What's next?
-
Mike Hankey wrote:
We might as well be f***ing cattle. Moo!
Please, please, consider the feelings of those corralled in cubicles.
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
Sorry the gate was open for a split second and I made a mad cow dash for it. :)
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1 -
Sorry the gate was open for a split second and I made a mad cow dash for it. :)
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1 -
Mike Hankey wrote:
I made a mad cow dash for it.
Did you catch her?
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
I really tried but I'm old and she's young and runs faster than me.
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1 -
If you ever had anything to do with farming you know how utterly stupid this is. Rural kids, parents angry about Labor Dept. rule banning farm chores[^]
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1 -
You are absolutely correct. I'm curious how this new law would affect grants that are being awarded for farm safety education. If children are not allowed to do work, then why would you need to educate for proper safety for performing tasks on the farm?
Since there is such a Chicago connection to the White House I have a feeling the response will eventually be, "You need a union guy to plow that field! Don't you know how much training it takes? You need a licensed and bonded union guy that went through an apprenticeship."
-
Since there is such a Chicago connection to the White House I have a feeling the response will eventually be, "You need a union guy to plow that field! Don't you know how much training it takes? You need a licensed and bonded union guy that went through an apprenticeship."
Sadly, it will be more of a "Did you plant the approved seed? Do you have a license to plant the approved seed? No? Ohhhhhhhh that isn't good. Here is your cease and desist. We will be reposessing all of your crops and sending you a fine. Have a nice day."
-
Sadly, it will be more of a "Did you plant the approved seed? Do you have a license to plant the approved seed? No? Ohhhhhhhh that isn't good. Here is your cease and desist. We will be reposessing all of your crops and sending you a fine. Have a nice day."
-
Farming is not something you can not totally go to school and learn it takes years of OJT to learn when to plant, what to plant, should I rotate, etc.. To extrapolate on your thesis; children under the age of 18 should not be allowed to learn to drive as there are way more teen related accidents, children should not be allowed to do housework because the chemicals they are exposed to might harm them, children should not be allowed to have sex, do drugs, play in the streets! Need I go on?, this law is absolutely ridiculous and if allowed to pass where will it end. Our rights are slowly be taken away and we are to stupid to realize whats going on. We might as well be fucking cattle. Moo!
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1I had a well thought out response, and then the hamsters ate it. I am to lazy to retype it all. Long story short, There is a big difference between learning how to drive in a vehicle with safety measures at 16 and driving a several ton tractor without any safety measures (not even a seat belt) at 6. Riding on your daddy's knee at age 4 while he drives the tractor may seem fun, but children do not see the dangers of such actions. Plus their parents think that because they did it when they were young, it is safe. In the rural midwest there are a lot of farm accidents that are completely preventable if people used a little common sense. Educate, educate, educate. If people are still to stupid, let them get themselves killed but do your best to make sure they don't take anyone innocent with them. Again, age appropriate tasks on the farm keep people safe. As the kid gets older, give more responsabilities with increasing risk that they know how to safely handle.
-
That will come first, but any remaining profitable farm will have to hire union guys, who else will know how to operate any equipment? See my thread with Hankey below if you'd like to know why the gov is cracking down.
It is always about control and money. I agree 100% I tend to bounce back and forth on this, some regulation is good because in pure systems (pure socialism vs pure capitalism) the greedy always take advantage anywhere they can. To much regulation is bad but to little is just as bad in a different way. The problem is finding the proper balance.
-
Mike Hankey wrote:
We might as well be f***ing cattle.
Each to their own tastes. :)
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
-
The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents.[^] If these are truly dangerous tasks that should not be undertaken by children, this is discrimination against farmers' children. Surely the law should be framed to protect all children? IMHO, if the kid is capable of the work, they should be allowed to do it. Only one caveat: Safety Training. You can learn so much more working on the farm when you’re 12, 13, 14 years old. How true. I was made to work vacations on a farm when I was 12 and 13. I left home at 14, and went to live in London. :)
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
ict558 wrote:
The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents.[^]
But can't help Grandpa. Or Uncle Bill next door.
No dogs or cats are in the classroom. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
-
ict558 wrote:
The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents.[^]
But can't help Grandpa. Or Uncle Bill next door.
No dogs or cats are in the classroom. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
GenJerDan wrote:
But can't help Grandpa. Or Uncle Bill next door.
Precisely. It is the assumption that a child is safe when working with Dad (and therefore requires no protection under the law), but is suddenly endangered when working with Grandpa or Uncle Bill, that I am questioning.
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their Party. - Cornelius Thirp
-
Mike Hankey wrote:
what if there were no FAMILY farmers?
I believe this is the goal of the rules. To turn all the family farms into corporate farms in order to increase corporate profits. Or into other uses as another poster has suggested. All for the love of money.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
I believe this is the goal of the rules.
Pretty sure that the origination of that initiative was tied into limiting illegal alien child labor. It had nothing to do with what you are claiming.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
To turn all the family farms into corporate farms in order to increase corporate profits
I would suspect that the vast majority of farms that actually provide a living for their owners (families) are in fact corporations. Or at least some corporate legal entity. Just as the vast majority of all types of business, no matter how small, are. Certainly the indirect acquaintanceship I had with a 'family' farm at one time where they had just purchased their fifth combine (in the 80s well into the upper 6 figures for each combine) along with making quite a bit of money from not planting crops (government subsidies) would suggest that the cry of 'family' farmer is in fact to some extent nor more nor less than similar to any urban argument about locally owned businesses versus corporate businesses. And all of that says nothing about the fact that US farming market, regardless of ownership, is in fact very effective at doing exactly what it should be - delivering food and doing so very cheaply. The argument is no different than any which shows up in comparison to arguments that erupt when Walmart wants to build a new store.
-
Having worked on material because of the of tractor roll overs and small children riding on tractors and falling off and under the wheel (which weigh enough to crush a child and do damage even without the rest of the tractor being attached), I disagree that what families do on their own property is none of the government's business. But only slightly, I disagree with the blanket statement of "children under 18 could no longer work in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials.” That is complete and total BS. If the child can safely do the job, let the child do it. I was mowing the lawn when I was 12 and my parents were giving me an allowance for it. Did they violate child safety laws? Back then, no. On the other hand, if it is putting the child's safety in question, then the government does have an obligation to step in and protect its citizens, much like child safety services is supposed to do. Bottom line, when a child can work at home doing age appropriate tasks, LET THEM! It teaches responsability and work ethic. If their parents give them tasks that put them in danger, come to the parents and educate them.
RJOberg wrote:
Bottom line, when a child can work at home doing age appropriate tasks, LET THEM!
Who gets to decide that?
RJOberg wrote:
If their parents give them tasks that put them in danger, come to the parents and educate them.
Huh? Do you have some equivalent law/process that suggests that is even possible?
-
I think the underlying cause is even a little more nefarious, but you got close. The average age of farmers is 50. No young people can learn to farm with this law. When the farmer dies, the kids will sell the estate since they won't be farmers, and will likely move to more urban areas. What does that leave? Readily available farmland for sale, to grow biofuels on. Farms will become nothing more than (bio)oil fields owned by conglomerates, no longer concerned with feeding people, but turning a profit. This will fight off future gas shortages by diverting food crops to oil crops, but the cost will be horrible to the world food market.
wizardzz wrote:
The average age of farmers is 50. No young people can learn to farm with this law. When the farmer dies, the kids will sell the estate since they won't be farmers, and will likely move to more urban areas. What does that leave? Readily available farmland for sale, to grow biofuels on.
So growing biofuels is not farming? Or if it is farming then, per your scenario, exactly where are the people who grow those crops coming from?
wizardzz wrote:
Farms will become nothing more than (bio)oil fields owned by conglomerates, no longer concerned with feeding people, but turning a profit.
The vast, vast majority of farms that sell crops are ALL concerned with "turning a profit." I would suppose that in the 1800s that many farms were concerned with "feeding people" but only to the extent that the family farmer then was concerned with feeding just the family and no others. That was the primary concern but even then I am rather certain that having a bit left over to sell was also high on the list of priorities. There is nothing like that now even for any "family" farmer. And given that there are some very large companies that make their money selling food, not fuel, where exactly do those corporations fit into your scenario?
-
GenJerDan wrote:
But can't help Grandpa. Or Uncle Bill next door.
Precisely. It is the assumption that a child is safe when working with Dad (and therefore requires no protection under the law), but is suddenly endangered when working with Grandpa or Uncle Bill, that I am questioning.
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their Party. - Cornelius Thirp
ict558 wrote:
It is the assumption that a child is safe when working with Dad (and therefore requires no protection under the law), but is suddenly endangered when working with Grandpa or Uncle Bill, that I am questioning.
That isn't the point. The current situation is that the children can also work someone elses farm that is NOT a relative. The proposed law would have restricted it as you are stating. However most, or perhaps all, states allow children to work in family business. But only the family business. As in the following.... http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/news13354.html[^]
-
ict558 wrote:
It is the assumption that a child is safe when working with Dad (and therefore requires no protection under the law), but is suddenly endangered when working with Grandpa or Uncle Bill, that I am questioning.
That isn't the point. The current situation is that the children can also work someone elses farm that is NOT a relative. The proposed law would have restricted it as you are stating. However most, or perhaps all, states allow children to work in family business. But only the family business. As in the following.... http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/news13354.html[^]
jschell wrote:
The current situation is that the children can also work someone elses farm that is NOT a relative.
I know that.
jschell wrote:
The proposed law would have restricted it as you are stating.
I also know that. GenJerDan was commenting on the fact that although the proposed regulation would permit children to work on farms owned or operated by their parents, they would not be allowed to work on farms owned or operated by Grandpa, or Uncle Bill, next door. Hence my comment, which was to GenJerDan's post, and hence, to the point. My own view was: IMHO, if the kid is capable of the work, they should be allowed to do it. Only one caveat: Safety Training. Which, strangely, is the route the administration appears to be adopting.
All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is for Good Folks to keep voting for their Party. - Cornelius Thirp
