumer’s League spoke about the “childrens’ terrible working conditions” and stongly suggested that consumers should not by product manufactured by children. (p.5)
National Child Labor Committee founded in 1904
Organization leader: Owen Levojoy
By 1911 the committee had 30 states that improved their regulations about child labour (p.5) and by 1914, 40 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia had prohibited some or all form of child labour. (p.6)
Keating-Owen bill which is a limitation of child labour (p.6) the bill became a law in the fall of 1916 but the law was taken away in 1918.
P.7 includes a bunch of other attempts to regulate child labour who did not successfully work.
Twentieth amendment??? Sentinels of the Republic
Pauline Goldmark; pamphlet about the conditions in the canneries (p.13)
In brief, this text explains the steps to the regulations and legislations of child labour in the US
p.21 Congress attempts to regulate
p.27 The battle over the child labor amendment
The battle over regulation of child labor shows how legal discourse influences and is influenced by the relationship among reformers, attorneys, and the courts.
This text is relevant explaining who played major roles and how did a national regulation failed to take place in the US.
Novkov, Julie, “Historicizing the Figure of the Child in Legal Discourse: The Battle over the Regulation of Child Labor,” The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 44, No.4, (2000), 369-404, 31 January 2007.
She states that two distinctions between these outcomes are the time difference between them (the successes were early and the failures were later) and the fact that the successes were on the state level and the failures were on the federal level (p.2)
She states that the reason why the legislations did not succeed through out the country is because of the fear the government had and that the manufacturers knew how to play with it (p.3)
Interpretation and political pressures had impacts on the child labour question (p.3)
Interpretation includes political people inside and outside the legal system (p.3)
The conflict in the debate had first worked in favour of the progressive forces that got the regulation. But afterwards, anti-regulation advocates manipulated the same concepts to get to their point (p.4)
The campaigns for child labour also explains the role of the interested organisations and the courts’ dealing with statutes regulating child labour. (p.4)
She tells that child labor has always been seen as a problem since industrialization age in the US, but it did not get under way until the progressive era. (p.4) Before that children were seen to be valuable to their parents where they were seen to be a good way to earn extra wages.
Important organization: The National Consumer’s League spoke about the “childrens’ terrible working conditions” and stongly suggested that consumers should not by product manufactured by children. (p.5)
National Child Labor Committee founded in 1904
Organization leader: Owen Levojoy
By 1911 the committee had 30 states that improved their regulations about child labour (p.5) and by 1914, 40 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia had prohibited some or all form of child labour. (p.6)
Keating-Owen bill which is a limitation of child labour (p.6) the bill became a law in the fall of 1916 but the law was taken away in 1918.
P.7 includes a bunch of other attempts to regulate child labour who did not successfully work.
Twentieth amendment??? Sentinels of the Republic
Pauline Goldmark; pamphlet about the conditions in the canneries (p.13)
In brief, this text explains the steps to the regulations and legislations of child labour in the US
p.21 Congress attempts to regulate
p.27 The battle over the child labor amendment
The battle over regulation of child labor shows how legal discourse influences and is influenced by the relationship among reformers, attorneys, and the courts.
This text is relevant explaining who played major roles and how did a national regulation failed to take place in the US.
Novkov, Julie, “Historicizing the Figure of the Child in Legal Discourse: The Battle over the Regulation of Child Labor,” The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 44, No.4, (2000), 369-404, 31 January 2007
Notes: Review of the literature
Public Health and Working Children in Twentieth-Century America : An Historical Overview written by Todd Postol.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0197-5897%28199323%2914%3A3%3C348%3APHAWCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8
He makes a summary of the history of child labour in the United States at the beginning of the paper. He also states numerous physical problems that occurred to children depending on their job.
Important person: Mary “Mother” Jones, who was one of the first people that focused attention on child labour. She organized many different actions to make people aware of the child labour problem in the US. Her goal was to get “national attention to the health risks faced by working children” (p.3).
Important committee: New York Child Labor Committee was formed of educators, reformers and physicians. The bill they achieved to put in place did not protect across-the-board child labour and did not protect homework and agriculture.
National Child Labor Committee was found in 1904. For forty years, armed with statistics and maps the fought child labour industry by industry. (p.4)
Important publication in Life magazine.
Publicising abuses towards children had a major impact, more as a decisive role. (p.6) and in the mid-1930’s parents rejected any form of work if it could harm their children in any way, physically or emotionally. (p.6)
Study name: When teenagers work
Relevant text that shows the progress made according to child labour and that names many important association and people.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0197-5897%28199323%2914%3A3%3C348%3APHAWCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8
He makes a summary of the history of child labour in the United States at the beginning of the paper. He also states numerous physical problems that occurred to children depending on their job.
Important person: Mary “Mother” Jones, who was one of the first people that focused attention on child labour. She organized many different actions to make people aware of the child labour problem in the US. Her goal was to get “national attention to the health risks faced by working children” (p.3).
Important committee: New York Child Labor Committee was formed of educators, reformers and physicians. The bill they achieved to put in place did not protect across-the-board child labour and did not protect homework and agriculture.
National Child Labor Committee was found in 1904. For forty years, armed with statistics and maps the fought child labour industry by industry. (p.4)
Important publication in Life magazine.
Publicising abuses towards children had a major impact, more as a decisive role. (p.6) and in the mid-1930’s parents rejected any form of work if it could harm their children in any way, physically or emotionally. (p.6)
Study name: When teenagers work
Relevant text that shows the progress made according to child labour and that names many important association and people.
Notes: Review of the literature
Child Labor Supply on US Family Farms: An Interdisciplinary Conceptualization written by Jongsoog Kim from the Korea Women’s Development Institute, Lydia Zepeda and Paula Kantor from the Universtiry of Wisconsin-Madison.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=03-03-2012&FMT=7&DID=796942001&RQT=309&cfc=1
They state that most farm children in the United States work on their family farms. In developing countries, children are less likely to attend school full time, when in US most children do the work after school. The framework done for the developing countries does not fit for US because, and they state that risk perception should be included in the framework.
The research answers 2 questions: 1) Why do children work?, and 2) How much do they work?. This research develops a framework for children farm worker.
It states that parents decide their children’s labor supply on the family farm (p.4) and those parents are responsible for the development, education and leisure (educational activities) of those children.
The authors also state that even though children had always worked in family farms, the parents are motivated because they think, by living and working on a farm, their children will learn responsibility, work ethics, skills, and how to solve problems (p.6). Moreover, psychologists suggest that children are more likely to develop moral and financial responsibility through family interaction rather than through work experiences outside the home because the family is still the primary place for child development (p.7).
Working at home has also a big impact on communication within the closeness of the family. Therefore, country life is beneficial for children. The research puts together a bunch of economical and uneconomical facts that comes down to answering the two questions of the research.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=03-03-2012&FMT=7&DID=796942001&RQT=309&cfc=1
They state that most farm children in the United States work on their family farms. In developing countries, children are less likely to attend school full time, when in US most children do the work after school. The framework done for the developing countries does not fit for US because, and they state that risk perception should be included in the framework.
The research answers 2 questions: 1) Why do children work?, and 2) How much do they work?. This research develops a framework for children farm worker.
It states that parents decide their children’s labor supply on the family farm (p.4) and those parents are responsible for the development, education and leisure (educational activities) of those children.
The authors also state that even though children had always worked in family farms, the parents are motivated because they think, by living and working on a farm, their children will learn responsibility, work ethics, skills, and how to solve problems (p.6). Moreover, psychologists suggest that children are more likely to develop moral and financial responsibility through family interaction rather than through work experiences outside the home because the family is still the primary place for child development (p.7).
Working at home has also a big impact on communication within the closeness of the family. Therefore, country life is beneficial for children. The research puts together a bunch of economical and uneconomical facts that comes down to answering the two questions of the research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
