“Are there no work houses?”
Now, to be sure, what’s being discussed are some easing of regulations on edge cases, in the context of apprenticeships. The argument is made, for example, that if once someone turns 18 they can operate hazardous machinery full-time, why have stringent restrictions on an apprentice who is only 17½? Or 17? Or 16?
Well, maybe for the same reason we have other hard-and-fast cutoffs, even if you can point to individual cases where they don’t work. We don’t say, “Hey, since you can binge-drink at 21, then at 20 you can drink up to X amount of alcohol per day, under supervision.” Because the situation is inherently open to abuse.
And open to the slippery slope, too. Why stop at 16? And if it’s okay within an apprenticeship program, and if, well, keeping close watch on teens doing this stuff is hard, why not allow it outside of apprenticeship programs, so that all poor teenagers can work full time for their welfare, instead of just sponging off the system?
Are there ways that this could be done carefully, cautiously, in limited fashion, and in ways that won’t lead to teenagers being killed on the job? I’m sure there probably are. Do I trust that the Donald Trump Dept. of Labor is going to make sure that’s the case, vs. simply giving companies access to cheap teen-aged labor and justifying workfare requirements? I’m sure I do not.
Trump Administration Wants to Train Teens in ‘Hazardous’ Jobs
The Labor Department plans to unwind decades-old youth labor protections by allowing teenagers to work longer hours under some of the nation’s most hazardous workplace conditions, sources familiar with the situation told Bloomberg Law.
These spoiled youth, good luck with that one