Duane A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Educator,
Webster County March 8, 2012 Edition
It is time to revisit the ill-thought out US Department of Labor proposed changes to rules under the Child Labor Act for Agriculture. In all fairness the proposed changes to the law were made after citing the injury and fatality rates for children working in agriculture is four times greater than kids working in non-agricultural jobs. What they don’t understand is that those of us in agriculture understand that risk, but still choose to live and work in agriculture. I don’t think they understand that we also work hard in educating and training in safety in these jobs. This is an example of suits in Washington trying to determine what is best for us, as if we are not smart enough to make our own decisions.
After reviewing more than 10,000 comments that were sent in after the word got out on the proposed changes, the DOL announced last month that the agency had expanded its parental exemption language. I was hopeful that those comments had made a difference. The DOL changed the proposed rule with an exemption, that will apply in situations in which a parent "or person standing in place of the parent" is part owner of a farm as a partner or officer in a corporation which owns the farm "if the ownership interest in the partnership or corporation is substantial." Hopefully you understand what they are exempting. I am not all that sure. While the announcement that DOL would reconsider the rule was good news, it concerns me that the DOL is still moving forward with many provisions that would have a direct and potentially detrimental impact on farm and ranch families. I am convinced they're still turning a deaf ear to our concerns in farm country about proposed child labor in agriculture restrictions ---and they still think that the Nanny state knows better.
As far as I am concerned, they are pulling the same thing they did when they introduced the proposed rule changes right during harvest last year -pick a time when farmers are busy. Maybe they won’t notice! It seems to me that this “change to the proposed changed rules” is nothing more than throwing crumbs our way to make us think they heard our comments and are going to take our advice. I am afraid that they will lull the ag community to sleep on the broader issue on the remainder of their rules that are still going to take effect. They most likely are waiting to make their final ruling during – you guessed it -- planting season, when they know farmers will be busy once again and away from the news, television or internet.
The main bulk of language changes still affect children under 16. According to DOL officials, they are not talking about kids who are 16 years or older who are employed on any farm, whether a family farm or a corporate farm. However, the rule would prevent children under age 16 from operating most power equipment on farms. The rule does include exclusions for children are working on their family's farm operation or taking classes in a vocational program. The rule largely would apply in situations where there is an employer-employee relationship involving a farmer and a child. They also indicate that they are not talking about neighbors helping neighbors in need or kids participating in 4-H or FFA. They say that a child of any age could, for example, assist a neighbor to round up loose cattle that have broken out of their fencing because that would not establish an employer-employee relationship. Still, other prohibitions would prevent children from working with livestock, timber, manure pits, grain bins or pesticide handling or working in places higher than 6 feet off the ground.
According to the DOL official, the regulation would not apply for kids raising livestock for 4-H or FFA. I would like to see that in writing. I don’t think they really understand how SAE’s in FFA or projects in 4-H work. Further, children under age 18 would be banned from working in areas involved with storing, marketing or hauling raw farm materials. So children could not work in grain elevators, silos, feedlots or stockyards. It sounds to me like there could still be restrictions on not allowing a neighbor kid to help on the farm or to help with livestock or driving a tractor or a small piece of farm equipment. There still is no clarification either on kids that work with detasseling crews. Also there is no word on the training or how kids can get permits. I still look for this action to undercut programs like 4-H and FFA in farm safety, tractor and equipment safety training programs and replace them with some sort of national DOL program. Look for unreasonable regulations and numbers of hours in training, classroom and lab. Don’t be surprised if it is so burdensome that parents and kids will elect not to do it. Look for the lines at Wendy’s, Burger King or McDonald job window get even longer.
If I were a betting man, I would bet that we won’t see much change at all in the proposed rules. After all, we are not cerebral enough to understand what is good and bad for us. I believe that the agricultural community must continue to speak out against these rules and pressure DOL into taking another look before impacting the next generation of U.S. agriculturalists. To me the DOL’s proposal looks more like the continual efforts of animal rights groups to undermine and attack agriculture rather than a valid labor or safety concern. I would like to know who is really behind this thing.
This is a proposal that undermines the ability for us to manage our own farms, to develop a pool of young people who want to grow up and be farmers and ranchers. It is something that if you care about the future of rural America, if you care about the future of agriculture, we all have got to make certain the Department of Labor is not successful in allowing these rules to take effect. We can no longer afford to have our heads in the sand. We have to take a stand. We need to get on our phones and write letters to our US Senators and Representatives. Why would we just sit idly by and allow other people that don’t know, or care what we do, make our decisions for us, and ultimately affect our very way of life?
The preceding information comes from the research and personal observations of the writer which may or may not reflect the views of UNL or UNL Extension. For more further information on these or other topics contact D. A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Educator for Webster County in Red Cloud, (402) 746-3417 or email to: dlienemann2@unl.edu or go to the !website at: http://www.webster.unl.edu
No comments:
Post a Comment