A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
Nope. Children are not able to provide informed consent and thus cannot enter into contracts to sell their labor. Beyond that, there is a wealth of data demonstrating negative outcomes related to child labor, including educational underperformance, increased incidence of poverty, abuse, and crime, as well as the potential of workplace injuries to cause permanent developmental impairment.
There is no such thing as ethical child labor.
I tend to agree, but what about making a child do chores in a family household? Most children don't want to do it and some don't get anything in return, the tasks can sometimes be grueling. Would that always be unethical, or only when taken to an excessive degree that severely impacts the child?
Chores are different in that the purpose is training them to be self sufficient adults. Once it deviates from that purpose, it becomes abusive.
This is likely related to why kids can work in a family owned business to various extents. At least in the US. Not sure about elsewhere.
The problem is that once you make it available for anybody, it becomes a societal pressure and children won't be given a choice since they can't make their own decisions for what they do. Hell, how many of us were 'forced' to get a summer job as a teenager by our parents?
In Germany children are obligated to help their parents in the household as long as they live with them. This extends to family business. By law the children have no right to be compensated, since they are already compensated by the parents feeding and housing them. Of course, this doesn't mean parents can just slave their children, there are plenty of health and security laws and what's generally reasonable for a child of varous ages to do.
So no family sweat shop. but the bottom line is: in Germany kids are obligated to help out the household they live with.
Yeah, it's essentially similar in the US. I don't know if kids are legally obligated to do chores, but they can work in certain family businesses without monetary compensation. I just don't think it should be opened up to the point where you can hire any child. But in any case, pretty sure this is a troll post as their first example was cobalt mining. I mean, I guess there's a small chance it's not a troll, but very slim.
Oh, for sure. The exception to family businesses is probably both in Germany and the US rooted in the time the laws were made, where it would've been devastating to not allow families to include their children in the family business. And ultimately, there are probably plenty of laws in both countries that would check in on abuse.
It isn't commercial labor when an adult does their own chores (I think), as it's more related to the people in a household maintaining their own home. It likely wouldn't be labor for a child for the same reasons, though I'm not sure.
But it could start to look like labor when it's something that produces commercial value, for example, it's more like a 'chore' to water the vegetable garden in the backyard, but it's more like 'labor' to tend to 20 acres of farmland.
Excessive chores, though, could be prevented under child abuse law rather than child labor law, depending on how it's enforced. Doing all the household work voluntarily for no reason other than it's fun? Almost certainly legal. No video games until you clean the dishes? Probably legal. No food until you sweep, mop, dust, and shine every surface in the house? Probably abuse.
And I mean, I would argue that household chores can be viewed as education. After all, at some point the children have to care for their own household and as such are good to learn routine cleaning, how to do dishes, how to shop and cook, how to crawl into a tiny tunnel to mine for gold and how to keep the garden tidy.
There are some people who are adults who are kinda clueless about some basic things and I think it would've been a good part of education to have them make household chores from childhood onwards.
Of course, this needs to be reasonable and age appropriate. So, I agree with the commercial aspect of it.
Chores are largely part of childhood education. Humans need to be able to do things that they may not find fun to both to survive as functional adults and function as a part of society. They also help to teach responsibility and contribution to larger things than themselves, whether a family unit or society at large.
That is allowed. Kids are allowed to do small jobs outside school hours, paper rounds, dog walking, babysitting, all fine jobs for teens.
A full time job that denies them an education is exploitative.
We have decided as a nation that children under a certain age are incapable of consenting to anything.
How do you know you're from the same nation as OP?
We can't even trust employers to not steal wages, sexually harass, or be decent humans to adult workers. There's no way a literal child should be expected to hold their own in an employee/employer relationship.
Labor: No. Consent doesn't matter.
Doing jobs / working as a kid is perfectly alright if it contributes to their education, teaches them skills for life or helps them learn how to become an independent individual. But within limits. They also need time to grow, have fun and go to school.
Other than that, children will consensually work if the alternative is seeing their little sister starve. Help contribute to the family income or happily skip school if able. Under a certain age, children are regarded as not very wise, unable to consent and easily manipulable. For example by cruel or stupid parents.
That is why it needs to be banned to a certain (and arguable) age. Instead, the state/society needs to provide for poor children, and protect them. Sometimes even from their parents and themselves. Until they're grown enough to make their own decisions.
If the money involved is enough to ensure they are not poor and legal protections exist, should there still be such a ban?
Adults paid minimum wage without other sources of income are poor. What youβre implying is a system that pays children a living wage that is above the current minimum wage. What employer is going to pay someone more than minimum when they are a child who will have major limitations and liabilities as an employee, and when they could potentially pay a full grown adult to do more work with less liability for less pay?
The only reality where that happens is when it is a job that a child can do more easily than a full sized adult, and that is exactly the kind of work that made child labor illegal in the first placeβthose little hands can sure reach deep into those factory machines, canβt they?
If these protections work 100% and the kids are for sure not being manipulated and it doesn't take away from their education... And we're sure they don't 'not know better'. I'm not sure if we'd need that ban.
Let's say you're Harry Potter. Or Hermione Granger and you're 11 yo and you have people to make sure you don't suffer from working. I'm okay with that. And I think they got paid more than minimum wage. I didn't watch the documentary so I don't know if it worked out alright for them. But starring in movies reportedly is hard work.
Consent aside, it will never be acceptable in a place where there's free education, since educating a child is almost guaranteed to increase their quality of life and production in society
Consentually...... Sounds like a great way for a corporation to groom individuals into people who accept less than a liveable wage.
I don't see anything that helps capitalism being done "responsibly". It's all done in the pursuit of all the money, and as soon as possible. Only rule is don't break laws that have consequences higher than the profits gained.
Children should be children. They shouldn't need to earn an income. Education and fun should be a priority. Have the rest of their lives to be miserable
Being imprisoned in school in name of education is already miserable though
I moved out at 14, so I'm gonna go with yes, but I'll caveat that I got a pretty heavy bias on the issue :)
I will say that parental consent is a shit answer. The kids capable of working consensually likely won't need it.
Isn't 14 already a legal age to work (though admittedly some caveats)?
Edit: in the US at least.
Yes, when it's the product of apprenticeship, where there is a clear gain, without loss in other areas of education. As to the amount of time it takes from childhood, the matter is less clear, as it is within societies that permit cram schools. But if you allow one, then you can allow the other.
Child should get education and not work. The government should support financially families so kids and student don't need to work
I suppose I'd call one form of that "household chores"
I don't see myself saying so. I don't even agree with the existence of mandatory school most of the time.
kids should not work nor "have to" work. they should have fun, get educated and well... be kids. they have more than 40 years down the road to suffer in a cubicle
It was historically and still is in some places, today.