Child Labor Is on the Rise
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
"In February, the Labor Department announced that it had found more than a hundred children between the ages of thirteen and seventeen working in meatpacking plants and slaughterhouses, in eight states, for Packers Sanitation Services, one of the nation’s largest food-sanitation companies. The facilities themselves are owned by major corporations, including Tyson Foods and JBS. (All three companies denied that they had engaged in any wrongdoing.) The children worked overnight shifts at such jobs as cleaning bone saws and head splitters with hazardous chemicals. At least three were injured."
Why? Well, it started because I wanted to play Mario Kart on Super Nintendo...
There is something about developing a work ethic as a young person that is important. It starts with chores like mowing the yard.
I work hard, and my first job was when I was 18. Nothing about a work ethic is special to working hard in a job. Some of the most impressive people I work with had really impressive school work ethics.
The alternative life path was basically me staying at home for hours playing Diablo 2.
> I learned how to manage money. And probably most importantly I learned how to talk to adults.
I learned how to manage money from an very simple allowance for chores my parents gave me. But also... I really learned to manage money at 18 due to a number of things including college expenses and other stuff. Managing money is not the end-all you think has to be learned at a job. Home Ec is a real class in most public schools.
Talking to adults is a thing you learn by living and interacting in the world. You might've happened to learn some of it at work, but there is no requirement to learning it at work. Also, there's nothing that special about talking to adults that's that different from talking to teenagers... Basics of conversation are simple.
> It was my most rewarding and fond memory of my childhood.
None of this justifies child labor. There are plenty of other rewarding opportunities that don't mean that children have to work dangerous meat-packing jobs.
Very importantly, there are plenty of paths that are not your path that were equally valid. (I'm telling you this from experience). Just because you did it that way doesn't mean everyone has to, or necessarily even should. Not saying the way you were raised was wrong, but we've learned a lot more about child-rearing. We don't have to pull out dunce caps just because people had associations with having to go through that in school.
Ah yes, the famously well adjusted always online teens.
> Also, there's nothing that special about talking to adults that's that different from talking to teenagers... Basics of conversation are simple.
Have you ever listened to teenagers talk to each other? I honestly can't tell if you're trolling.
I think teens are much better at sifting through the BS than you're giving them credit for. Also I've talked to plenty of teams who seemed perfectly well adjusted for their age. I'm not talking about them being the best conversationalists, I'm saying they have opportunities to learn. Also, are teachers not adults?
The basis for my argument is that school is sufficient for all of this. Nothing you've said has disproven that.
I started delivering newspapers when I was 10. Dropped out of college and was somewhat depressed with a series of menial jobs. Eventually got on track again, got an A.S. and got a job in the industry I wanted to be in. But it was a low level job that left me very little autonomy and didn't tax my intelligence.
At some point I just stopped caring. A "work ethic" can be killed. Or can devolve into a "money" ethic where people play the kinds of financial engineering games that led to the 2008 recession.
I care again, but only because I'm not doing a menial job anymore.
Rates of unionisation are extremely low, strikes are extremely rare (it took a 30% real income loss before junior doctors started striking in the UK), employment rates are the highest throughout the world and unpaid overtime is the norm in almost all careers.
I own a house. Some time ago, my plumbing had issues. I had to go down into my basement and deal with shit. Literal shit. Work ethic is what lets you put on the "I got things to do" hat, and then you do them.
That's just life. Life is hard and brutal requiring constant effort.
Is homework not inadequate to teach this lesson? Kids are not dumb.
There's a pervasive stench of Calvinism in American work culture, even among atheists. There's nothing sanctifying about work, insomuch as it is a good (or bad) thing to teach kids its importance by having them clock in.
Using children as a backup labor force due to an adult worker shortage is - as the kids call it - yucky.
And I think a lot of people saying kids shouldn't work during school didn't have poor parents and the problems those conditions create if you can't take your destiny into your hands before that magical 18th birthday when you can do anything you want.
Growing up, the yard had to be done weekly. I did it, got paid, and I was able to walk to the store and buy shit. Work when done well is gratifying.
The way we think about jobs sucks...
As are hundreds of other things[1] we don't try to indoctrinate[2] our kids with. Work is not special and doesn't make one "whole" more than the other potentially gratifying tasks. I say this as someone who enjoys their current job, but I've worked in other less enjoyable jobs (that incidentally pay less and harsher work environments)
2. Expect children to perform at the same level as fully grown adults, but perhaps with fewer hours
1. Sports, math, games, gardening, sex, most hobbies, repairs, etc.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but you seem to be talking about "work ethic" in the abstract, though — like, valuing the labor itself, rather than the fruits of it. My question is, why is that important? Who cares about labor for its own sake?
With the worry about AI, I was staring at my plumbing stack the other day for hours... Realizing, this is a shit job in the truest form, and I couldn't figure out how a machine could do it.
The reason to understand the suffering, to indoctrinate people as you say, is to teach people to respect those that have these jobs. Life is hard, and we are in it together.
But you also glossed over an important point I'm trying to make: we should see suffering as a sometimes necessary evil and try to alleviate it whenever possible, rather than see it as some sort of virtue.
This is a horrendous take, and I’m glad you’re not my parent.
They’ll learn the world isn’t rainbows and sunshine without being in a toxic work environment before they’re even old enough to vote.
But a) these were his sons, big strapping guys of seventeen or so, and b) they were not in especially hazardous conditions. The people who think it is well for other people's adolescents to do dangerous work, I don't understand.
Why is there no nuance between "let the kids do safe jobs if they want" and "make the kids do dangerous jobs" positions? I guess you are either for it all or against any of it?
1. An unproductive shift from the actual topic.
2. Clear they didn't bother reading the article.
I don't think anyone has an issue with teenagers working at McDonald's, although I think they should be taught about labor protections first to avoid being exploited by a megalomaniac store manager. Which is a common occurrence since teenagers don't know any better.
> It was clear, in any case, from a range of reports, that they were all, or nearly all, drawn from the great underage labor pool of children who have crossed the border in recent years. “Unaccompanied minors” who arrive from non-neighboring countries—which, in effect, means Central America—are permitted to remain in the U.S. and are remanded to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, which delivers them as quickly as possible to a sponsor while asylum applications are processed. The asylum processing typically takes years.
The problem seems to be driven by undocumented workers crossing the border. There are a lot of dangerous second order effects from having a porous border and this is one of them.
It's also interesting how they talk about it. "crossed the border". You won't find Mexico, undocumented or migrant in the rest of the text. Without a careful reading you'd think these are lower middle class American's sending their children to coal mines because free school lunch plans were cut due to austerity. There is only one mention of "the border" in the last paragraph:
> Republicans say that the problem is an insecure border.
I did.
> The problem seems to be driven by undocumented workers crossing the border. There are a lot of dangerous second order effects from having a porous border and this is one of them.
Ok? They are still children. Child exploitation is not an immediate downstream effect of having illegal immigration. It is a downstream effect of having an exploitative system.
> It's also interesting how they talk about it. "crossed the border". You won't find Mexico, undocumented or migrant in the rest of the text.
Yeah probably because the exploitation of children is much more disconcerting than people overstaying their visas or escaping violence. I think the only benefit that the added context would be to segue into arguing for stronger protections for undocumented laborers.
> Without a careful reading you'd think these are lower middle class American's sending their children to coal mines
Again, I don't care if it is undocumented migrant children or middle class Americans. I don't understand why you think this context would change the impression the article is going to give on readers.
I feel like the point you are trying to make is that "It's only the exploitation of people who came here illegally, so it's no big deal."
I disagree. You have people outside of the system. It's hard to pass a law that protects these people because they are outside of the legal system by being undocumented
> people overstaying their visas or escaping violence.
Most of the people that are caught up in this situation came without a visa so please don't conflate the two.
> I feel like the point you are trying to make is that "It's only the exploitation of people who came here illegally, so it's no big deal."
Quite the opposite. I'm saying that pretending like having open borders and having all these undocumented workers and turning the blind eye necessary leads to exploration. And this includes exploitation of children. It's not humane to just pretend there isn't a problem. This is the same logic that thinks it's compassionate to let mentally ill people sleep on the streets and self medicate
The system prioritizes immigration enforcement over the rights & safety of workers and children. The system chooses not to protect them. Other choices are possible here don't pretend this is the inevitable & only outcome there could be.
For example we could easily give temporary immigration amnesty to victims of alleged crimes. Instead we have ICE camped out at family court, companies like this using the threat of deportation to keep their exploited workers in line. To the point of using child labor. Look at what you are defending here.
Which means that they are not "outside of the system", and not without documentation (as minor-aged asylum seekers).
It's really not. Don't deport people who file labor complaints. You can protect undocumented workers quite easily.
> Most of the people that are caught up in this situation came without a visa so please don't conflate the two.
I don't care if they came without a visa or overstayed a visa or literally walked across the border. I think borders are arbitrary and see very little difference anyways.
> I'm saying that pretending like having open borders and having all these undocumented workers and turning the blind eye necessary leads to exploration.
You are claiming something to be inherent when it is not. Illegal immigration does not create exploitation. Threat of deportation creates exploitation. If the threat of employer retaliation didn't exist, if illegal immigrants were educated about our labor laws, there would not be as much exploitation. It's really simple, I feel that you are being obtuse.
> This is the same logic that thinks it's compassionate to let mentally ill people sleep on the streets and self medicate
Nobody thinks it is compassionate to "let" people live on the streets, they just don't think cops should forcibly remove the homeless. Compassion would be giving them housing and treatment, but you wont see many "liberals" supporting free no strings attached housing.
If by self-medicating you mean harm reduction by giving opioid addicts heroin then I wouldn't say that is compassionate, just the bare minimum. When the alternative is them overdosing on fent or dying from withdrawals.
I think you haven't really thought very hard about these things because your arguments are very tired and simplistic. The answer is not more cruelty, nor is it the half-measures you see in San Francisco or Seattle or whatever. The policy solutions are pretty simple and are supported by empirical evidence in many countries and case studies.
No, as always (and from basic physic, as it were): what it's driven by is greed, and a lack of oversight. And to some extent, it may be a negative side effect of the rising minimum wage in some states. The undocumented workers, are just following the path of least resistance -- and are getting sucked in over the border, in response to these forces.
Remember, by themselves they are essentially powerless -- and the very opposite of a "driving force" for anything in this picture,
Like how was it easily determined that these children working for this company were working without permits?
Windex is a hazardous chemical and scratching yourself on a bandsaw is an injury. Needs more details.
Minors should not be cleaning dangerous equipment in slaughterhouses. Not to mention the lack of labor protections, blatant disregard for existing labor laws, the fact that most of the children are undocumented... need I go on?
Either way, disregard for child labor law might not be happening in some of these cases.
> The accident summaries from 2021 to 2023 show that most injuries involve hands and fingers. While some are only cuts and lacerations, most incidents proceed to partial and full finger amputations.
My guess is that minor injuries usually go unreported.
0. https://www.sawinery.net/bandsaw-accidents/#:~:text=Even%20t....
> No matter what you’ll use the bandsaw for, loose clothing and pieces of jewelry should be part of your work attire.
Yet... teens shouldn't have access to abortion or other sexual health services without parental consent because... they're children(?). My initial thought reading this was the word 'astonishing' but... on reflection, it's not that astonishing. It's just depressing. Also, more than mildly infuriating.
/sarcasm.
This is such a strange thing for legislatures to prioritize weakening child labor laws and not generally care about how these minors got here. It just shows that special interests drive the legislative process.
It’s not strange to me. A lot of conservative people I knew growing up would think this is great.
Having a job is a moral obligation and making kids work is good for them. It’s what the Bible says: spare the rod, spoil the child.
Same goes with minimum wages laws. They are oppressive to businesses and make them pay people more than they are worth.
Anything that gets in the way of people’s freedom to do as they please (including exploiting others) is bad.
They think that the market will prevent abuses because people can just walk away and find a less exploitive job. It’s your responsibility to not be exploited.
The second part of this sentence is not obviously false to me. Kids working exploitative & dangerous jobs, yes that's bad. Kids being allowed to work in general, I think is good.
I like Simon Sarris's take on this, from:
https://simonsarris.substack.com/p/the-most-precious-resourc...
> I find it striking just how early, and how varied, the avenues were that allowed one to pivot off-script, to do something differently than everyone else. For a 13 year old today, what is the equivalent of being a telegraph office boy, where he can learn technology while contributing? What about for a 16 year old? 21 year old? What is today’s equivalent to being a studio apprentice of Verrocchio?
It's systemic racism and inequality. As long as we pretend everyone has equal opportunities, then we can make simple claims as you do.
>For a 13 year old today, what is the equivalent of being a telegraph office boy
The internet. Youtube. Udemy. MIT free courses.
Of course the claims will be about only the most positively wistful jobs of a bygone era, but strangely not "For a 13 year old today, what is the equivalent of dying inside a chimney?" because these jobs are they chimney kind, not the paper-boy kind.
You’re picking one sentence I used as context for the rest of my comment.
Regarding the telegram office, I’m pretty sure 13 year olds have a lot more schoolwork than they did in 1850. I frequently had days I spent all day in school and spent most of the night on homework.
I'm not saying that was good, but comparing 13-year olds then and today is hard. 13-year olds then were basically already adults.
I wouldn't call myself hardcore conservative but what's wrong with this ? Would you rather have your 15 year old sit home all day playing video games or get a real life job where they could learn a few valuable skills ? Honest question and not trying to troll. As an American, I am seeing our kids being over protected and the result is a bunch of 20 year olds who have no direction and have never faced hardship to prepare for the real world.
Instead the debate turns to them working. Who benefits from this? It's not even close to being the average person in one of these states.
It's so transparent. The worst part is that these jobs in question suck so badly that the only way they can find workers is by lobbying to grab people who have less labor power. Rather than properly existing as part of a free market and paying people more.
This article isn't about legislation giving children a sense of direction are building their fortitude through work. For one thing, I very much doubt there is any jurisdiction with a blanket prohibition on child or youth labour when the work environment is safe and the boundaries are well defined. Child labour laws are about protecting a vulnerable population from the types of abuses that have existed historically. Those protections aren't perfect. For example: having a parent sign a form to grant permission implies parental and government oversight, but it does not guarantee it. On the other hand, it is better than nothing. The motivation of those wishing to remove those protections should be considered seriously, particularly when they tout the supposed benefits to the people they are being put into a position to exploit.
The benefits of work and summer jobs aren't the stakes here, not being coerced into doing manual labor during long night shifts is. The idea of saying "at least they aren't playing videogames" is so absurd to me, it'd be like looking at a homeless person and saying "at least they aren't wasting money on uber eats!".
The issue most people take with this is that it compares the best outcome of one version with the worst version of the other. If we want to compare the worst outcomes then we should be talking about the difference between children idling playing video games versus children being exploited in workplaces.
At a certain point we have to say no one should be making less than this. As a society we likely want a floor on what human time is worth. If your business truly can’t function and that floor is reasonable which I believe it is in almost all states your business isn’t viable.
They can already work weekends, summers, and holidays by the way, the only time they can't is mon-thurs because of that compulsory education thing.
The sad part is that it's not even about there being a void to fill, their competitors who are offering $17.50/hr are rolling in applicants, it's pure greed using the legislature and teenage labor to drive down wages for everyone under the guise of "well it's fine because it's just spending money" (and labor exploitation).
We went to a Chili’s where there were 2 wait staff to service ~100 seats, maybe 40 of which were full, and it was as chaotic and depressing as you could imagine. Sentiment among customers was “it’s a shame nobody wants to work anymore.” “Help wanted” in the window.
The next day we went to a locally-owned and operated brewery + pub in the same town. It was overflowing with about 120 eager patrons and buzzing with 20+ smiling and joking wait staff of all generations.
We don’t have a labor shortage, we have a quality employer shortage.
A few years back, I was at the Design2Part show, which is for manufacturing, and the California Department of Corrections had a booth, offering slave labor.
At 13 years old you can't work at a factory but you can stock shelfs or pick fruit. No more than 7 hours a day and no more than 35 hours a week. No Sundays.
The Netherlands, not the US.
They mention it in the article, the case that sticks in my mind is the one with Packer Sanitation, where they had at least 100+ teenagers working overnight shifts cleaning equipment and floors in abattoirs/meatpacking plants.
They interviewed one of these kids, and he was working like 10pm-6am, then going to high school afterward. They obscured the kid's identity because he didn't want to get fired, as he was supporting his family in Guatemala.
It's one of those things where it just strikes me like, how do you even fix that? Like even with the best intentions, are you going to inadvertently derail someone's life, or their family?
...and only outside school hours. If a child is absent from school, the parents will be fined more than the child will earn.
It’s all designed to isolate grandpa and grandma from work; prop up their ephemeral investments and keep producing their potatoes, kids! They earned it!
Sorry but I don’t think your grandma and parents are owed Porsches and mansions at the cost to my kids.
They claim that the existing regulations don't work. That the unaccompanied minors are the ones filling the vast majority of these roles, but that the border crossing isn't the issue. It sounds like they don't have a solution?
Can't they just put together a spreadsheet of their assets, personal investment opportunities, and future income to decide how to optimize their legacy and retirement?
It leads to the implication that the kids should have picked better parents.
I wish I was joking.
To a first approximation, there is no one who believes it's a 10yo's fault for not voting for different politicians.
Probably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle
It is as much a real object of specific concern as it is shorthand for "oppressive wage slavery in poor conditions" in the general sense.
One friend didn't have to work, but her rules were that once she started to work, she had to stay working. Nevermind that she was still in school.
Not just that, but young folks are easier to exploit. And that's one of those issues: When you take away protections and barriers, you make it easier for people to be exploited. This doesn't help poor families: Actually making sure folks have the money for young folks only work by choice does.
Exactly, this is why have laws against the sexual exploitation of minors by adults. It is much easier much easier to talk a minor in to doing something that is not in their favor by their lack of life experience.
Does this mean minors should not work... No. Things like apprenticeships and things that are low risk of injury should be fine. Myself, I grew up on a farm and every damned thing there is looking to remove some part of your body. I knew young people that had limbs removed on their family farm by what would be simple mistakes, but hey have a life long impact.
so regarding the poor families this would supposedly help, I'd argue it's more complicated than that, and what this may be doing is providing short term help while sacrificing long term social mobility. keep the poor working and not learning and they'll mostly stay poor.
there's nothing wrong of course with a part time gig to get accustomed to different responsibilities, but it should remain restricted to that. you've got your entire life to work full-time, there's no need to rush things.
I personally think that we have gone in the other direction too much where our kids are overprotected from real life skills and are shielded too much until they are in early 20s and then they struggle big time. I know at least 2 20+ year olds who are very lost and have never worked a real job in their life.
Personally as a parent, I have no issues getting my kids getting a tough shit job in a McDonalds for a 5-6 hour shift. Does that count as Child Labor ?
If only we lived in a world with more than 2 choices for everything...
> McDonalds for a 5-6 hour shift. Does that count as Child Labor ?
No, if there are health and safety protections in place and enforced. And it's not interfering with schoolwork or rest.