Yesterday, June 12th, marked World Day Against Child Labor. For this occasion I highlight the plight of young children employed to work in the tobacco agribusiness in the United States. It is estimated, by Deutsche Welle, that 500,000 children labor in this market; most are exposed to hazardous conditions ranging from exposure to high levels of nicotine and pesticides, farm implements, and long working hours among others. Variances in the standard federal child labor standards permit tobacco growers to employ children–some of whom are under twelve years in age.
After decades of public objection and later government restrictions on advertisements, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to minors for reasons not limited to just health and nicotine dependency, the cultivation of “green tobacco” by children exposes them often to immediately hazardous levels of nicotine at often unconscionably young ages.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) in 2013 published an extensive study into the child labor practices of the tobacco growers industry in four states: North Carolina; Kentucky; Tennessee; and Virginia. According to this study one hundred and forty one children participating in the tobacco harvests of 2012 and 2013 were interviewed by HRW. Ages of these children ranged from seventeen to as young as seven.
According to this study, “nearly three quarters of those interviewed reported sudden onsets of serious illnesses—including nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, headaches, dizziness, skin rashes, difficulty breathing, irritations to their eyes and mouths—while working in the fields of tobacco plants and barns with dried tobacco leaves and tobacco dust. Many of these symptoms are consistent with acute nicotine poisoning.”
Duties assigned to children in tobacco cultivation and harvesting included seed planting, topping, thinning undesirable leaves, applying pesticides, harvesting leaves by hand or with machinery, cutting plants with sharpened tobacco knives, storage and removal of cured leaves from barns, and stripping and sorting dried leaves.
Resulting from these exposures, often from unprotected skin and lax safety policies, children suffer often from a condition known as Green Tobacco Sickness. This illness is an occupational disease caused by workers absorbing nicotine through their skin after prolonged exposure to the plants. These symptoms, references earlier, are identified by Public and Occupation health officials. The long term effects are currently unknown though other studies on the usage of tobacco products (such as smoking) in adolescents may have links to complications in brain development. Public health research indicates that non-smoking workers in tobacco agriculture have similar levels of nicotine in their bodies as do smokers in the general population.
The study contained interviews consistent with their findings generally, where child workers reported being sprayed by pesticides applied to rows nearby causing illnesses contemporaneously. To mitigate this environment the children often would bring plastic garbage bags with them that they could fashion into ad-hoc raingear to resist spray landing on their clothes and skin—though this did not protect necessarily their hands and faces.
Due to the nature of tobacco cultivation and harvesting occurring within the summer months, the combination of high levels of heat and long hours of labor puts great amount of stresses on children that often culminate with heat stroke and dehydration. Compliance with break time standards is widely varied with some farms providing a reasonable break period for workers and others mandating that workers continue almost without pause.
The introduction of labor contractors, those who sell labor for a fixed price to farmers and where the workers are actually the employees of the contractor, has provided an opportunity for exploitation. Since these contractors retain earnings based on the margin between the revenue from the farm and the labor costs they endure, the temptation to extract more earnings often becomes high; especially in light of the fact that most workers are of an economic underclass that is less likely to report labor abuses and especially in the case of children having not the life experience or foreknowledge of what constitutes a proper and healthy working environment.
Compounding the problem is that current U.S. child labor laws permit children to labor in tobacco farms with liberal policies that permit very young children to work simply with parental permission to do so. It is often the case where this parental permission is granted by parents who also work on these farms where low wages create a need and temptation for parents allowing their children to work to supplement household incomes. Small farms are given the most leeway to employ young children. Agriculture is permitted by federal law to employ children as young as twelve with parental permission but with these small farms children under twelve may labor with parental consent. In all other industries the employment of children under fourteen is prohibited, and children fourteen to fifteen may only be employed in certain jobs with a limited number of hours each day.
The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour for work in tobacco farms. Some employers caused children to be paid on a piece basis which can in some respects be exploited to motivate children to perform more productively than what is reasonable for their abilities. HRW reported children interviewed expressed that they are often confused as to the actual wage they are paid and some stating they were actually paid less than the minimum permitted. Contractors were said to stoop to the level of charging children for necessities such as water and for inaccurate recording of work performed.
Internationally, treaties ratified by the United States might actually be in conflict with current federal child labor laws and their applicability to the tobacco farming industry. HRW addresses this as follows:
International Standards on Child Labor
via Human Rights Watch
In recognition of the potential benefits of some forms of work, international law does not prohibit children from working. The International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention, which the US has ratified, obligates
countries to prohibit certain types of work for children under age 18 as a matter of urgency, including work that is likely to jeopardize children’s physical or mental health, safety or morals (also known as hazardous labor). The ILO leaves it up to governments to determine which occupations are hazardous to children’s health. Several countries, including major tobacco producing countries such as Brazil and India, prohibit children under 18 from performing work in tobacco farming. Based on our field research, interviews with health professionals, and analysis of the public health literature, Human Rights Watch has concluded that no child under age 18 should be permitted to perform any tasks in which they will come into direct contact with tobacco plants of any size or dried tobacco leaves, due to the health risks posed by nicotine, the pesticides applied to the crop, and the particular health risks to children whose bodies and brains are still developing.
The ILO Worst Forms of Child Labor
Recommendation states that certain types of work in an unhealthy environment may be appropriate for children ages 16 and older “on the condition that the health, safety and morals of the children concerned are fully protected, and that the children have received adequate specific instruction or vocational training in the relevant branch of activity.” Because exposure to tobacco in any form is unsafe, Human Rights Watch has determined, based on our field investigations and other research, that as a practical matter there is no way for children under 18 to work safely on US tobacco farms when they have direct contact with tobacco plants of any size or dried tobacco leaves, even if wearing protective equipment. Though protective equipment may help mitigate exposure to nicotine and pesticide residues, rain suits and watertight gloves would not completely eliminate absorption of toxins through the skin and would greatly increase children’s risk of suffering health related illnesses. Such problems documented by Human Rights Watch in the US seem likely to extend to tobacco farms outside the United States
HRW called upon the tobacco product manufactures and tobacco leaf companies to provide statements of their policy to address the issue of child labor. The NGO queried “companies that source tobacco from the states we visited. Eight of those companies manufacture tobacco products (Altria Group, British American Tobacco, China National Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco Group, Japan Tobacco Group, Lorillard, Philip Morris International, and Reynolds American), and two are leaf merchant companies (Alliance One International and Universal Corporation).”
In the months prior to the release of this report, HRW sent letters to each company and requested a response along with a request to meeting with company officials to discuss the issue. The HRW report stated the following regarding these exchanges:
Nine companies responded to Human Rights Watch and stated that they took steps to prohibit child labor in their supply chains. Only China National Tobacco did not respond to Human Rights Watch’s letter or repeated attempts to secure a meeting with company executives.
All of the tobacco manufacturing companies and leaf supply merchants that replied to Human Rights Watch expressed concerns about child labor in their supply chain. Only a few of the companies have explicit child labor policies in place. The approaches to child labor in the supply chain varied from company to company, as detailed below. Human Rights Watch correspondence with these companies is included in an appendix to this report, available on the Human Rights Watch website.
Of the companies approached by Human Rights Watch, Philip Morris International (PMI) has developed the most detailed and protective set of policies and procedures, including training and policy guidance on child labor and other labor issues which it is implementing in its global supply chain. PMI has also developed specific lists of hazardous tasks that children under 18 are prohibited from doing on tobacco farms, which include most tasks in which children come into prolonged contact with mature tobacco leaves, among other hazardous work.
Several companies stated that in their US operations they required tobacco growers with whom they contract to comply with US law, including laws on child labor, which, as noted above, do not afford sufficient protections for children. These companies stated that their policies for tobacco purchasing in countries outside of the US were consistent with international law, including with regard to a minimum age of 15 for entry into work under the ILO Minimum Age Convention, with the exception of certain light work, and a prohibition on hazardous work for children under 18, unless national laws afford greater protections. However, most companies did not specify the tasks that they consider to constitute hazardous work. Under these standards, children working in tobacco farming can remain vulnerable to serious health hazards and risks associated with contact with tobacco plants and tobacco leaves. A number of companies stated that they had undertaken internal and third party monitoring of their supply chains to examine labor conditions, including the use of child labor, as defined within the scope of their existing policies.
100 years later are we still doing enough?
To commemorate World Day Against Child Labor it is time to perhaps seek a reassessment of the need to employ children in an occupation that studies have shown is hazardous to their health, especially during their development. We as a society have said no to the notion of children consuming nicotine as end users but we have been mostly blind to the poisonous effect of the substance on children participating in its cultivation. Yet with inconsistent oversight by tobacco companies of their farm suppliers, it is likely that opposition from the tobacco states will result in protective child labor laws. The indifference to the subject by Congress is often due to lack of demands from their constituents and heavy lobbying efforts by the tobacco industry. It is not likely these children will see improvement in their young lives as long as they are employed in an industry that in many ways is shown to be detrimental to their wellbeing.
Since approximately ninety percent of the tobacco produced in the United States comes from these four tobacco states, it is probable that they industry still will survive the additional cost of a tobacco leaf that is harvested by an adult or machine instead of a child but it is unlikely tobacco agribusinesses will want you to believe such a reality.
A true measure of a society is how well it treats its most vulnerable.
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
229 thoughts on “The Tobacco Industry And Child Labor”
As a 14 year old kid, in a prior life as a human, I worked cleaning rooms at a cathouse in East Saint Louis. I learned a lot. One thing I will pass on which I learned early on. Do not take out your wages “in trade”. It was only a dollar fifty an hour (1964) but going home happy with a smile on your face but broke is not as good as going home with some money in the pocket.
Loading...
Kids should work. No question. But not in meth labs or tobacco farms or factories.
Loading...
Paul, Love and Mercy gets 4 stars from me. Two actors played the genius, Brian Wilson. Paul Dano[Little Miss Sunshine’s brother] plays the young Wilson and John Cusack plays the older Wilson. Both do superb jobs, but I am going to talk about Cusack. I liked him when he was young but then he seemed to play the same role over and over. I came to like his sister more. But, he NAILS it in this movie. I have been a big fan of Wilson since Pet Sounds. And, this movie focuses on the making of that groundbreaking album. In studying Wilson I have watched docs and interviews. Cusack incredibly gets Wilson’s idiosyncratic personality, demeanor and rhythm perfectly. The other superb performance is from an actor’s actor, Paul Giamatti, playing the manipulative and evil, Dr. Eugene Landy. Everyone stayed through the credits watching Wilson perform the song, Love and Mercy.
Loading...
Nick – thanks I will put it on my list. Rewatch Bye Bye Birdie this afternoon. Still holds up. 🙂 Ann-Margaret was never lovelier.
Loading...
Isaac:
“My point was that even then when we could not afford a better breakfast ours was perhaps not as nutritional as the ideal breakfast but in no way depended on sugar to the extent of today’s breakfasts.”
No, I get that price is a determining factor. Carrots are cheap. Statistically, the poor are not buying them.
My point was that you seem just fine wanting government to regulate what OTHER people eat. I pointed out that your food choices were not very healthy, either, and asked what you would think if your own breakfast was either banned, or priced out of your range. Oatmeal on a cold winter day would be deemed contraband. You could be reported to CPS for feeding your children a grain-heavy diet. I am trying to find out your response if something YOU LIKED fell under that radar of contraband food to face tax hikes.
It is SO EASY to impose taxes on other people. But how would you feel if the government started interfering with your own choices? Your own parenting? Would you be consistent?
Porridge is typically made out of oatmeal, but it can also be made out of buckwheat, or any number of grains. Grains are akin to sugar in that they are carbohydrates. Quinoa actually has the highest glycemic index. Dentists will tell you that they have the same effect on teeth as sugar. Surprised? Many people are. Grain dense diets cause inflammation, exacerbate auto immune diseases, blood glucose spikes, and they have very little nutritional value. If you read the ingredients, manufacturers add in cheap synthetic vitamins, like Vitamin A. Without that, you’re basically eating calories and nothing else. It will save you from a famine, but your teeth will fall out. Compare the nutrient content of your porridge plus brown sugar with the nutrients of scrambled eggs with spinach and other veggies. (Eggs, by the way, are not the villain that the government made them out to be. Another surprise!) Or a green smoothie. Or a fruit bowl. Or turkey sausage and an apple.
You see, your parents were completely neglecting your nutrition, forced to buy cheap porridge with very little nutritional value, and you didn’t even know it. They clearly could not afford to buy apples or vegetables. Thank goodness we have the government to take over parental decisions like what to feed you for breakfast. We need to have a massive demonstration to tax porridge until it is completely unaffordable in order to force parent to make better nutritional choices. Thank goodness they now have put all kids on a diet, mandating that nonfat and low fat milk, full of unhealthy oxidized cholesterol, be given to kids regardless of whether they are at a healthy weight.
You seem to be completely missing my point . . .
People make food choices based on what they know about nutrition, what they feel like eating, and what’s convenient. Taxing food that is unpopular with Liberals will not miraculously educate people about nutrition. And banning giving your kids a cookie with their lunch (yes, this actually happened in some school districts) does not affect their overall nutritional intelligence.
Loading...
Karen, Liberals love to rewrite history. Even if the history is just a few hours old. This troll stops in and takes a dump on occasion. The thread speaks for itself. This guy/woman/transgender[being PC, we don’t know!] has been on my ignore list for awhile.
Loading...
Nick said, “As I expressed earlier, I support regulations that make the job safe.” The thread has unravelled with accusations that people don’t care about the children. From his comments, I don’t see the connection . . .
Examples of regulations/changes that would make this job safe:
1. Don’t employ kids in tobacco fields because it’s hazardous
2. Use machinery to replace human pickers entirely, and make workers who handle harvested leaves wear protective clothing
3. Use protective clothing that is water proof but still breathable
A brief scan of the thread appears to show one side saying they do not want children exposed to hazards or overtaxing work environments, but work they can handle is good for them. i.e. shoveling snow. They have a problem with the crackdown on lemonade stands. The other side reads this and stubbornly declares that the former do not care about kids and want to throw them in the coal mines. With a donkey.
I don’t think the two sides are talking about the same thing.
This is not the divisive issue that people are trying to portray it as.
Nick and Mike A – great stories about the tobacco fields. Sounds like really tough work for adults, let alone kids, regardless of the toxins. My dad used to work at the railroad during his summers as a teenager.
I think everyone should work in the service industry, at least briefly, in order to learn to appreciate those who wait on them. And it builds character and responsibility for kids to do chores and have jobs that are easily within their capabilities, safe, and not over taxing. And regulations need to be eased so that kids can sell lemonade and mistletoe without requiring expensive permits or business licenses. Of course labor laws should still protect children from toxic, hazardous, or grueling work.
Loading...
Heheh. 📌
Loading...
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 2:44 pm
“According to this study, ‘nearly three quarters of those interviewed reported sudden onsets of serious illnesses—including nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, headaches, dizziness, skin rashes, difficulty breathing, irritations to their eyes and mouths—while working in the fields of tobacco plants and barns with dried tobacco leaves and tobacco dust. Many of these symptoms are consistent with acute nicotine poisoning.’
“Now why the devil didn’t these people take these kids to a doctor if they were that concerned about them?”
Mein Gott, what an astute question, Herr Schulte! Yes, exactly what’s stopping the study’s authors from staying in all the tobacco fields all day and rushing every sick kid to a doctor?! Nothing but their damned phony, pathological empathy, that’s what!
That’s your bleeding-heart liberals for you, all study, study, study and no action to rectify the problems they claim to identify in their studies!
You’re right, as usual! If they were as concerned as they pretend to be, they would have set up medical clinics adjacent to each and every tobacco field!
Truth be told, they probably have the same nefarious liberal agenda that Nick “The Tack” Spinelli called out Darren on with his dead-give-away essay title: “The Tobacco Industry and Child Labor”!
I’ll tell you what __nothing gets by either one of you guys___simply too much gray matter and worldly wisdom.
Loading...
Aridog: “If up to me ( fat chance 😀 ) , there would be no donations to politicians except those made by individuals … ” Here here!!!!! That would kick special interests right to the curb and make politicians more responsive to their constituents.
Loading...
This question may have been answered already, but I haven’t seen it.
Wouldn’t this fall under OSHA? Exposing a worker of any age to nicotine poisoning through dermal absorption should be an OSHA violation, as a direct result of failure to provide safety equipment, or the climate making such safety equipment impossible.
I agree with the general consensus that children should not be exposed to pesticides or toxins, and that such work does not fall into the “harmless and character building” category of jobs for kids. How ironic that they shut down lemonade stands and kids shoveling snow, but allow this to go on. The regulations do not have priorities straight.
On the one hand, smoking is lethal and I cannot understand why anyone smokes in 2015. On the other hand, this sounds like if they’re going to grow it, they need to devise machinery to do the picking.
Loading...
@ Elaine M. and I.Annie
Thanks for the links to the articles and videos. They’re very informative, and the faces and voices of the children vividly illustrate and further humanize what Darren wrote.
The following is critically important and is also the assessment of Thomas Arcury, Director of Wake Forest University Medical Center’s Center for Worker Health:
“Because exposure to tobacco in any form is unsafe, Human Rights Watch has determined, based on our field investigations and other research, that as a practical matter there is no way for children under 18 to work safely on US tobacco farms when they have direct contact with tobacco plants of any size, or dried tobacco leaves, even if wearing protective equipment. [emphasis added]
“Though protective equipment may help mitigate exposure to nicotine and pesticide residues, rain suits and watertight gloves would not completely eliminate absorption of toxins through the skin and would greatly increase children’s risk of suffering health related illnesses. Such problems documented by Human Rights Watch in the US seem likely to extend to tobacco farms outside the United States.” [emphasis added]
Loading...
Ken Rogers – I did not watch the stuff but did they say what steps they took to help the children with their medical problems?
Loading...
@tropperyork
I am a proponent of higher minimum wages, all the way up to where the wage is “livable.” If companies cheat, and try to put too many of their employees on part time schedules, I am for the government being able to force them to make reasonable work schedules.
The reason why I am for “livable” wages is simple. If a company isn’t paying enough for a worker to support himself with the basics—food, rent, utilities, medical services and shelter—then the taxpayer has to subsidize the workers as we now are. Think about the implications. Instead of Bob making a livable wage and getting the money from his employer, he has to get some money from his employer, some help from HUD, some help from food stamps, some medicaid, and probably some welfare to boot. I would not be surprised if the government spends 50cents to deliver a dollar of services, but if anybody knows the actual ratio, please give me a link.
The effect of this wage/government subsidy is that a consumer gets a cheaper cheeseburger, or TV set, but pays for it either through higher taxes, or the effect of higher government debt. This is not economically efficient at the very least.
Now, if the increase is put into place over a short period of time, then yes there will be thousands of businesses which go under. If it is phased in over a few years, then businesses will have time to slowly adjust their prices up.
I also think that there will be a tremendous increase in “demand” because of the higher wages. Sooo, poor folks will be able to buy furniture, or go to the movies, etc., and thus increase the GDP. Now the danger comes in if this is not paired with decreased welfare-type spending. So that is where I think the real trick lies—raising the wages and getting rid of the government subsidies at the same time. That ain’t going to be easy. And I expect a time lag.
But even with the inherent problems, I still think it is better for people to get their money from their jobs, not the government.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Loading...
Exploitation is evil no matter who does it, no matter what industry, no matter who is the perp or the victim.
Loading...
A $15 minimum wage would put thousands of businesses out of business. Putting the workers they employ on welfare or government assistance. Restaurants where the workers rely on tips and make considerable more than the minimum will fold as has recently happened in San Fransisco. Of course you don’t give a crap about that.
There is no argument that there should be protective clothing and or some sort of control of pesticides. Some sort of rules should of course be in place.
But if a young kid wants or needs to work it is important that they be able to do so. Not sit in front of the TV eating chips and drinking soda that their moms get with the EBT card. It can install a work ethic. The respect for yourself that you gain at a job well done and that you can help your family that doesn’t enjoy the privileges of the ivory tower denizens who know what is best for everyone. Even working in the McDonalds you want to close so badly.
Loading...
Hmmm. Porridge??? That makes me think of a New Nursery Rhyme!!!
Pleasing Porridge???
A New Nursery Rhyme by Squeeky Fromm
Please porridge, NOT!
Unless organic.
And sugar free
So I don’t get manic.
Some like it cold,
Some like it hot!
Some like it nine days old
Mixed with pot!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Loading...
Trooperyork
When I was very young, in the tenth grade, we spent the Easter Holidays, (politically correct or not they were the Easter Holidays), picking Daffodils. We got 75 cents an hour and at the end of two weeks we splurged on Levis Hipsters. Now, if the minimum wage in 1964 was $15.00 then the Levis Hipsters would have been much more expensive as then they were made in the US and Canada using local workers. I could have purchased a much better, made in Alberta jean called GWG Red Strap but Levis were in. We had the choice and we made it. Everything was done in country and back then the middle class was stronger.
The issue with the tobacco pickers is both wage and toxic environment. There is no argument for not protecting the worker. There is no argument for having kids this young working like that. The argument for the minimum wage to be as low as one can get away with is part of a larger one. If Americans made more then they would spend more. The could choose to be frugal to spend on education and training. Taxes and wages would be greater. All would benefit. A $15 minimum wage produces choice and spending power. $15 an hour spent supports the higher wage. $15 an hour invested supports the economy for the future. A $7 minimum wage produces nothing but subsistence living, a third world country condition. This is evident in many countries that have higher minimum wages. Stuff costs more but if one chooses to tighten one’s belt, one can truly rise to the top. In the US this concept has long ago become an illusion.
Loading...
issac – Levi is selling your Hipster for about $35 a pair for Father’s Day.
Loading...
Make sure when you cherry pick you don’t use child labor. Or illegal immigrants. Or anybody making less then $15 an hour.
Loading...
Karen
Again you cherry pick to make a point that has no foundation. My point was that even then when we could not afford a better breakfast ours was perhaps not as nutritional as the ideal breakfast but in no way depended on sugar to the extent of today’s breakfasts. It was far better than the processed crap on which parents depend today. Also you quickly determine that ‘porridge’ as I mentioned is not healthy. Perhaps you might take a moment and learn that porridge can be made out of many grains from those that are very healthy to those that are not much more than filler. You cherry pick to support your thesis, not a great foundation for the advancement of an argument.
Loading...
@ Nick Spinelli
1, June 13, 2015 at 4:22 pm
“DBQ, OF COURSE no one is reveling in kids working in any toxic situation. Liberals like to build strawmen named Scrooge. It’s part of their pathology.”
Speaking of straw men and psychopathology, who said anything about anyone’s “reveling” in the children’s working conditions described by Darren?
If this isn’t just a little straw man that you and DBQ have dishonestly constructed, provide evidence for its having been asserted by anyone.
I’ll wait.
Loading...
Nick Spinelli
1, June 13, 2015 at 4:26 pm
Elaine, If you’re so derisive of people here, why are you here??
Yesterday, June 12th, marked World Day Against Child Labor. For this occasion I highlight the plight of young children employed to work in the tobacco agribusiness in the United States. It is estimated, by Deutsche Welle, that 500,000 children labor in this market; most are exposed to hazardous conditions ranging from exposure to high levels of nicotine and pesticides, farm implements, and long working hours among others. Variances in the standard federal child labor standards permit tobacco growers to employ children–some of whom are under twelve years in age.
Resulting from these exposures, often from unprotected skin and lax safety policies, children suffer often from a condition known as Green Tobacco Sickness. This illness is an occupational disease caused by workers absorbing nicotine through their skin after prolonged exposure to the plants. These symptoms, references earlier, are identified by Public and Occupation health officials. The long term effects are currently unknown though other studies on the usage of tobacco products (such as smoking) in adolescents may have links to complications in brain development. Public health research indicates that non-smoking workers in tobacco agriculture have similar levels of nicotine in their bodies as do smokers in the general population.
The introduction of labor contractors, those who sell labor for a fixed price to farmers and where the workers are actually the employees of the contractor, has provided an opportunity for exploitation. Since these contractors retain earnings based on the margin between the revenue from the farm and the labor costs they endure, the temptation to extract more earnings often becomes high; especially in light of the fact that most workers are of an economic underclass that is less likely to report labor abuses and especially in the case of children having not the life experience or foreknowledge of what constitutes a proper and healthy working environment.
As a 14 year old kid, in a prior life as a human, I worked cleaning rooms at a cathouse in East Saint Louis. I learned a lot. One thing I will pass on which I learned early on. Do not take out your wages “in trade”. It was only a dollar fifty an hour (1964) but going home happy with a smile on your face but broke is not as good as going home with some money in the pocket.
Kids should work. No question. But not in meth labs or tobacco farms or factories.
Paul, Love and Mercy gets 4 stars from me. Two actors played the genius, Brian Wilson. Paul Dano[Little Miss Sunshine’s brother] plays the young Wilson and John Cusack plays the older Wilson. Both do superb jobs, but I am going to talk about Cusack. I liked him when he was young but then he seemed to play the same role over and over. I came to like his sister more. But, he NAILS it in this movie. I have been a big fan of Wilson since Pet Sounds. And, this movie focuses on the making of that groundbreaking album. In studying Wilson I have watched docs and interviews. Cusack incredibly gets Wilson’s idiosyncratic personality, demeanor and rhythm perfectly. The other superb performance is from an actor’s actor, Paul Giamatti, playing the manipulative and evil, Dr. Eugene Landy. Everyone stayed through the credits watching Wilson perform the song, Love and Mercy.
Nick – thanks I will put it on my list. Rewatch Bye Bye Birdie this afternoon. Still holds up. 🙂 Ann-Margaret was never lovelier.
Isaac:
“My point was that even then when we could not afford a better breakfast ours was perhaps not as nutritional as the ideal breakfast but in no way depended on sugar to the extent of today’s breakfasts.”
No, I get that price is a determining factor. Carrots are cheap. Statistically, the poor are not buying them.
My point was that you seem just fine wanting government to regulate what OTHER people eat. I pointed out that your food choices were not very healthy, either, and asked what you would think if your own breakfast was either banned, or priced out of your range. Oatmeal on a cold winter day would be deemed contraband. You could be reported to CPS for feeding your children a grain-heavy diet. I am trying to find out your response if something YOU LIKED fell under that radar of contraband food to face tax hikes.
It is SO EASY to impose taxes on other people. But how would you feel if the government started interfering with your own choices? Your own parenting? Would you be consistent?
Porridge is typically made out of oatmeal, but it can also be made out of buckwheat, or any number of grains. Grains are akin to sugar in that they are carbohydrates. Quinoa actually has the highest glycemic index. Dentists will tell you that they have the same effect on teeth as sugar. Surprised? Many people are. Grain dense diets cause inflammation, exacerbate auto immune diseases, blood glucose spikes, and they have very little nutritional value. If you read the ingredients, manufacturers add in cheap synthetic vitamins, like Vitamin A. Without that, you’re basically eating calories and nothing else. It will save you from a famine, but your teeth will fall out. Compare the nutrient content of your porridge plus brown sugar with the nutrients of scrambled eggs with spinach and other veggies. (Eggs, by the way, are not the villain that the government made them out to be. Another surprise!) Or a green smoothie. Or a fruit bowl. Or turkey sausage and an apple.
You see, your parents were completely neglecting your nutrition, forced to buy cheap porridge with very little nutritional value, and you didn’t even know it. They clearly could not afford to buy apples or vegetables. Thank goodness we have the government to take over parental decisions like what to feed you for breakfast. We need to have a massive demonstration to tax porridge until it is completely unaffordable in order to force parent to make better nutritional choices. Thank goodness they now have put all kids on a diet, mandating that nonfat and low fat milk, full of unhealthy oxidized cholesterol, be given to kids regardless of whether they are at a healthy weight.
You seem to be completely missing my point . . .
People make food choices based on what they know about nutrition, what they feel like eating, and what’s convenient. Taxing food that is unpopular with Liberals will not miraculously educate people about nutrition. And banning giving your kids a cookie with their lunch (yes, this actually happened in some school districts) does not affect their overall nutritional intelligence.
Karen, Liberals love to rewrite history. Even if the history is just a few hours old. This troll stops in and takes a dump on occasion. The thread speaks for itself. This guy/woman/transgender[being PC, we don’t know!] has been on my ignore list for awhile.
Nick said, “As I expressed earlier, I support regulations that make the job safe.” The thread has unravelled with accusations that people don’t care about the children. From his comments, I don’t see the connection . . .
Examples of regulations/changes that would make this job safe:
1. Don’t employ kids in tobacco fields because it’s hazardous
2. Use machinery to replace human pickers entirely, and make workers who handle harvested leaves wear protective clothing
3. Use protective clothing that is water proof but still breathable
A brief scan of the thread appears to show one side saying they do not want children exposed to hazards or overtaxing work environments, but work they can handle is good for them. i.e. shoveling snow. They have a problem with the crackdown on lemonade stands. The other side reads this and stubbornly declares that the former do not care about kids and want to throw them in the coal mines. With a donkey.
I don’t think the two sides are talking about the same thing.
This is not the divisive issue that people are trying to portray it as.
Nick and Mike A – great stories about the tobacco fields. Sounds like really tough work for adults, let alone kids, regardless of the toxins. My dad used to work at the railroad during his summers as a teenager.
I think everyone should work in the service industry, at least briefly, in order to learn to appreciate those who wait on them. And it builds character and responsibility for kids to do chores and have jobs that are easily within their capabilities, safe, and not over taxing. And regulations need to be eased so that kids can sell lemonade and mistletoe without requiring expensive permits or business licenses. Of course labor laws should still protect children from toxic, hazardous, or grueling work.
Heheh. 📌
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 2:44 pm
“According to this study, ‘nearly three quarters of those interviewed reported sudden onsets of serious illnesses—including nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, headaches, dizziness, skin rashes, difficulty breathing, irritations to their eyes and mouths—while working in the fields of tobacco plants and barns with dried tobacco leaves and tobacco dust. Many of these symptoms are consistent with acute nicotine poisoning.’
“Now why the devil didn’t these people take these kids to a doctor if they were that concerned about them?”
Mein Gott, what an astute question, Herr Schulte! Yes, exactly what’s stopping the study’s authors from staying in all the tobacco fields all day and rushing every sick kid to a doctor?! Nothing but their damned phony, pathological empathy, that’s what!
That’s your bleeding-heart liberals for you, all study, study, study and no action to rectify the problems they claim to identify in their studies!
You’re right, as usual! If they were as concerned as they pretend to be, they would have set up medical clinics adjacent to each and every tobacco field!
Truth be told, they probably have the same nefarious liberal agenda that Nick “The Tack” Spinelli called out Darren on with his dead-give-away essay title: “The Tobacco Industry and Child Labor”!
I’ll tell you what __nothing gets by either one of you guys___simply too much gray matter and worldly wisdom.
Aridog: “If up to me ( fat chance 😀 ) , there would be no donations to politicians except those made by individuals … ” Here here!!!!! That would kick special interests right to the curb and make politicians more responsive to their constituents.
This question may have been answered already, but I haven’t seen it.
Wouldn’t this fall under OSHA? Exposing a worker of any age to nicotine poisoning through dermal absorption should be an OSHA violation, as a direct result of failure to provide safety equipment, or the climate making such safety equipment impossible.
I agree with the general consensus that children should not be exposed to pesticides or toxins, and that such work does not fall into the “harmless and character building” category of jobs for kids. How ironic that they shut down lemonade stands and kids shoveling snow, but allow this to go on. The regulations do not have priorities straight.
On the one hand, smoking is lethal and I cannot understand why anyone smokes in 2015. On the other hand, this sounds like if they’re going to grow it, they need to devise machinery to do the picking.
@ Elaine M. and I.Annie
Thanks for the links to the articles and videos. They’re very informative, and the faces and voices of the children vividly illustrate and further humanize what Darren wrote.
The following is critically important and is also the assessment of Thomas Arcury, Director of Wake Forest University Medical Center’s Center for Worker Health:
“Because exposure to tobacco in any form is unsafe, Human Rights Watch has determined, based on our field investigations and other research, that as a practical matter there is no way for children under 18 to work safely on US tobacco farms when they have direct contact with tobacco plants of any size, or dried tobacco leaves, even if wearing protective equipment. [emphasis added]
“Though protective equipment may help mitigate exposure to nicotine and pesticide residues, rain suits and watertight gloves would not completely eliminate absorption of toxins through the skin and would greatly increase children’s risk of suffering health related illnesses. Such problems documented by Human Rights Watch in the US seem likely to extend to tobacco farms outside the United States.” [emphasis added]
Ken Rogers – I did not watch the stuff but did they say what steps they took to help the children with their medical problems?
@tropperyork
I am a proponent of higher minimum wages, all the way up to where the wage is “livable.” If companies cheat, and try to put too many of their employees on part time schedules, I am for the government being able to force them to make reasonable work schedules.
The reason why I am for “livable” wages is simple. If a company isn’t paying enough for a worker to support himself with the basics—food, rent, utilities, medical services and shelter—then the taxpayer has to subsidize the workers as we now are. Think about the implications. Instead of Bob making a livable wage and getting the money from his employer, he has to get some money from his employer, some help from HUD, some help from food stamps, some medicaid, and probably some welfare to boot. I would not be surprised if the government spends 50cents to deliver a dollar of services, but if anybody knows the actual ratio, please give me a link.
The effect of this wage/government subsidy is that a consumer gets a cheaper cheeseburger, or TV set, but pays for it either through higher taxes, or the effect of higher government debt. This is not economically efficient at the very least.
Now, if the increase is put into place over a short period of time, then yes there will be thousands of businesses which go under. If it is phased in over a few years, then businesses will have time to slowly adjust their prices up.
I also think that there will be a tremendous increase in “demand” because of the higher wages. Sooo, poor folks will be able to buy furniture, or go to the movies, etc., and thus increase the GDP. Now the danger comes in if this is not paired with decreased welfare-type spending. So that is where I think the real trick lies—raising the wages and getting rid of the government subsidies at the same time. That ain’t going to be easy. And I expect a time lag.
But even with the inherent problems, I still think it is better for people to get their money from their jobs, not the government.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Exploitation is evil no matter who does it, no matter what industry, no matter who is the perp or the victim.
A $15 minimum wage would put thousands of businesses out of business. Putting the workers they employ on welfare or government assistance. Restaurants where the workers rely on tips and make considerable more than the minimum will fold as has recently happened in San Fransisco. Of course you don’t give a crap about that.
There is no argument that there should be protective clothing and or some sort of control of pesticides. Some sort of rules should of course be in place.
But if a young kid wants or needs to work it is important that they be able to do so. Not sit in front of the TV eating chips and drinking soda that their moms get with the EBT card. It can install a work ethic. The respect for yourself that you gain at a job well done and that you can help your family that doesn’t enjoy the privileges of the ivory tower denizens who know what is best for everyone. Even working in the McDonalds you want to close so badly.
Hmmm. Porridge??? That makes me think of a New Nursery Rhyme!!!
Pleasing Porridge???
A New Nursery Rhyme by Squeeky Fromm
Please porridge, NOT!
Unless organic.
And sugar free
So I don’t get manic.
Some like it cold,
Some like it hot!
Some like it nine days old
Mixed with pot!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Trooperyork
When I was very young, in the tenth grade, we spent the Easter Holidays, (politically correct or not they were the Easter Holidays), picking Daffodils. We got 75 cents an hour and at the end of two weeks we splurged on Levis Hipsters. Now, if the minimum wage in 1964 was $15.00 then the Levis Hipsters would have been much more expensive as then they were made in the US and Canada using local workers. I could have purchased a much better, made in Alberta jean called GWG Red Strap but Levis were in. We had the choice and we made it. Everything was done in country and back then the middle class was stronger.
The issue with the tobacco pickers is both wage and toxic environment. There is no argument for not protecting the worker. There is no argument for having kids this young working like that. The argument for the minimum wage to be as low as one can get away with is part of a larger one. If Americans made more then they would spend more. The could choose to be frugal to spend on education and training. Taxes and wages would be greater. All would benefit. A $15 minimum wage produces choice and spending power. $15 an hour spent supports the higher wage. $15 an hour invested supports the economy for the future. A $7 minimum wage produces nothing but subsistence living, a third world country condition. This is evident in many countries that have higher minimum wages. Stuff costs more but if one chooses to tighten one’s belt, one can truly rise to the top. In the US this concept has long ago become an illusion.
issac – Levi is selling your Hipster for about $35 a pair for Father’s Day.
Make sure when you cherry pick you don’t use child labor. Or illegal immigrants. Or anybody making less then $15 an hour.
Karen
Again you cherry pick to make a point that has no foundation. My point was that even then when we could not afford a better breakfast ours was perhaps not as nutritional as the ideal breakfast but in no way depended on sugar to the extent of today’s breakfasts. It was far better than the processed crap on which parents depend today. Also you quickly determine that ‘porridge’ as I mentioned is not healthy. Perhaps you might take a moment and learn that porridge can be made out of many grains from those that are very healthy to those that are not much more than filler. You cherry pick to support your thesis, not a great foundation for the advancement of an argument.
@ Nick Spinelli
1, June 13, 2015 at 4:22 pm
“DBQ, OF COURSE no one is reveling in kids working in any toxic situation. Liberals like to build strawmen named Scrooge. It’s part of their pathology.”
Speaking of straw men and psychopathology, who said anything about anyone’s “reveling” in the children’s working conditions described by Darren?
If this isn’t just a little straw man that you and DBQ have dishonestly constructed, provide evidence for its having been asserted by anyone.
I’ll wait.
Nick Spinelli
1, June 13, 2015 at 4:26 pm
Elaine, If you’re so derisive of people here, why are you here??
*****
Whom did I deride?