this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
108 points (92.9% liked)

Work Reform

10003 readers
68 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"Working Families Party 🐺 @WorkingFamilies"

"Duvan Tomas Perez, killed working in a poultry plant.

Michael Schuls, killed working at a logging company.

Will Hampton, killed working at a landfill.

This is why child labor laws exist. Companies can't be allowed to turn to kids when adults refuse to work for poverty wages."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's appalling that this is even a question. Children don't need better terms for working at the abattoir, the garbage dump or the sawmill; they need not to be working in those places.

[–] Karjapuskuri@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

So true. I can't fathom why a civilized country would let children do labor. This is some straight up 3rd world shit.

[–] brimnac@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I think you described exactly what is happening to this “civilized” country.

[–] Kichae@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

I can’t fathom why a civilized country

Making some bold assumptions there, I think.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

That it's still third world shit perpetuates our tolerance of it at all. Our manufacturing industries shouldn't br able to move factories offshore to developing countries where they can hire workers for pennies.

[–] PolarPerspective 1 points 1 year ago

Children? A 16 year old is not a child. They are a teenager; very nearly an adult. They absolutely should work a job to learn the value of working for money. It's a very important concept for young adults to learn.

That said, none of these jobs should exist if appropriate safety measures aren't being taken. I don't care if you're a teenager or an adult, you shouldn't be dying in a lumbar yard or a mine barring a freak accident. You shouldn't need a union to protect you. Safety regulations should just be a natural part of doing business.

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They should allow children to work to get money, if that is the only way to get money. Of course, it would be preferable that no one has to work to survive. Or do you think the government should provide free money only to children?

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Some people would argue for UBI for everyone, not just children.

But at least in my experience, children get money as an allowance from their parents, which I suppose is somewhat like UBI.

In any case, children should not need money of their own to survive. Their needs should be provided for by the parents.

[–] Xariphon@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I think a guaranteed basic income for young people only would certainly make up for keeping them from working. Like you said, nobody having to work to live would be the ideal, but to ban people from being able to support themselves and doing nothing to make up the difference creates artificial dependence that keeps people in abusive situations with no recourse.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The need for capital to find ever cheaper labor to exploit, accelerated by Republicans. I was trying to avoid loaded terms like "civilized" and "third world", but it does not make the USA look good at all.