6 ms·

Arkansas: No need to age verify kids working in meat processing plants

80 points by robarr 4y ago

knacky 4y ago
AK is the abbreviation for Alaska. Should be AR for Arkansas.
- robarr 4y ago
  OP here, I am not an US native but it still is inexcusable. I cannot edit the post anymore, so thank You for posting the correct abbreviation.
- bobbylarrybobby 4y ago
  Funny, based on the context I read “AK” as Arkansas. If headline had mentioned oil drilling I probably would have read it as Alaska.
- dang 4y ago
  So many readers know neither of those abbrevs that I think we should just take a prefix of the title (since it's too long to make HN's 80 char limit). I've done so now.
mostertoaster 4y ago
This could maybe interpreted as saying the online world is more dangerous than a meat packing plant. That doesn’t seem too far-fetched.
- RyanHamilton 4y ago
  Can you explain your thinking? as I find this so far from likely to be true that I can't understand how anyone could believe that. Example of one calculation method, take the probable incidents, multiply the probability by the negative impact. Likelehood of kid injurying themselves in a physically dangerous area, very very high. Hospitals are full of kids every weekend that injured themselves in their own home, negative injury likely bad bruise or broken arm lasting days to weeks. Online probability of harm = low. Severity of harm most likely = name calling or mental bullying. Bullying impact likely low unless bullies also physically live nearby which then brings it back to in-person harm.
  - filoleg 4y ago
    > Can you explain your thinking? Not the person you are asking, but I can already guess what their reasoning most likely is gonna be. Get a large sheet of paper and fill it with buzzwords like "tiktok", "groomers", "CRT", "lgbtq propaganda", etc. Throw a few darts at it, and you should get a possible semblence of the reasoning I would expect the grandparent comment user to give you. I always try to give a poster the most charitable interpretation possible and steelman their argument before even considering making fun of it. But I legitimately struggle to come up with any charitable interpretation of an argument that claims "underage users browsing internet without state-mandated age verification is more dangerous than them working in a meatpacking facility or a slaughterhouse".
    - kevviiinn 4y ago
      That's a pretty accurate description of reactionary reasoning
    - mostertoaster 4y ago
      That was my point. People would justify the one because it is “dangerous” for more subjective reasons, even though the other actual leads to real physical danger. But you could argue the other danger is more insidious and ultimately would harm more children.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Never saw the internet rip anyone's arm off damn.
  - frollo 4y ago
    I've seen people getting some nasty bytes from it, though
maxerickson 4y ago
A problem with all of these discussions about child labor laws is the huge status quo bias. Like if a law isn't working to protect children, it's a good thing to change it! How do we talk about that if every discussion starts with how horrifying it is to change the laws that protect children. When I looked at the Arkansas change, it didn't really seem like a big deal. Previously parents had to fill out a form and send it to the state and wait for approval. A form isn't going to stop a parent from describing the duties inaccurately or ensure that the employer actually sticks to the description that the parents agreed to. The way things go, the state agency probably felt a lot of pressure to rubber stamp them. And so on. I'm not sure I analyzed it well, but apparently we can't even talk about it, because change is bad.
- krapp 4y ago
  What do you mean we can't talk about it? You're in one of numerous threads talking about it. And I've seen plenty of people here argue in favor of child labor, so I don't know what you're worried about.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  The main purpose of work registration was to allow children under 16 to have part-time jobs while having some mechanism to make it harder for industrial producers to abuse children. We developed these common-sense laws over many decades of horrific labor conditions for children and it worked well. The question I would ask is: why were these laws just fine in many states for decades, and why suddenly now (in the midst of an industrial labor shortage) do they need to be changed? My guess is that industrial plants are desperate for labor, and have been routinely breaking the law to employ vulnerable (most migrant) child laborers. Since this sort of abuse is precisely what the laws were designed to protect against, these firms couldn’t pass the work permit requirements: and having these laws in place made it easier for state and federal agencies to investigate and hold those companies to account. Now these powerful interests have bought themselves some new laws that protect them from being held accountable. People should be horrified about this, frankly. There are similar laws advancing in Iowa that also remove these protections for meat plants, and also eliminate liability if children are killed. It reversed decades of human progress, all so a few powerful producers can make a tiny amount of additional profit.
cosmin800 4y ago
Just because one wrong thing is allowed, I guess other should be? Or should not?
julienfr112 4y ago
obvious ! meatplants working kids are poor kids. Online kids are rich kids.

80 points by robarr 4y ago

knacky 4y ago

AK is the abbreviation for Alaska. Should be AR for Arkansas.

robarr 4y ago
OP here, I am not an US native but it still is inexcusable. I cannot edit the post anymore, so thank You for posting the correct abbreviation.
bobbylarrybobby 4y ago
Funny, based on the context I read “AK” as Arkansas. If headline had mentioned oil drilling I probably would have read it as Alaska.
dang 4y ago
So many readers know neither of those abbrevs that I think we should just take a prefix of the title (since it's too long to make HN's 80 char limit). I've done so now.

mostertoaster 4y ago

This could maybe interpreted as saying the online world is more dangerous than a meat packing plant. That doesn’t seem too far-fetched.

RyanHamilton 4y ago
Can you explain your thinking? as I find this so far from likely to be true that I can't understand how anyone could believe that. Example of one calculation method, take the probable incidents, multiply the probability by the negative impact. Likelehood of kid injurying themselves in a physically dangerous area, very very high. Hospitals are full of kids every weekend that injured themselves in their own home, negative injury likely bad bruise or broken arm lasting days to weeks. Online probability of harm = low. Severity of harm most likely = name calling or mental bullying. Bullying impact likely low unless bullies also physically live nearby which then brings it back to in-person harm.
- filoleg 4y ago
  > Can you explain your thinking? Not the person you are asking, but I can already guess what their reasoning most likely is gonna be. Get a large sheet of paper and fill it with buzzwords like "tiktok", "groomers", "CRT", "lgbtq propaganda", etc. Throw a few darts at it, and you should get a possible semblence of the reasoning I would expect the grandparent comment user to give you. I always try to give a poster the most charitable interpretation possible and steelman their argument before even considering making fun of it. But I legitimately struggle to come up with any charitable interpretation of an argument that claims "underage users browsing internet without state-mandated age verification is more dangerous than them working in a meatpacking facility or a slaughterhouse".
  - kevviiinn 4y ago
    That's a pretty accurate description of reactionary reasoning
  - mostertoaster 4y ago
    That was my point. People would justify the one because it is “dangerous” for more subjective reasons, even though the other actual leads to real physical danger. But you could argue the other danger is more insidious and ultimately would harm more children.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
Never saw the internet rip anyone's arm off damn.
- frollo 4y ago
  I've seen people getting some nasty bytes from it, though

maxerickson 4y ago

A problem with all of these discussions about child labor laws is the huge status quo bias. Like if a law isn't working to protect children, it's a good thing to change it! How do we talk about that if every discussion starts with how horrifying it is to change the laws that protect children. When I looked at the Arkansas change, it didn't really seem like a big deal. Previously parents had to fill out a form and send it to the state and wait for approval. A form isn't going to stop a parent from describing the duties inaccurately or ensure that the employer actually sticks to the description that the parents agreed to. The way things go, the state agency probably felt a lot of pressure to rubber stamp them. And so on. I'm not sure I analyzed it well, but apparently we can't even talk about it, because change is bad.

krapp 4y ago
What do you mean we can't talk about it? You're in one of numerous threads talking about it. And I've seen plenty of people here argue in favor of child labor, so I don't know what you're worried about.
matthewdgreen 4y ago
The main purpose of work registration was to allow children under 16 to have part-time jobs while having some mechanism to make it harder for industrial producers to abuse children. We developed these common-sense laws over many decades of horrific labor conditions for children and it worked well. The question I would ask is: why were these laws just fine in many states for decades, and why suddenly now (in the midst of an industrial labor shortage) do they need to be changed? My guess is that industrial plants are desperate for labor, and have been routinely breaking the law to employ vulnerable (most migrant) child laborers. Since this sort of abuse is precisely what the laws were designed to protect against, these firms couldn’t pass the work permit requirements: and having these laws in place made it easier for state and federal agencies to investigate and hold those companies to account. Now these powerful interests have bought themselves some new laws that protect them from being held accountable. People should be horrified about this, frankly. There are similar laws advancing in Iowa that also remove these protections for meat plants, and also eliminate liability if children are killed. It reversed decades of human progress, all so a few powerful producers can make a tiny amount of additional profit.

cosmin800 4y ago

Just because one wrong thing is allowed, I guess other should be? Or should not?

julienfr112 4y ago

obvious ! meatplants working kids are poor kids. Online kids are rich kids.