There is a recent move by Republicans to try to cut back on child labor protections. In Missouri, a Republican-sponsored bill proposes to eliminate the prohibition on employing children under 14, to eliminate restrictions on numbers of hours a child may work, to eliminate requirements for a work certificate or permit, and to eliminate the presumption that the presence of a child at a workplace is evidence of employment. In Maine and other states, Republicans have mounted related attacks on child labor laws, proposing to change the minimum wage for children and to eliminate limits on the number of hours children can work during school days.
And, of course, a couple months ago, the Wisconsin legislature passed a law eliminating collective bargaining rights for government employees. (That law was recently struck down on procedural grounds, but there is still a chance they could repair the procedural problem and try again.)
Where is all this leading? The Republicans seem to say “give us control and we’ll return the jobs.” Maybe. But so far the only structural suggestion they have is to reduce taxes on those who already have a huge amount of the wealth.
They say the words, but sometimes I wonder if we’re speaking the same language. If you’ve seen the Twilight Zone episode “To Serve Man,” you’ll know what I’m talking about when I say we should make sure we’re clear on our terminology.
Increasingly, I’m thinking the Republican plan is like this: We take our orders from Big Business, which has been offshoring jobs aplenty because they regard that it’s just too damned expensive to employ US workers and to try to achieve US standards of product and environmental quality. So when the US has pay like the third world and product and environmental standards like the third world, then they’ll start hiring here again and declare success because “the jobs have returned.”
But are they even the jobs we’re talking about?
It seems like a race to the bottom.
As recently as this weekend, I endured watching a painful interview with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) on one of the Sunday talk shows. In it he alluded to how he’d been talking to Vice President Biden about restoring jobs. Already I’m dubious that Biden was making the concessions Cantor attributed to him, but even if what he said was true, that they did talk about such things, are we all talking about the same things? Which jobs are coming back? How exactly?
Yes, I hear occasional talk of numbers of jobs returned. But it’s just not true that a job is a job is a job. Don’t get me wrong, numbers are important. But so are other things.
The quality of those jobs matters, too, so when I see the Republicans talking about the need to cut education while at the same time talking about how we’ll need to make it easier to employ the uneducated in ways that don’t conform to existing labor standards, I have to wonder just what exactly this plan of theirs to restore jobs looks like.
They seem to be short on details. apparently wanting to leave it to the market to decide. If the market were going to be offering back anything with good pay and good working conditions, why would there be this all-out assault on worker protections?
Something doesn’t smell right in what the Republicans are cooking up.
1306791142.gif)
The photo used here is a cropped version of a photo that is in the public domain. It was obtained from Wikipedia. The photo is one of many by master photographer Lewis Hine (1874-1940), who wanted to document the living and working conditions of his time. One would like to believe those times are past. Seeing recent Republican plans for the future, one might not be so sure. Hopefully through the power of the photograph, we can collectively remember where we were, so that we can keep from going back. To quote Hine, “Photography can light-up darkness and expose ignorance.”
If you got value from this post, please "rate" it.


Salon.com
Comments
Why would anyone want to bring back child labor? "To get government off our backs," that's why. The cutting edge of the right seems to extend in all directions, like an expanding circle. Another astonishing example is that of the movement to declare that human personhood in a legal sense begins with fertilization. There is no end to it, is there? It's a Disneyland of bad ideas out there right now as people who have lost their material footing strive for some new sense of personal control beyond consensual norms, forward into the past.
The Democrats are collecting their brib.. er I mean campaign contribut… no their bribes, from the same corporations. They can’t be counted on to stop this only do a little job pretending.
Zachery, yes, something in what you said made me focus on the issue that there are many ways to make money. Somehow the emphasis in the US has become the short-term over the long-term. Rather than actually invest, these accounting tricks are intended to show profit where really there has been none. This is not an investment in society and the world is not enriched by it. A few individuals are enriched, and improperly. That's not the same thing.
Klingaman is right, these are libertarian influences operating as a sort of under-the-radar subtext. Reagan was a "fusionist." A true conservative wouldn't take on extreme libertarian beliefs. I could dig deeper into this, but those laisez faire, no gub'mint beliefs are libertarian.
The casual observer would see this is true in the example of the Walker prank phone call. He thinks he's talking to David Koch, billionaire ideologue and Libertarian VP candidate in 1980 (in the platform - eliminating minimum wage laws). Walker describes what he's doing as advancing "liberty," as sure a confession of Right-Libertarian (LP Party) beliefs as any.
This "fusionism" is a matter of convenience, as one cannot be a conservative and a libertarian, a fact that generally confuses people who think they're conservative-libertarians more than it does libertarians. In the end, it's what serves wealth that matters, so the differences and supposed "ideas" are nothing more than a cosmetic cover for a bi-sectual circle jerk. These are enthusiastic serfs with patriotic delusions.
Letting the market decide wages and working conditions in every case isn't "American" in the least. It's libertarian anarcho-capitalist servitude - one dollar, one vote. It's capitalism-as-political-system with an Oliver Twist.
If only the Dem Party wasn't so cooperative....
In fact, they've already achieved that goal in many areas. Witness the huge increase in the number of unpaid interns, largely drawn from the ranks of college students forced to give away their labor because they can't find anything but minimum-wage/no-benefits/no future jobs.
There is an enormous amount of research going on to help those in the corporations understand how to manipulate the public; this includes advertising useless products and studying complacency so they can increase planned obselecence. As well as other ways to reduce consumer and worker rights.
Paul, your discussion of fusion and of the conflict in being conservative-libertarian is something I have not looked at extensively, or perhaps not in those terms. I'll have to ponder that a while. What exactly are you seeing as the central points of conflict between the two systems? (I've generally thought one to be closer to a subset of the other, but it sounds like you're saying something different. Or the same but with a different emphasis.) Anyway, thanks for the thoughts. And I agree with you about the Dems being overly cooperative—particularly Obama, who is really more centrist. (IMO, we now know what he meant by purple: not just engaging red and blue but apparently seeking policies at the midpoint between red and blue, which sadly can be dragged rightward by the right taking more extreme positions and Obama rushing to meet them halfway...)
Zachery, indeed—most pronounced in the insurance industry where surely there is paid research in the area of how to profit by denying coverage.
if they disapprove, why don't they block them with referendums?
if they don't have referendum power, do you understand that the intent of the constitution was to disenfranchise the people from the management of the nation?
if the american voter is willing to endure this situation, they deserve the results.
Simply explained, American conservatism is/was within liberalism, the philosophy of the D of Ind and Constitution. Libertarianism is entirely separate of liberalism, with a different foundational description of liberty and an extreme leftist idea of no government in a voluntary society.
One cannot believe in the institutions of governance while believing there should be very little to no institutions of governance.
Imagine (because you would have to) a Tea Peep rally where speakers advocate for gay marriage to get a firmer idea of the differences.
Mital, I'm glad you found the piece to your liking. Thanks for visiting!
Mishima, remember they're just counting numbers, not learning faces, so these “subtle distinctions” you make are really not part of the equation. :(
And if it passed, we could paralyze the system and force a new convention.