Iowa Lawmakers Seek to Bring Child Labor Back to the US

In February, labor advocates expressed their opposition to a proposed bill in Iowa that state lawmakers have introduced with support from businesses. The bill aims to relax child labor laws, allowing teenagers as young as 14 to work in jobs currently considered unsafe for children, such as mining, logging, and slaughterhouses. The proposal will also allow young teens to work in adult nightclubs serving alcohol and would allow companies to keep them on the clock until 9:00 on school nights. One union president deemed the proposal dangerous and characterized it as “just crazy.” 

Horrifyingly, if a teenager is injured or dies while working under a “work-based learning program,” the business involved would be shielded from legal action brought by parents, even if the harm resulted directly from the employer’s negligence.

The proposed bill, Senate File 167, introduced by Senator Jason Schultz (R-Schleswig) in January, would expand the types of work available to 14 and 15-year-olds in the state. The legislation would allow teenagers as young as 14 to work jobs currently off-limits for safety reasons. The new rules would avoid many legal restrictions by recategorizing some child labor as “Work-Based Learning Programs” tied to a child’s regular school curriculum. 

Most worryingly, the bill also shields businesses from lawsuits from parents if their children are hurt or killed on the job. Under Iowa law, young teenagers can sometimes be exempted from specific safety provisions, including those related to hazardous work, if they participate in a work-based learning program. 

However, according to the Des Moines Register, the proposed legislation includes “an entirely new section” which would grant authority to the heads of the Iowa Workforce Development and the state Department of Education to make exceptions for teenagers aged 14-17 who are “participating in work-based learning or a school or employer-administered, work-related program.”

However, if an exception is granted, the teenagers would lose their worker compensation rights, leaving them solely responsible for any incidents that may occur while working. Employers are protected from lawsuits even if they are determined to be accountable for the injury due to negligence and even if the injured or killed child did nothing wrong.

In other words, Iowa employers can skirt child labor laws by expanding existing student-worker programs with help from complacent school districts. The new law will allow these programs to expand to cover jobs such as working in meatpacking plants, freezers, mechanical detasseling, and working with industrial loading equipment. 

However, these programs often strip the students of workers’ compensation rights. So, if a student employed under such a program is hurt, disabled, or killed, the business cannot face civil penalties. 

The bill states, “A business that accepts a secondary student in a work-based learning program shall not be subject to civil liability for any claim for bodily injury to the student or sickness or death by accident of the student arising from the business’s negligent act or omission during the student’s participation in the work-based learning program at the business or work site.” (Emphasis added.)

The bill was first introduced to the Iowa Legislature on January 30. An Iowa State Senate Subcommittee advanced and recommended passage of the bill on February 9, but it has yet to get final approval from Senators. 

Generally, individuals under 18 would still be prohibited from working in specific fields, such as deep mining, logging, demolition, and slaughtering animals. 

However, a business that requests and gets a waiver under a “Work-Based Learning” program could require children to perform almost any type of work.

The bill is being proposed to address an ongoing labor shortage in Iowa. It has gained the support of area businesses looking to increase staffing without paying more wages.

In the words of Charlie Wishman, the president of the Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, quoted in the Des Moines Register, the proposed bill is “just crazy” and represents an ill-advised attempt by businesses to address Iowa’s need for more workers. He expressed concern that even with the label of a “work-based learning program,” young workers are still at risk of serious injury, stating, “A kid can still lose an arm in a work-based learning program.”

In a separate interview with Newsweek, Wishman addressed supporters of the bill, who argue that kids need work experiences more than childhood experiences, saying, “For us, this bill overall undermines the basic recognition that child labor should be limited and safe. Let kids be kids—there are plenty of job opportunities right now for kids to gain experience and learn responsibility without putting them in danger or compromising their academic success.”

As for the argument that paying more wages to attract more workers is bad business, he said, “Here are answers to this state’s workforce problems, and it’s not hiring children to do adult jobs. It’s better pay, benefits, and working conditions for adults that can make Iowa an attractive place to live and work.”

It will also ease the requirements for children to obtain driver’s licenses to allow them to drive themselves to their new jobs and expand the hours children can be required to come to work and how late they can be made to remain on the job. The new rules could force children to drive to and from work as late as 11:00 at night. 

In response to concerns that inexperienced kids on the roads might create a hazard, the legislation also prohibits lawsuits against employers when children experience car crashes on the way to and from work.

Supporters of the bill say that child labor laws are ineffective anyway, and ending them can mean more money for businesses. Speaking for the Iowa Restaurant Association, Jessica Dunker told the political outlet Iowa Starting Line that adult nightclubs and bars needed children to work much later than current law allows. The new bill would enable establishments to keep kids on their shifts until 9:00 p.m. on school nights to serve alcohol to customers during peak hours. Dunker said that the restaurants in her association largely ignore child labor laws already, saying, “Nine o’clock? I’m sure they’re doing something already,” she said of requiring 14-year-old children to stay at work on school nights.

Data front the US Department of Labor backs up her assessment that many Iowa businesses illegally use child labor.

In 2022, the DOL sought charges involving more than 3,000 children who were victims of workplace exploitation, prompting nearly $3.4 million in fines. 

Investigations were also launched where young teens were killed on the job. Among them is the tragic case of a 16-year-old killed on a hotel construction site after falling about 11 stories after trying to jump from a roof onto a powered lift. 

 U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division investigation into the incident found the teenager’s employer, Stover and Sons Contractors Inc. – a Madison construction contractor – violated two hazardous occupation orders of the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The orders ban employers from allowing minors under 18 to perform roofing activities or to operate or ride on a power-driven hoisting apparatus. Further investigation determined the employer also violated child labor laws when it allowed the boy to work more than 8 hours a day and more than 40 hours per week when he was 15.

The Iowa law would legalize child labor on construction sites.

Related News

Supreme Court Poised for New Attack on Unions

Related News

Supreme Court Poised to Renew Attack on Unions

5 October, 2022

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide a case that could determine if unions should be forced to cover some financial losses their companies experience due to union actions, such as strikes.

 The case will decide if employers can bypass Federal Labor regulators and sue unions directly in court. Currently, labor disputes are settled by specialized Federal regulators, to avoid tying up the court system and to prevent litigation designed solely for the purpose of harassing or bankrupting unions. The court will decide whether or not to remove those safeguards.

The Court granted Glacier Northwest, Inc., a concrete mixing and delivery company, a request to review an earlier decision by the Washington State Supreme Court, which ruled against the company in favor of the workers. That ruling found that the strike fell under rules set up by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and that companies cannot sue over such conduct. Rather, such matters must be litigated before the National Labor Relations Board. In agreeing to take up the case, the U.S. Supreme Court could potentially reverse the earlier decision. 

Such a ruling could allow companies to sue unions outside of the Labor Board, possibly requiring them to repay employers if they claim union business was unduly burdensome. For example, if a legal, peaceful union job action slowed production, caused canceled deliveries, or spoiled inventory left at worksites by workers walking off the property.

Airlines and other transportation-sector unions are covered under the Railway Labor Act and regulated by a different Federal Agency; the National Mediation Board. Under these rules, airlines must win express clearances from the Federal Government before they can strike. However, the case has the potential to impact air and rail workers granted authorization to conduct work actions. The upcoming Supreme Court decision could impact all unions, not just those falling under the NLRA.

The case, Glacier Northwest Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 174, involves a strike action by concrete-mixer truck drivers working for Glacier Northwest in Washington State. The truck drivers asked for better health care options for recent retirees and cost-of-living increases in pay. When Company management refused, the drivers voted to go on strike. 

The strike began after the management ordered many drivers to load their mixers with concrete, which must be delivered to customers the same day. If it is not used in time, the concrete will harden and have to be dumped. Hardening concrete can also damage mixing trucks, although no such damage occurred. The strike began after many drivers filled their mixing trucks or left on deliveries, which meant someone else needed to deliver concrete and rinse the trucks. Since managers had failed to staff adequately, some deliveries had to be called off, and some of the concrete had to be thrown out.

Glacier sued the union in state court, claiming the drivers had “vandalized” company property and sabotaged the operation by not completing their deliveries and rinsing their trucks before going on strike. The complaint alleged that the union engaged in trespassing, interfering with company contracts, and civil conspiracy.

The union argued that the legal strike was protected under the NLRA, and the company could have chosen to find temporary drivers. Moreover, the drivers said that the matter had to be resolved by the National Labor Relations Board, not in state court, since it was a labor dispute.

Additionally, the union pointed out that the trucks were returned to the worksite and left running – precisely to prevent the concrete from hardening. Glacier made the deliberate choice to dump the concrete after refusing to staff the operation in anticipation of a possible strike. This was not a decision made by the truck drivers, and they had no power to force the company to take any set of actions after the strike was called.

In December, the Washington State Supreme Court agreed with the truck drivers and found the lost concrete was incidental to the strike action and that the NLRB is better suited to determine if the drivers did anything unlawful. 

In response to complaints that the strike had inspired Company to destroy undelivered concrete. However, as the Washington Supreme Court noted, the fact that protected union job actions can, “bring ‘inconvenience and economic loss’ does not render it unprotected.”

Glacier then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, asking Justices to overturn the state ruling in favor of the union. In that filing, the company argues that the NLRA should no longer be allowed to pre-empt state tort courts in cases when unions are accused of “intentionally destroying an employer’s property.”

If the Supreme Court ultimately rules against the union, the decision would expose organized workplaces to many new legal threats and draining, pointless litigation. Principally, unions will face the genuine danger of expensive company-funded litigation becoming routine, even if the cases are eventually thrown out. Such a ruling would hand employers the power to baselessly accuse their unionized workers of criminal acts that must be decided in state courts rather than by the Federal Agencies tasked with arbitrating labor disputes.

In 2018, the Supreme Court handed down the infamous Janus v. AFSCME decision, hoping to bankrupt public-sector unions by forcing them to provide union work, marketable skills, and property to anti-union actors on demand. Janus also forces public workers to pay for political and anti-union speech and acts they oppose. Anti-union forces hoped masses of union members, given a chance to collect union wages, work rules, and benefits without helping pay for any of it would seize the opportunity, thus bankrupting organized labor. 

That effort failed. In part because anti-union forces thought unions were as unpopular as they say they are, unaware that more than 70% of American workers support unionism. The Glacier v. Teamsters decision can potentially give a powerful new weapon to billion and trillion-dollar corporations to sue unions out of existence. And this time, unlike under Janus, the High Court might not limit that weapon to certain types of unions under specific Federal regulators. And, this time, it won’t depend on proud union members betraying their coworkers.

Related News