Child Labor LawsChild Labor LawsThe following quote shows how the United States Government recognized child labor in the late 1900’s, “There is work that profits children, and there is work that brings profit only to employers. The object of employing children is not to train them, but to get high profits from their work.” (Hines, 1908) The belief is the Industrial Revolution attributes to the manipulation of child labor. This period in history altered the way people especially children existed and worked. During this period of time over two million children worked. The children worked to help support their families. Children started to work as early as five years of age. During this era children were normally uneducated unless they came from families of wealth. The children were exposed to deplorable, unsafe and unhealthy conditions. A normal work week would consist of approximately 70 hours and the wages earned would amount to pennies. Many of the children who were employed in factories and in the mines developed a variety of serious health conditions, such as bronchitis and tuberculosis. Those children working in mines developed serious back problems that led to paralysis. A huge number of children died as a result of working in horrible conditions. (McCarthy, 2004)
In 1904 a group called the reformers or The National Child Labor Committee (NCLC), established a movement to protest child labor conditions. These reformers agenda was to change the welfare of the child and put an end to child labor. Lewis Hine the spokesman for the NCLC, traveled to many states to get proof of the conditions that plagued many children who were working at that time. His proof brought about changes in many states limiting the age at which a child could work. At this point in time The Supreme Court would not take a stance on the issue. (McCarthy, 2004)
In 1916, The Supreme Court finally got involved with the child labor issue. Also in this year Congress passed the first child labor bill, The Keating-Owen Act. The Keating-Owen Act prohibited the sale of any item produced by businesses in the canning, factory or mining industries employing children. The act also aided in the regulation of how many hours a child could work. Two years later The Supreme Court declared the Keating-Owen Act unconstitutional, on the legal grounds that Congress abused their congressional power to regulate interstate trade. (McCarthy, 2004)
On April 15, 1918 Roland Dagenhart, the next case regarding child labor was argued in North Carolina in the United States District Court. Mr. Dagenhart the father of two sons working in a cotton mill felt Congress violated his son’s freedom to work. The response to the claim from the U.S. District Court on June 3, 1918, stated Dagenhart’s bill was unconstitutional and directly violated child labor laws that dealt trade from state to state as did the Keating-Owen Act. As a result of the Court’s response attorney W.C. Hammer filed an appeal with the Supreme Court asking for assistance. The Supreme Court had to decide whether or not Congress stepped outside their boundaries and misconstrued the interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The high court saw this as unconstitutional and Congress did over step their boundaries.
The lawsuit in Dagenhartvist-Ova Center and the next case against the Wisconsin Department of Labor were filed in North Carolina on the same day that Dagenhart was charged. In October of the same year there was a third lawsuit brought by the American Red Cross against Wisconsin over the failure to pay Wisconsin children. This was in response to the fact that U.S. Federal Register Laws state that children are inadmissible when they are 17 years of age or older when a statute specifically provides for the employment of children under 17. Since then the lawsuit in Wisconsin and Dagenhartvist-Ova Center have filed dozens of cases with this type of legislation and the American Red Cross has raised more money than there are in all of the lawsuits. The lawsuit in North Carolina is a case in federal court against the state of North Carolina, who have recently enacted their own bill banning state school districts from using, and allowing state government employees to discriminate in hiring. The two states joined forces, but the law still applies to government agencies.
The lawsuit in North Carolina was filed by three women of color under the name Emma Brown. The law, Section 14, provides that a child “whose birth certificate is taken as a result of paternity fraud… shall not be treated as a dependent of any employee of any school district in the state in which such child, or any child, is of natural or adoptive status or of any person other than his adoptive father, mother … or guardian, and to whom such child is in custody without due process of law, or who is, under the age of 18 years, subject to a civil action for violation of Title 18 of the Federal Constitution, an adult legal representative of a State having jurisdiction over a child under the age of eighteen years, who has been convicted of an offense which he had been adjudicated guilty of or who has been found guilty of for the purposes of Section 6(2) or 12(2B) of Title 18 of the Federal Constitution” (Act of 1961, 59 Stat. 2548 (58 U.S.C. 5121); Pub. L. 114–202, title X, §922(a)(6)(A) (1972), 91 Stat. 1410). The women of color had been living in North Carolina while living in Washington state and had been working as cleaners. Her husband was on the police force and was on the prison’s social worker force and was a member of the armed forces. They had worked in their own neighborhood before moving to the county to work as a maid. Emma and her husband were employed in construction and they knew them both from work that they did on Sundays in the North Carolina Red Cross. They were working full-time with families in the local Walmart and working in Walmart construction. They knew each other from their work in the laundry and in the fast food factories that they owned. After their divorce the couple worked with each other for four years in the construction business. They both had paid taxes for their families back in their own states. They both worked full time and they were paid tax regardless of where their paycheck went.
As an example of the need
Later in 1918 another bill was introduced on of children. This bill also attempted to regulate child labor by imposing a 10% tax to businesses employing children under the age of 16. This bill was also declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. When the stock market crashed in the 1920’s many adults lost their jobs but the children continued to work. In 1933 under The New Deal Era, The National Recovery Act was passed. This act was also deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because the act outlawed all child labor. Also in the same year Congress made another attempt with the National Industrial Recovery Act to pass a law regarding child labor. (McCarthy, 2004) The purpose of this act was to set age requirements and working conditions. Again the Supreme Court ruled this act unconstitutional. In 1938, The United States government finally recognized the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) also known as the Federal Wage and Hour Law. FLSA makes it mandatory for employers to pay children minimum wage and gives children a maximum amount of hour that can be worked. This act also sets age limits and what jobs children are able to work. In the case U.S. v. Darby, the FLSA was upheld and reversed the case Hammer v. Dagenhart this happened in 1941.
Today, The Department of Labor oversees child labor and enforces the labor of children. In the current work environment, the FLSA has provisions