Hacker News Reader

Comment by Izkata | Hacker News Reader

Here's another take:

> The Iowa bill would expand the number of hours that children under 16 can work from four to six a day, allow minors to work in previously prohibited industries if they are part of a training program, and allow 16- and 17-year–olds to serve alcohol with a parent’s permission.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/18/iowa-senate-...

This doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as the Washington Post is making it out to be.

Does anyone have a link to the actual bill? I only found articles talking about it and nothing on what it actually says.

View on HN

This is likely the bill, passed two days ago:

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/LGR/90/SF542.pd...

It is an amended form of a previous bill passed in April (linked by another comment). I noticed that it now clarifies that children under 14 are not permitted to work (previously it was allowed under certain conditions). So, that’s good. 14 and up are allowed to work.

Here is the bill the Senate passed on April 18: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=sf5...

It contains a lot of stuff that allows (relatively young) children to work in factories, industrial laundries and meat-packing plants. It also has some stuff that isn't really a big deal, which you've picked out. If I give you a sandwich that contains nails, but also some wonderful organic cheese and bread... is that a good sandwich? That's sort of the impression I get from this bill.

The old law said, no one under 18 can work in a meat packing plant, the new law says no one under 18 can be a meat packer. It doesn't put teens to work at dangerous jobs, but allows them opportunity to work in those businesses.

> opportunity

What an odd choice of wording - as if meat packing is some highly desirable industry that children are clamoring to get experience in (even as adults avoid it when they can).

To not consider work opportunity shows a highly elitist attitude. It is an opportunity to have money, to buy food, to help support family, to build a resume, to have peers. You might be too good for blue collar jobs, but they are in fact in demand by adults. 6 million adult have risked their lives and climbed over border fences for these jobs. Not everyone gets to go to Stanford a code for google, but honestly, if more bay area elite tech industry folks had a tough job in high school, they'd be better for it.

Serving alcohol... ugh. Bartenders already get enough guff from patrons. Imagine a 16yo having to deal with trying to cut somebody off.

Imagine some drunk asshole trying to hit on and harass the 16 year old bartender. I’ve seen it plenty of times minus the 16 year old part.

Whelp. With that visualization I'm done with the internet today.

And you're wholly correct. Just depressing.

you mean welp!

"whelp" means to birth a litter of puppies!

16 year olds can't be bartenders. In most states the person pouring, or opening, the alcoholic beverage has to be a bartender and has to be 18, or in some cases, 21.

They're a waiter, or someone standing at a counter.

Listen, this law sucks, but these points reek of "won't someone think of the children!". They're not working at a bar at 1am, they're waiting tables at the local pizza place and bringing a beer out with the pepsis.

> They're not working at a bar at 1am, they're waiting tables at the local pizza place and bringing a beer out with the pepsis.

That's what you assert, but that's not what the law says.

And I'd love to think that companies would be ethical enough to only ever surface the situation you bring up.

But I'm enough of a realist to know that's not the case.

and allow 16- and 17-year–olds to serve alcohol with a parent’s permission

Helloplease? If stuff like that is written into a bill, it's because of a lobbyist - evidently there's a shortage of workers in the hospitality field. How about improving working conditions instead? It's a market, if the offer is good, they'll come!

> allow 16- and 17-year–olds to serve alcohol

But not drink or purchase it? That's the dead giveaway that this isn't for _their_ benefit.

The more you read the washington post the more you will know things that aren't true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com