3 ms·

You act like that's a bad thing? Journalists are supposed to report the news not their opinions or what they think is the good side and the bad side. If you w

• triceratops 3y ago
  > If you actually read the article, the states are simply relaxing laws that were more strict than federal laws. > Clearly the feds have set laws they feel are reasonble I did read the article. Iowa now allows minors to work in roofing and industrial laundries. If it's true they're aligning with federal laws (doubtful) I'm going to go ahead and say that federal laws about children working in roofing are not currently reasonable, and that Iowa should not have done this if they gave two shits about children. > if a child labor law said "Kids can't work at all", then it was changed to "Kids can work up to 10 hours per week", that would be weaking child labor laws Is that what happened though? Be honest. What does the article say?
  • refurb 3y ago
    Ok, but are you arguing that the media shouldn't report the news objectively, rather they should decide the "good side" and "bad side" and then report their opinion? I don't want that. I'm an adult. I don't want to know another adult's opinions, I'd like an objective report on the facts. I can make my own decision as to whether it's a problem and if it's is, who I believe is on the "good side" and who is on the "bad side". But regardless, let's look at one of the issues you raise - Iowa allowing minors to work in roofing and industrial laundry. Annoying, the article doesn't link to the actual law, it rather links to another news article. Yuck. So let's see what the actual law looks like[1] that the Governor signed: - 92.8 Under eighteen — prohibited occupations: - No person under eighteen years of age shall be employed or permitted to work with or without compensation at any of the following work activities or business establishments: - 14. Roofing operations - 92.5 Fourteen permitted work activities: - 12. Laundering. - 92.6 Fourteen and fifteen — occupations work activities not permitted [big list of prohibited activities involving hazards like machines or chemicals] Now I'm super confused. The law (as I read it), seems to explicitly ban roofing by minors. For laundry services, it adds laundry services, which I imagine would involved loading and unloading washers and dryers, which doesn't seems like an overly hazardous activity to me, especially with the section outlawing hazardous activities. Note the law says "no one under 16 may perform work during school hours". So a fourteen year could be employed in laundry services after school or weekends, so to me that seems like a reasonably limitation. It also prohibits work before 7am and after 9pm and limits it to 28 hours per week for 14 year old (so 8 hours in addition to working Saturday and Sunday). None of this seems outrageous. Delivering newspapers was a common job for minors. That involved riding or walking a bike early in the morning, which seems more hazardous to me than doing laundry. [1]https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=SF542 https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=SF5...
    • ttfkam 3y ago
      Journalists shouldn't strive to show "both sides" regardless of merit. If one side says it's raining and the other claims it's dry as a bone, "both sides" is irrelevant. It is the responsibility of a journalist to go open a window and look outside. They don't have to call anyone a liar or an idiot. But they do have to call out which one comports with inarguable facts on the ground as much as possible. There's the little detail of 14 year olds going to school, working a few hours per day, and… when do they get to take part in extracurriculars? When do they get to do homework? When do they get to study for quizzes and tests? When do they get to work on class projects? When do they get to relax? Spend time with friends? Play games? Learn things outside the normal curriculum that piques their interest? Or should they just be constantly on task unless they are asleep? Is this the life we really want for our kids?
      • refurb 3y ago
        > If one side says it's raining and the other claims it's dry as a bone, "both sides" is irrelevant. That's a terrible example. Nobody is claiming that reporters should be report on undeniably false statements. I don't expect reporters to report on a lunar landing then include a bunch of stuff that the Apollo landing is fake. But that's not what's happening here, is it? What you have is reporters reporting on one side of an opinion. Opinions are not facts, they are a subjective judgement of facts. What many reporters do is start with an opinion, then write an article with selective inclusion of facts to support that opinion. That's garbage reporting. It's not news it's writing an opinion column. > There's the little detail of 14 year olds going to school, working a few hours per day, and… when do they get to take part in extracurriculars? When do they get to do homework? When do they get to study for quizzes and tests? When do they get to work on class projects? You realize that work is voluntary right? This law doesn't force minors to work? And usually when you work you "pick up shifts"? They do all those things when they aren't in school and aren't working. And you're looking at this with a very upper middle class perspective. Extracurricular activities? Play games? Free time? Some families don't have that luxury. Kids work because the family needs the income. I'm not sure banning work so that families have less income is really helping the poor. And you know what? Some kid want to work. If given the choice between surfing Tik Tok, or playing on the soccer team, they choose work. They like having extra money. They like working in an industry they plan to enter full time for the experience. It's not the 1920's. We aren't sending 10 year olds down in coal mines.