╌>

Weakening child labor laws is the latest Republican target - Vox

  
Via:  Gsquared  •  last year  •  97 comments

By:   Ellen Ioanes (Vox)

Weakening child labor laws is the latest Republican target  - Vox
Arkansas is leading the charge against laws that protect kids — despite revelations of dangerous child labor nationwide.

Sponsored by group The Reality Show

The Reality Show


Republicans - Taking America back into the 19th Century.

Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Arkansas is leading the charge against laws that protect kids — despite revelations of dangerous child labor nationwide.

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders approved a bill on Tuesday eliminating a requirement for children under 16 to obtain state documentation in order to work. The new Arkansas law is just one of a number of state bills loosening child labor restrictions, despite evidence that young children are already engaged in dangerous and exploitative labor throughout the country.

State GOP legislators have used the rhetoric of protecting children and giving parents more choice over their children's lives to justify extreme policies such as Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee's drag show ban and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis's ban on any instruction about gender identity or sexual orientation in elementary schools. Sanders's spokesperson, Alexa Henning, told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "The Governor believes protecting kids is most important, but doing so with arbitrary burdens on parents to get permission from the government for their child to get a job is burdensome and obsolete."

The new law, called the Youth Hiring Act, will eliminate the requirement that children aged 14 and 15 seeking a job acquire a document issued by the director of the Division of Labor, which includes the child's work schedule and a description of their work duties, as well as proof of age and parent or guardian consent.

Sanders signed the bill just weeks after the Department of Labor released the results of an investigation that found 102 children aged 13 to 17 illegally working dangerous jobs like cleaning meat processing equipment. Ten of those children were working at facilities in Arkansas, according to the investigation, and 25 were working in Minnesota, another state considering looser child labor laws.

Many children working in dangerous and illegal jobs are migrants from Central America trying to earn money to send home to their families who are struggling due to the economic downturn precipitated by the Covid-19 pandemic, a recent New York Times investigation found.

Removing the Arkansas documentation requirement "just seems to create a state of lawlessness," Reid Maki, director of advocacy at the Child Labor Coalition, told the Washington Post. That's on top of a labor and immigration system that has failed to protect migrant children from dangerous and exhausting jobs that impact their mental and physical health as well as their ability to attend school.

Republicans have long sought to erode labor protections, often by attacking labor unions and pushing right-to-work legislation that limits their power. The Arkansas law presents a new, troubling frontier in this trend; it erodes protections for some of the most vulnerable people in society under the guise of liberty.

The reality of child labor in the US is devastating


The child labor at the heart of the Labor Department's investigation and the New York Times story is much more than just a summer gig lifeguarding at a local pool or bagging groceries at the supermarket after school. Those investigations uncovered migrant children working long, overnight shifts in factories cleaning meat butchering equipment with hazardous chemicals, in the construction industry, or packaging food for massive corporations using fast-moving conveyor belts that can rip off a person's fingers.

Henning, Sanders's spokesperson, stated that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which prohibits children under 18 from doing certain dangerous work — such as manufacturing or construction — still applies to labor practices in Arkansas. The FLSA was enacted in 1938 and limits the hours children can work so they have plenty of time to go to school, do homework, and get enough sleep to stay awake in class.

Relying on the federal system to protect children from exploitative work is a dubious proposition, though the government has pledged to do more to crack down on child labor. The federal system has failed the most vulnerable children, leaving them exposed to dangerous labor practices and exploitation. In Hannah Dreier's New York Times investigation, children reported working overnight shifts in hazardous conditions which affected their health and prevented them from getting enough rest to attend school. Many children dropped out of school so they could continue supporting their families back home.

The penalties for breaking child labor laws are minimal, especially for large corporations. Packers Sanitation Services Inc., the subject of the Department of Labor investigation which employed 102 children to clean meat-processing tools like "back saws, brisket saws and head splitters," was ordered to pay a fine of $1.5 million — just over $15,000 for each illegally employed child, which is the maximum penalty allowed by law.

The new Arkansas bill presumes that "businesses [will comply with federal law] just as they are required to do now," as Henning said in a statement to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Though the federal government has vowed to crack down on child labor violations, the Labor Department doesn't currently have the capacity to investigate and punish all reported violations, the Washington Post reports, making states the practical enforcers of labor laws.

Arkansas state Senator Clint Penzo, a co-sponsor of the bill, told the Democrat-Gazette that he is working with the state attorney general's office and state Rep. Rebecca Burkes, who proposed the bill, to strengthen penalties for businesses that violate child labor laws. Rep. Burkes did not respond to Vox's request for comment by press time.

Michael Lazzeri, the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Regional Administrator said in a statement that their investigation found "Packers Sanitation Services' systems flagged some young workers as minors, but the company ignored the flags," indicating that the risk of fines or breaking federal law wasn't enough to make the company stop employing children.

Additionally, a multistep supply chain often means that the facilities where children are working aren't technically their employers. Different companies around the country contracted with Packers to clean their facilities. When the supply chain is this convoluted, it's easier for companies to have plausible deniability about who is working for them.

Other states are poised to follow Arkansas' lead


After decades of reform trying to make labor safer for everyone, adults and children alike, Arkansas' new child labor rollbacks seem retrograde, especially given the realities of child labor as exposed by the Labor Department and New York Times investigations.

"Stories of kids dropping out of school, collapsing from exhaustion, and even losing limbs to machinery are what one expects to find in a Charles Dickens or Upton Sinclair novel, but not an account of everyday life in 2023, not in the United States of America," Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI) told the House of Representatives in a February 27 speech.

But the push to roll back child labor protections isn't just limited to Arkansas, and it follows a decades-long Republican effort to roll back labor protections of all kinds, including by enacting right-to-work legislation and eroding the political power of labor unions.

In a tight labor market such as the US is facing now, there are more jobs available than there are workers who want to do those jobs. Employers offering lower-wage, low-skilled jobs in particular have tried tactics like giving signing bonuses and increasing pay to lure workers to jobs they may have abandoned during the Covid-19 pandemic. But that bait hasn't been enough to fill the gaps, and some corporations refuse to offer the kinds of wages and benefits that would attract adult workers.

"Because of the high demand for workers, where there are holes in the system, unfortunately child laborers can get caught up in staffing some of those holes," David Weil, a professor of social policy and management at Brandeis University, told the Washington Post.

States like Missouri, Iowa, and Minnesota are now considering looser child labor bills, and Ohio just passed a law allowing 14- and 15-year-olds to work till 9:00 pm all year long.

Per the Iowa bill, children as young as 14 would be allowed to work in certain jobs in meatpacking plants. That bill would also protect businesses from responsibility if a child were injured or killed while on the job. The Iowa Department of Labor declined Vox's request for comment on the bill.

Following the findings of the Labor Department and the New York Times investigation, the federal government has vowed to crack down on child labor violations, particularly in regard to migrant children. The new initiatives laid out by President Joe Biden's administration include a proposal to target and hold accountable corporations which use child labor in their supply chains — not just the smaller contractors that are responsible for hiring children. Labor Department officials will also open investigations in states found to be child labor hot spots and ask Congress to increase the fines for FLSA violations, the Times reported last month.

But stopping dangerous and exploitative child labor — particularly when it's enabled by failures in multiple systems — requires more vigilance and more protection for the vulnerable, not less, as Labor Solicitor Seema Nanda told the Washington Post. "No child should be working in dangerous workplaces in this country, full stop."


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Gsquared    last year

It will be interesting to see how the reactionaries will twist logic to try to defend this.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
2  Veronica    last year

This so ridiculous.  Why do they believe that the early 1900s were so wonderful?  They have built up the past to be some kind of fantasy world even though reality is hitting them in the face.  Maybe they want their children to support their lazy asses, but I am a firm believer that sometimes children need to be protected FROM their parents.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1  devangelical  replied to  Veronica @2    last year

... uh, they don't want this for their kids, they really mean other people's kids.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.2  Kavika   replied to  Veronica @2    last year
Why do they believe that the early 1900s were so wonderful? 

Well for starters minorities and women knew their place. You could work them to death with no repercussions and the rich got richer. 

It's a dream of some to go back to the great old days of the 'Robber Barons''...

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
2.2.1  Veronica  replied to  Kavika @2.2    last year
It's a dream of some to go back to the great old days of the 'Robber Barons''...

Makes me wonder if they are willing to give up all of their toys (cells, cars, computers) to go back.  After all we didn't have any of that in the "good old days".

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Veronica @2.2.1    last year

Yeah...but they had their own train cars so they didn't have to brush elbows with the Great Unwashed

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
2.2.3  Veronica  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.2    last year

But what would they do without Twitter, Instagram & TikTok??????

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3  Trout Giggles    last year

We were just discussing this at dinner last night. Mr Giggles said jokingly "Other countries have sweat shops. Let's prove that we can do it bigger and better!"

I hate Suckabee

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
3.1  Hallux  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    last year
I hate Suckabee

How about Dan Sullivan?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Hallux @3.1    last year

Didn't know he was behind that hideous piece of legislation so thanks for pointing it out.

I hate that sumbitch, too

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.1    last year

careful, we're coming up on cross burning season...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.3  CB  replied to  devangelical @3.1.2    last year

Oh brother. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.4  devangelical  replied to  CB @3.1.3    last year

how'd you like to see that coming towards you in lingerie after she's had 4/5 margaritas...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    last year

anything to make a buck

 
 
 
RU4Real
Freshman Silent
5  RU4Real    last year

Making America Great Again (for myself, not for you) ...

Slavery, I mean, Antebellum South here we come...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1  devangelical  replied to  RU4Real @5    last year

2nd class rwnj citizens think everybody should become 3rd class citizens...

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
6  SteevieGee    last year

The main reason that there are requirements for work permits is to assure that the children are able to attend school.  Illiterate people become nothing but a drain for welfare money to flow into.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.1  evilone  replied to  SteevieGee @6    last year
Illiterate people become...

...easier to control.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
6.1.1  Veronica  replied to  evilone @6.1    last year

So true.  And with them being uneducated the poor can get back in them fields.....

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.2  devangelical  replied to  SteevieGee @6    last year

this works hand in hand with their desire to abolish the minimum wage and the dept of education. if the parents can't survive working at fast food joints or walmart, the kids can pitch in... /s

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7  evilone    last year

The whole SJW white grievance platform of the MAGA populists said to protect children and give parents more control is just a smokescreen for the donor class to make more money and get a better return on their political investments. An uneducated electorate is easier to control and cheaper to employ.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
8  Jeremy Retired in NC    last year

When the adults won't work or have shitty work ethic, the kids are going to have to step in.  Maybe the Democrats should have done something when they had control.  But since they were all in on their favorite boogieman, it's understandable how they let the country fall to shit.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
8.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8    last year

Comment 8 is one example of what was anticipated by Comment 1, above.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
8.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Gsquared @8.1    last year

Can't dispute my statement so you go with this nonsense?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
8.1.2  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1.1    last year

No one is disputing that you oppose laws that protect children from dangerous working conditions.  We would all be very surprised if you didn't.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
8.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Gsquared @8.1.2    last year
No one is disputing that you oppose laws that protect children from dangerous working conditions.

Describe in detail how the Youth Hiring Act undermines the existing federal laws governing workplace safety.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
8.1.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Gsquared @8.1.2    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @8.1.2    last year

Comment 8.2 really takes the cake!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
9  Greg Jones    last year

The Dems haven't seemed to worry about illegal immigrant kids working until now. Why the big uproar now?

Also...it seems to be more of a paperwork issue than a real problem. But it gives the left one more thing to bitch about, just partisan politics are work again.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
9.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Greg Jones @9    last year
The Dems haven't seemed to worry about illegal immigrant kids working until now.

You noticed that part of the article, did you? 

 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Jack_TX @9.1    last year

anyone violating US labor and US immigration laws needs to be run thru the federal meat grinder.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.2  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @9.1    last year
Alexa Henning, told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "The Governor believes protecting kids is most important, but doing so with arbitrary burdens on parents to get permission from the government for their child to get a job is burdensome and obsolete."

So the parents will be the arbitrators of what is safe work for children on a job, any and all jobs. . . do you find it strange that in the statement above diminishes government at the state level, while touting governmental control at the federal level below:

The new Arkansas bill presumes that "businesses [will comply with federal law] just as they are required to do now," as Henning said in a statement to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Though the federal government has vowed to crack down on child labor violations, the Labor Department doesn't currently have the capacity to investigate and punish all reported violations, the Washington Post reports, making states the practical enforcers of labor laws.
 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
9.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @9.1.2    last year
So the parents will be the arbitrators of what is safe work for children on a job, any and all jobs

I'm not sure that's actually what the law says.

do you find it strange that in the statement above diminishes government at the state level, while touting governmental control at the federal level below:

Not really.

There is no need to replicate federal law with state law.  Federal law takes precedence anyway.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
9.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  devangelical @9.1.1    last year
anyone violating US labor and US immigration laws needs to be run thru the federal meat grinder.

Really?  Have you become a Republican all of a sudden?

Because every one of those people who come across the border without documentation are violating US immigration laws.  So are those who conveniently overstay their tourist visas, as well as the ones who "forget" to go to their asylum hearings.

So how does that "meat grinder" coexist with "sanctuary cities"?

Or do you just want laws enforced against people you don't like?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.5  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @9.1.3    last year
There is no need to replicate federal law with state law.  Federal law takes precedence anyway.

But, but, republicans say "big" government is bad and can't be trusted in (m)any significant ways, and states have rights to control locally what they can for the benefit of their "perceived" constitutents. C'mon:

  1. Is this a contradiction on the part of Governor Huckabee-Sanders, when she surrenders control over to the feds ?
  2. Is this a plain demonstration of republicans "having it their way" and inconsistency be damned?
 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
9.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @9.1.5    last year
But, but, republicans say "big" government is bad and can't be trusted in (m)any significant ways, and states have rights to control locally what they can for the benefit of their "perceived" constitutents.

When do they say this?  

I mean.... with all of the oppression, suppression, holding you down, taking away your rights, interfering with your liberty and various other dastardly deeds you accuse them of, how do they possibly find the time?

Is this a contradiction on the part of Governor Huckabee-Sanders, when she surrenders control over to the feds ?

What control do you believe she is surrendering?  

Is this a plain demonstration of republicans "having it their way" and inconsistency be damned?

It seems much more like a completely consistent thing where you attempt to condemn Republicans in places you've never been for things you don't understand.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.7  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @9.1.6    last year

"Dude," everything about some conservatives is clearly written in the "infinite" book stacks of conservative writers, publishers, and think-tanks-not to mention: commenters.

Does MAGA/conservatives/republicans believe in big government?

Does MAGA/conservatives/republicans trust the Feds?

There is your opportunity to 'own' a lib. . . answer the questions. Yes, No, or Snark.

Choose please.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
9.1.8  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @9.1.7    last year
There is your opportunity to 'own' a lib.

I don't want to own one.  They're unreliable and high maintenance.

answer the questions.

The questions indicate a near zero understanding of the Arkansas law being changed, the federal safety laws, or the interaction between the two.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.9  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @9.1.8    last year

I knew it. This a plain demonstration of republicans "having it their way" and inconsistency be damned!

Typical some conservative snark-smoke and mirrors.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @9.1.8    last year
I don't want to own one.  They're unreliable and high maintenance.

Conservatives are bossy and pushy

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
9.1.11  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @9.1.9    last year
I knew it.

Exceedingly unlikely, given past history.

This a plain demonstration of republicans "having it their way" and inconsistency be damned!

I'm sure you imagine that to be the case.

In the real world..... it's probably just eliminating a paperwork requirement that doesn't really apply anymore, especially now that kids can go to school online.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.12  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @9.1.11    last year

Yea, I would have considered it easier for you to have answered 9.1.7 questions:

Does MAGA/conservatives/republicans believe in big government?
Does MAGA/conservatives/republicans trust the Feds?

It is unfortunate, but becoming commonplace for the arrogance of some conservatives to just bypass  Yes or No as answers and go directly to snark. I don't care about that. I only wish for you to be comfortable enough to share your truth (to the questions above). Apparently, conservative truth is uncomfortable? I feel it cannot be out of shame, because some conservatives present as shameless to the world. What the problem, then?

Kids are back in school settings now, post-Covid 19.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
9.1.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @9.1.12    last year

Exactly, I know how easy yes or no answers always  come to you.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.14  CB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.1.13    last year

Do you? How easy EXACTLY do yes or no answers always come to you?  Easy or Hard?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
9.1.15  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @9.1.14    last year

Have I ever failed to answer your questions?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.16  CB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.1.15    last year

Yes. You indulge yourself with ignoring substantive questions by: 1. "Clapback."  2. Asking a 'fresh' question or several.  3. (Irrelevant )snark. 4. Answer off-the-mark.

Such as 9.1.15 above-which can not possibly be an answer to 9.1.14!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1.10    last year

They're also unreliable and high maintenance, conservatives that is.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.18  CB  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.17    last year

It's even worse than we understood for: Some conservatives choose to lie, cheat, and steal to oppress liberals and liberal policies!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
9.1.19  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @9.1.18    last year

Huh?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.20  CB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.1.19    last year

Corrected. Sometimes I have to type between distractions. It happens! Other times, I am just typing while exhausted! :)

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
9.1.21  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @9.1.20    last year

Get some rest CB, your health is most important. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.22  CB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.1.21    last year

Well, that is nice of you. Thank you and I continue to stride to do better.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.2  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Greg Jones @9    last year

Comment 9 is another example of what was anticipated by Comment 1.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
9.3  Kavika   replied to  Greg Jones @9    last year
The Dems haven't seemed to worry about illegal immigrant kids working until now.

I didn't see where the article said they were illegal, simply that they were migrants. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.3.1  JBB  replied to  Kavika @9.3    last year

There have always been "migrant" farm workers who are legally permitted into the country from Mexico under agricultural exemption. Since at least the 1970s their children have been required to attend school much to the disdain of agribusiness.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
9.3.2  Kavika   replied to  JBB @9.3.1    last year

The next part of my question would be, ''do the Republicans care about the kids at all?''

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @9.3.2    last year

Only if they can work and pay taxes so that the military-industrial complex can grow bigger and bigger

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10  CB    last year

The question is this: Is Sarah Huckabee-Sanders/Arkansas good for children (not her own)?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
10.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @10    last year

When she was campaigning there was a commercial featuring her son (who looked to be about 9-10) who was doing all these chores around the house. When he was finished he got a dollar. He goes to the store to get some Little Debbies and finds out he doesn't have enough because of Joe Biden's inflation!!!!

One of my face book groups mocked the ad for exploiting child labor

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.1  CB  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.1    last year

A single dollar? Count 'em: 4  dollar051212_175.jpg See why I asked if Governor Huckabee-Sanders is good for children?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
10.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @10.1.1    last year

She actually gave him a dollar bill. I felt sorry for that kid that his mom is Sarah Suckabee

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.1.2    last year

yikes.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
11  pat wilson    last year

Sarah looks like she might have a thyroid problem.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
11.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  pat wilson @11    last year

Because of the amount of weight she had lost?

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
11.1.1  pat wilson  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11.1    last year

Her neck, looks like an enlarged thyroid. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
11.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  pat wilson @11.1.1    last year

So what do you think, a goiter or thyroid cancer?

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
11.1.3  pat wilson  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11.1.2    last year

I think she needs to have it looked at.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
11.1.4  pat wilson  replied to  pat wilson @11.1.3    last year

Just read that she did have thyroid cancer last year.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  pat wilson @11.1.4    last year

that's a serious cancer, too

 
 
 
freepress
Freshman Silent
12  freepress    last year

Now just wait for the lawsuits when a child is injured on the job because unscrupulous people that hire them to save a buck are the kind of people who won't provide a safe working environment. The parents would sue for injury damages, but the parents allow their own children to be exploited for profit while voting for the politicians who pass these terrible policies.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
12.1  Veronica  replied to  freepress @12    last year

It's the American way...   ~sarc~

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
12.2  devangelical  replied to  freepress @12    last year

it's already happened...

 
 

Who is online

zuksam


35 visitors