• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida debates lifting some child labor laws to fill jobs vacated by undocumented immigrants (1 Viewer)

Pyrite said:
To replace migrant labor....perhaps that means roofing/construction work, agricultural work, slaughterhouse work....
Click to expand...
He wants to let 14-year-olds work overnight shifts.

As I understand it, pickers work overnights in Florida because it is too hot for them to work during the day.

Rhonda Santis needs to be stopped, and he needs to lose his balls for even thinking it.
 
ColdHardTruth said:
Rhonda Santis said this:

Child labor protections could soon be rolled back in Florida. Why?​

DeSantis said that a younger workforce could be part of the solution to replace “dirt cheap” migrant labor.

TALLAHASSEE — Teenagers as young as 14 could soon be allowed to work overnight shifts as part of an effort in the Republican-led Legislature to roll back major aspects of the state’s child labor laws.

www.tampabay.com

Child labor protections could soon be rolled back in Florida. Why?

DeSantis said that a younger workforce could be part of the solution to replace “dirt cheap” migrant labor.
www.tampabay.com www.tampabay.com

This IS NOT acceptable.

He needs to lose his license and his job.
Click to expand...
So because he used the phrase "dirt cheap" at some point while discussing the bill, people are therefore assuming that the point of the bill is to put minors in agricultural jobs ... ?
 
Demon said:
I'm betting, especially for 14 yr olds, that it's 0.0% And it's not done yet, is it? It's interesting that they had those restrictions for 16 and 17 year olds, then reduced it to 14 and 15 years olds. I wonder when they'll go to 12 and 13 year olds working overnight.
Click to expand...
Yes you're probably right. I was erring on the side of a higher percentage but you're only proving my point. There are very few minors affected by that portion of the bill change, and the ones who are... have their high school diploma.
I understand the sentiment of trying to avoid laws slowly chipping away at things we think are important, but when the law isn't doing anything negative, I don't see what the problem is.
Interpreting negative leadership because of negative lawmaking, and interpreting negative lawmaking because of negative leadership, is circular-logic thinking. It's always easy to find evidence of things we already believe. This bill is not proof that the lawmakers don't care about minors. It's only evidence, and only if you already hold that belief.
 
DaveJ said:
Yes you're probably right. I was erring on the side of a higher percentage but you're only proving my point. There are very few minors affected by that portion of the bill change, and the ones who are... have their high school diploma.
I understand the sentiment of trying to avoid laws slowly chipping away at things we think are important, but when the law isn't doing anything negative, I don't see what the problem is.
Interpreting negative leadership because of negative lawmaking, and interpreting negative lawmaking because of negative leadership, is circular-logic thinking. It's always easy to find evidence of things we already believe. This bill is not proof that the lawmakers don't care about minors. It's only evidence, and only if you already hold that belief.
Click to expand...

You don't belong here bud.
 
DaveJ said:
Yes you're probably right. I was erring on the side of a higher percentage but you're only proving my point. There are very few minors affected by that portion of the bill change, and the ones who are... have their high school diploma.
I understand the sentiment of trying to avoid laws slowly chipping away at things we think are important, but when the law isn't doing anything negative, I don't see what the problem is.
Interpreting negative leadership because of negative lawmaking, and interpreting negative lawmaking because of negative leadership, is circular-logic thinking. It's always easy to find evidence of things we already believe. This bill is not proof that the lawmakers don't care about minors. It's only evidence, and only if you already hold that belief.
Click to expand...

The law IS doing something negative - it's reducing the ages. Do the lawmaker care about minors if they're in domestic service in private homes?

"(e) Minors in domestic service in private homes, minors61 employed by their parents, or pages in the Florida Legislature."
 
Demon said:
The law IS doing something negative - it's reducing the ages. Do the lawmaker care about minors if they're in domestic service in private homes?

"(e) Minors in domestic service in private homes, minors61 employed by their parents, or pages in the Florida Legislature."
Click to expand...
This is the point of my previous post. You see it as something negative because you see the people amending the bill as having negative motivations, but without that belief, the negative interpretation of the bill goes away.
Also... the portion of the bill (e) you're referencing was already in effect. Look again at the bill... underlined sections are added, crossed out sections are removed, all other text is original wording. Easy mistake to make...
 
If they could repeal the 13th amendment they would.
 
What a positive direction for the US. We support chill labor now. USA! USA! USA!
 
DaveJ said:
This is the point of my previous post. You see it as something negative because you see the people amending the bill as having negative motivations, but without that belief, the negative interpretation of the bill goes away.
Also... the portion of the bill (e) you're referencing was already in effect. Look again at the bill... underlined sections are added, crossed out sections are removed, all other text is original wording. Easy mistake to make...
Click to expand...

What is positive about letting a 14 year old work a late night shift? Of course if you see this bill as all sunshine and roses, you won't see the negative side. Kind of a mirror image, no?
 
Nobody but illegal immigrants would work these backbreaking, underpaid jobs but they have to go! Not to worry, send us your kids. They're shorter and won't have to bend so much.

I'm going out to look for a Cybertruck to...nazify.
 
DaveJ said:
Yes you're probably right. I was erring on the side of a higher percentage but you're only proving my point. There are very few minors affected by that portion of the bill change, and the ones who are... have their high school diploma.
I understand the sentiment of trying to avoid laws slowly chipping away at things we think are important, but when the law isn't doing anything negative, I don't see what the problem is.
Click to expand...
It would allow 14-year-olds to work graveyard. That is an issue.
DaveJ said:
Interpreting negative leadership because of negative lawmaking, and interpreting negative lawmaking because of negative leadership, is circular-logic thinking. It's always easy to find evidence of things we already believe. This bill is not proof that the lawmakers don't care about minors. It's only evidence, and only if you already hold that belief.
Click to expand...
You would be wrong.
 
DaveJ said:
So because he used the phrase "dirt cheap" at some point while discussing the bill, people are therefore assuming that the point of the bill is to put minors in agricultural jobs ... ?
Click to expand...
Read the article.
 
ColdHardTruth said:
It would allow 14-year-olds to work graveyard. That is an issue.
Click to expand...
I would agree that 14-year-olds working overnight shifts is generally not favorable (I'm assuming that's what you mean by 'graveyard'). I'm guessing they're leaving it up to parents to determine what their kids should be doing. I don't think they put this bill in place in hopes that 14 year olds everywhere would be working overnight shifts. Maybe they're thinking kids who have their high school diploma equivalent at 14 are able to handle more work.

ColdHardTruth said:
You would be wrong.
Click to expand...
What exactly about the portion of my post you are responding to here, is incorrect in your opinion? I didn't say I didn't think it was proof. It's objectively not proof. And if you're calling it proof you're only confirming what I said about circular thinking. No offense, just something to think about.
 
ColdHardTruth said:
Read the article.
Click to expand...
I did and I see nothing about agricultural jobs. Granted it's hard to read with a pop up every ten seconds that takes up 80% of the page... Haha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom