Jim Vesely E-mail | Bio Lee Moriwaki E-mail | Bio Joni Balter E-mail | Bio Eric Devericks E-mail | Bio Lance Dickie E-mail | Bio Bruce Ramsey E-mail | Bio Kate Riley E-mail | Bio Lynne Varner E-mail | Bio Ryan Blethen E-mail | Bio

July 09, 2004

Labor law and one's own kids

In our Page One story on Thursday, July 8, we highlighted a struggle between a Yakima family, the Dotys, with state regulators over the issue of child labor. The Dotys, a fundamentalist Christian family, were employing their own kids, aged as young as 11, in their house-moving business. One use was having the kids sit on the top of the roof, and push up the wires when the house went under traffic lights. This was to teach their kids the work ethic. I am sympathetic to the Dotys. Having kids work does teach them the work ethic. This is an old-fashioned way to do it, but being old-fashioned should not be forbidden by law. The point of the child labor law is to prevent employers from endangering kids--that is, other people's kids--who are presumed to be too young to look out for themselves when their parents aren't there. The law should be more lenient if the kids are working in the family's own business. I know the rejoinder: What if the family is putting the kids at unacceptable risk? Imagine this, imagine that. That is the problem with all freedom. It is the family's responsibility to feed their kids food; but what if they don't do it? Shouldn't we have a state bureaucracy of adequate dinners? Well, we know from experience that parents will feed their kids, and it is heavyhanded and tyrannical to regulate them into doing it. We also know that parents who have their kids work will almost never ask them to take unacceptable risks, because the kids are their kids. It matters little whether the kids working around the house, around the farm, or in a family owned commercial business. So why does the law single out the commercial business? The reason is the labor movement. Unions represent adults, and they don't want to compete with kids. That is why the law is written the way it is. That is a politically understandable reason, but it is not a good reason. Respond to this posting

Posted by Bruce Ramsey at July 9, 2004 12:24 PM

Marketplace

November 2005