12 Year-olds Join labour force in Alberta

August1991 · July 2, 2005

My issue with kids working too early is that they displace adult workers. Look, most youths (anyone under 30) who are not in school would like to have some permanent arrangement.

At the risk of repeating myself, that is evidence of zero-sum thinking: RB, you imply that the number of jobs is fixed. That's not the case.

There's a very simple idealogical reason for this move. If you expand the size of the labour market, you don't have to increase wages. Low wages means lower costs means higher profits.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BD's argument is even more specious: kids will drive down wages making the fat cats richer and ordinary people poorer. It's the same (false) argument used against free trade.

Imagine for a second if there was a law that forbid all blue-eyed people from working. Would that make Canada richer or poorer? A law that forbids any group of people from working will not make us richer.

From a health and safety perspective this is crazy.
a) the kids will have little to no knowledge of their rights as a worker

sure as hell don't want a 12 year old flippin my burgers... Ecoli anyone?

Would a restaurant be successful for long if it served unedible food? The rights issue is a fair one. See below.

I don't support this. Kids at that age should be playing not worrying about being treated like crap by their boss, and don't tell me that the service industry doesn't treat workers like crap. They have the rest of their life to worry about work.

LfL, you are entitled to your opinion. But many parents insist that kids wash dishes at home and a constant refrain, it seems, is "Clean up your room". Is doing work around the house any different from paid employment?

IOW, I think this should be left up to parents and kids to decide - and it is up to parents to ensure their kids' rights are protected. Since some parents are complete idiots, I can see the sense of forbidding, for example, work during school hours. At the same time though, I suspect that if a kid has irresponsible parents, a part-time job might be a good substitute - better than our school system.

cybercoma · July 2, 2005

Left for life, this is my larger point. It is not yours or my decision. This is a decision that should be left to parents. If the parents are deficient maybe the kid is better off working. We don’t need to regulate all the decisions people make. We all should not eat junk food but I hope you are not looking at the government to regulate the type of foods restaurants can provide. Liberty?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just like parents in those countries that force their children to work in sweatshops for pennies a day. It's bad enough that students as it is are paid a lower minimum wage than the actual workforce, now we're going to start making them work younger? Under the table type jobs as mowing your neighbours lawn or delivering flyers etc is a complete different story than opening up th workforce to them.

I'm glad someone already brought up the health and safety aspect of this whole thing because that's where these kids are going to suffer most. As a 12 year old, how do you tell your 42 year old boss that you're invoking your right to have a work stoppage because you feel the environment is not safe? As the 42 year old boss, how do you take a 12 year old telling you they're not going to work because they think it's unsafe?

Bad news all around.

I'm all for kids making a living and working, but 12 years old is a bit young. Where do you draw the line?

July 2, 2005

Would a restaurant be successful for long if it served unedible food?

You must be accuatomed to fine dining. We plebes who must eat where we can afford to often are served food that would be inedible if we knew what it was or how prepared.

BD's argument is even more specious: kids will drive down wages making the fat cats richer and ordinary people poorer. It's the same (false) argument used against free trade.

BD's argument is accurate. It has happened with "Free Trade." It has happened in many service industries where youth is employed.

LfL, you are entitled to your opinion. But many parents insist that kids wash dishes at home and a constant refrain, it seems, is "Clean up your room". Is doing work around the house any different from paid employment?

There is a huge difference and I suspect that you don't really need to discuss that. For one, the home chores are not an interference with education.

August1991 · July 2, 2005

You must be accuatomed to fine dining. We plebes who must eat where we can afford to often are served food that would be inedible if we knew what it was or how prepared.

eureka, if the food is inedible, then don't eat it. Go to a grocery store, buy fresh food and prepare the meal yourself. That's cheaper too.

BD's argument is accurate. It has happened with "Free Trade." It has happened in many service industries where youth is employed.

And I suppose you believe too that self-serve gas stations, for example, impoverish workers by forcing them to compete against machines.

There is a huge difference and I suspect that you don't really need to discuss that. For one, the home chores are not an interference with education.

What is the difference between cutting my parents' lawn for an allowance and cutting my neighbour's lawn for a couple of bucks? (At McDonald's, a kid would have to contribute to CPP, EI and so on.)

takeanumber · July 2, 2005

Alberta labour laws are attrocious.

Alberta has the highest rate of death and injury with respect to occupational health and safety in North America.

Childhood is already short enough...we shouldn't be exposing children at such a young age to such dangerous environments.

I don't trust most employers to make their environments safe for 22yo's, little though 12yo's...and I'd like to trust the good judgement of parents, but seeing how many children are taken away from their abusive parents in this province each year...I dunno.

I'd feel better about it with better labour laws -- and then leave it up to responsible parents if they want their kids working 'proper' jobs at 12.

CrazyCanuck · July 2, 2005

Alberta labour laws are attrocious.

Alberta has the highest rate of death and injury with respect to occupational health and safety in North America.

Show some statistics to backup your claim, but i'll accept it for argument's sake. How many of those injuries and deaths are because of worker negligence? I would guess almost all of them.

Employees, no matter where they work, are responsible for themselves and the people around them. Don't blame the ignorance of the construction worker who CHOSE not to wear his hard-hat and got hit in the head on the Government and their attrocious labour laws. In my own experience, everyone i've worked with who got injured was at fault, either by ignorance or neglect. Its sad that people have yet to learn that the problems one has are almost entirely of their own creation.

kimmy · July 3, 2005

Alberta has the most active construction industry in North America right now. Alberta has the drilling, plus all the machinists and welders and manufacturers and heavy labourers required to support the drilling. Alberta has a major forestry industry, and the sawmills to go with it. And we still have the farming and farming-equipment injuries. I have no trouble believing that many Albertans are indeed hurt on the job, and I wouldn't be surprised if we lead North America in that department right now. Just look at the types of industry that are booming here, and then factor in the explosive growth in these industries, which is creating a situation where there are a huge number of opportunities for inexperienced workers.

I am quite certain that if one compiled statistics of where work-related injuries occur, you'll find that the huge majority of them happen in the industries I listed above... exactly the industries you'd expect for people to be hurt. (Clerical staff needing treatment for repeated stress injuries, ie carpal tunnel syndrome, are the other major job-related injury you'll probably find...)

But we're not talking about recruiting 12 year olds to work on construction sites or drilling rigs. We're talking about cleaning tables and working the counter at restaurants. I just can't bring myself to believe that a McDonald's in Alberta is much different (or more dangerous) than a McDonald's in BC or Ontario. I don't believe they're a notable source of jobsite injuries.

-k

cybercoma · July 3, 2005

Alberta has the most active construction industry in North America right now. Alberta has the drilling, plus all the machinists and welders and manufacturers and heavy labourers required to support the drilling. Alberta has a major forestry industry, and the sawmills to go with it. And we still have the farming and farming-equipment injuries. I have no trouble believing that many Albertans are indeed hurt on the job, and I wouldn't be surprised if we lead North America in that department right now. Just look at the types of industry that are booming here, and then factor in the explosive growth in these industries, which is creating a situation where there are a huge number of opportunities for inexperienced workers.
I am quite certain that if one compiled statistics of where work-related injuries occur, you'll find that the huge majority of them happen in the industries I listed above... exactly the industries you'd expect for people to be hurt. (Clerical staff needing treatment for repeated stress injuries, ie carpal tunnel syndrome, are the other major job-related injury you'll probably find...)

But we're not talking about recruiting 12 year olds to work on construction sites or drilling rigs. We're talking about cleaning tables and working the counter at restaurants. I just can't bring myself to believe that a McDonald's in Alberta is much different (or more dangerous) than a McDonald's in BC or Ontario. I don't believe they're a notable source of jobsite injuries.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm a chairperson on a joint health and safety committee, certified through WSIB and I can assure you that injuries occur in restaurants as well. The most injured in ANY environment are young inexperienced employees who aren't aware of their rights.

CrazyCanuck · July 3, 2005

I'm a chairperson on a joint health and safety committee, certified through WSIB and I can assure you that injuries occur in restaurants as well. The most injured in ANY environment are young inexperienced employees who aren't aware of their rights.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It sounds like you're implying that knowledge of rights will protect workers. I agree with the "young, unexperienced" part but i don't think the injuries are a result of the ignorance of their rights as workers. Would knowing his rights prevent Timmy from standing under the lift of scaffolding that fell from the crane and crushed him? No, knowing how the job-site works would prevent that from happening.

Anyways, are people really opposed to the removal of the red-tape because of its effect on the young people, or is the real issue because the decision was made by the "right-wing nuts" in Alberta? It's not like 12 and 13 year olds weren't allowed to work before this, they just don't need the governments permission to do so anymore. Also, how many of those previous requests for permission to hire these kids were denied by the government anyways?

cybercoma · July 3, 2005

I'm a chairperson on a joint health and safety committee, certified through WSIB and I can assure you that injuries occur in restaurants as well. The most injured in ANY environment are young inexperienced employees who aren't aware of their rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It sounds like you're implying that knowledge of rights will protect workers. I agree with the "young, unexperienced" part but i don't think the injuries are a result of the ignorance of their rights as workers. Would knowing his rights prevent Timmy from standing under the lift of scaffolding that fell from the crane and crushed him? No, knowing how the job-site works would prevent that from happening.

Anyways, are people really opposed to the removal of the red-tape because of its effect on the young people, or is the real issue because the decision was made by the "right-wing nuts" in Alberta? It's not like 12 and 13 year olds weren't allowed to work before this, they just don't need the governments permission to do so anymore. Also, how many of those previous requests for permission to hire these kids were denied by the government anyways?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Knowing that they can refuse to do things that are unsafe or puts them at risk of being killed or paralysed can save lives. Do you want me to link you to testimonies from injured workers or the families of ones that have been killed?

CrazyCanuck · July 3, 2005

Knowing that they can refuse to do things that are unsafe or puts them at risk of being killed or paralysed can save lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everywhere i've worked, everyone knew that we can, in theory, refuse to do things. In reality, however, nobody listens to that rule. The boss can fire you if you refuse to do things that he/she asks by simply saying he didn't like the way you worked. Worker's rights don't protect them to the degree the people who made them hoped for. Besides, if you looked at the stipulations behind the 12yr olds being allowed to work, you will see that it is totally reasonable, and i don't think we will see any increase in injuries and deaths as a result of the decision.

Lastly, they were already working before so whats the big deal? Similar to the common pro-SSM argument that "nobody is forcing anyone to do anything and if you're not gay, it won't affect you.", as far as this ruling goes, "nobody is forcing 12 year olds to work and if you aren't planning on working, or allowing your 12 year old to work, it won't affect you."

Black Dog · July 4, 2005

BD's argument is even more specious: kids will drive down wages making the fat cats richer and ordinary people poorer. It's the same (false) argument used against free trade.

Just out of curiosity what has happened to wages since free trade?

Oh yeah: they've stagnated. A recent (2005) TD Economics publication reported that real after-tax income per Canadian worker had risen only 3.6 per cent over the last fifteen years, while per capita GDP experienced a 25.5 per cent growth over the same period. Similarly, a recent Statistics Canada research paper found that real “median wages of Canadian workers have changed little over the last two decades… …despite the growing experience and educational attainment of the work force."

August1991 · July 4, 2005

Your stats, BD, refer to "real after-tax income". Firstly, the "after-tax" idea. Government has consumed a large chunk of the growth in GDP over the past fifteen years. As a society, we chose to create a gun registry for example. Second, I suspect "income" refers to "wages" excluding other sources of income such as pensions, transfers, savings, profits, self-employed earnings.

All studies that I have seen show that Canada is better off because of the free trade agreement. (It might be more suggestive to say that as cell phones have improved the lives of Canadians, so too free trade.)

Black Dog · July 4, 2005

Your stats, BD, refer to "real after-tax income". Firstly, the "after-tax" idea. Government has consumed a large chunk of the growth in GDP over the past fifteen years. As a society, we chose to create a gun registry for example. Second, I suspect "income" refers to "wages" excluding other sources of income such as pensions, transfers, savings, profits, self-employed earnings.

Great. But not really relevant to the question of wages, which was my initial point (y'know, the one you called "specious").

All studies that I have seen show that Canada is better off because of the free trade agreement. (It might be more suggestive to say that as cell phones have improved the lives of Canadians, so too free trade.)

Super! But this isn't a discussion of free trade, but of labour.

July 4, 2005

I doubt that it true that government has "consumed a large proportion of the growth in GDP in the last fifteen years." The last fifteen years has brought several tax and spending reductions.

As for Canada being better off due to the Free Trade agreements, refer to the link I posted on Globalization to show the slower growth in Canada and most of the world since the Globalization era began. Free Trade is another name for Globalization in part.

It does impact on labour's share of the pie since it is Free Trade and Globalization that has allowed labour costs to be forced down.

Argus · July 4, 2005

That is just sad. If you don't agree with me fine but because I spend most of my day working and spend little time researching and editing my posts is no reason to assume my education level. I know when my posts are poorly written, do you know when you are being an arse.

My post has nothing to do with the quality of your post nor anyone elses. What it does have to do with is the seething hostility toward, and outright rejection of, education and formal study that many, if not most, right wingers on this forum endorse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Twaddle. <_<

Argus · July 4, 2005

Childhood is already short enough...we shouldn't be exposing children at such a young age to such dangerous environments.

How long should childhood last? It used to last about 6 years, then it was down to work for the rest of your life. Now it lasts about 20-25 years.

Most 12 year olds who work will be working in the family business. Count on it. Some protective laws are just stupid. I recall a story some months ago about a guy who was building himself a house, and brought his son (approx 14) sometimes during summer vacation to help out, and to learn something about how houses are built. He got fined for having an underage person on a construction site and was ordered never again to let the boy on the job site or the fine would be tripled. That kind of thing is just stupid. There are things older kids can learn which aren't on internet porn sites. Most of these kids, as was said earlier, wouldn't be studying anyway, but killing time.

Melanie_ · July 4, 2005

Good question, Argus. North American society has extended childhood and adolescence well beyond the age most people are considered adults in other cultures. But, having done so, we live with the resulting expectation that 12 year olds are not included in the workforce.

Many 12 year olds are eager to take on some level of responsibility, and to start earning a bit of spending money. I find it amazing that we seem to accept 12 year old babysitters being solely responsible for the care and safety of younger children, but we have a hard time picturing them in a supervised workplace with health and safety regulations in place.

July 4, 2005

I read today that the minimum age in the Ivory Coast is 14. Now we find it useful to engage in a form of slave labour that even third world countries are trying to stop.

Melanie_ · July 4, 2005

I don't think we are talking about slave labour; at least I am not. I don't think we are suddenly going to see the social conditions of the Ivory Coast spring up in Canada, resulting in massive numbers of children dropping out of school to work in substandard conditions to provide for the basic neccessities of life, not the extra money to buy the latest Black Eyed Peas CD. Kids have always had part time jobs in the unregulated sector (babysitting, shoveling snow, mowing the lawn, delivering flyers), but we seem to get hung up on having them in the regulated sector. My only concern would be that their employers need to have a lot of patience for on the job training.

kimmy · July 4, 2005

Just wanted to add... when people are saying "kids should be out playing!" ... well, I'm not so sure. Kids are fatter and lazier than ever before. They get out less and spend more time in front of their TVs, video-games, and computers than ever before. Working a few hours a week will at least ensure that some of these kids get out of the house, interact with real humans outside their own family, and get a little physical exercise.

-k

Argus · July 5, 2005

I read today that the minimum age in the Ivory Coast is 14. Now we find it useful to engage in a form of slave labour that even third world countries are trying to stop.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Slavery? Gee, why not wildly exagerate things?

Maybe one of the reasons so many young people in their late teens and early twenties have so little sense of responsibility is because they were never expected to be responsible earlier on? I fail to see how spending a couple of hours busing tables, or doing gopher work almost certainly under the close supervision of family members of friends of the family is going to be worse than spending those hours playing Grand Theft Auto in their room.

crazymf · July 5, 2005

I think the real reason that very young people are encouraged to work is that there is a demand. You know 'supply-demand'. They are filling low paying jobs that older kids or adults won't do. Or the job would be merely vacant for lack of people to do it.

In a country that promotes higher education such as Canada, I believe as more and more people move up the ladder technically, that leaves a void of unqualified personnel. Unlike the USA, we don't have Mexico to fill the entry level jobs and form a lower class in our 'classless' society.

Agree with it? I'm not sure.

theloniusfleabag · July 5, 2005

Dear kimmy,

Working a few hours a week will at least ensure that some of these kids get out of the house, interact with real humans outside their own family, and get a little physical exercise.

Amen to that.

Argus,

How long should childhood last? It used to last about 6 years, then it was down to work for the rest of your life. Now it lasts about 20-25 years.
Most 12 year olds who work will be working in the family business.

Well said, and too true. I remember when, as a youth, (god I hate saying that) a lot of my friends worked in 'the family store', or on the farm, and most did better at school than a lot of other kids. At 12 years old, I knew some kids, both male and female, that had driven combines and dump-trucks.

That being said, however, I don't think 12 yr. olds should be incorporated into the full labour force as t-4'd employees though.

As an aside, would the unemployment levels rise if everyone down to the age of 12 were included in the stats? (most wouldn't work, so the vast majority would be 'unemployed') Would they be able to collect EI and worker's comp?

theloniusfleabag · July 10, 2005

Dear all,

Had my first experience with an'young labourer' today. My wife and I went to for fish&chips at a large Canadian chain (which shall remain nameless, but It isn't too hard to figure out...but the fact that it is a chain, albeit a franchised one, is quite relevant) that specializes in fish. We sat down, my wife ordered a glass of milk, and I ordered a pint of beer. The waitress said, a bit redfaced, "Um, I'm too young to serve you that, but I'll have the cook bring it out to you". (We found out, by overhearing a conversation with her and some friends she had there, that she was 13.) Not a big problem, but it got me thinking.

Now, some may call me 'biased', but I would prefer the term 'old-fashioned', but I don't think she should have been a server at that age. Her make-up suggested older(My wife commented that all she saw was make-up and teeth), and to have her serve a table of, say, guys that just came from Hooters or the peelers, and stopped in for a snack and some beers, is just asking for trouble. I worked in the service industry, (and did all the jobs, from cook, waiter, bartender, to eventually being kitchen manager and then 'facility manager' when the owner was away) The service industry, especially when booze is involved, is no place for an impressionable pre-teen. Waitresses suffer sexual abuse (inappropriate touching, commments that are both sexually and intellectually derogatory, attempts to 'pick them up' etc, although often fairly mild stuff) all the time.

Now, I was unhappy with the overall service (even though they were mostly minor things that annoyed us), but my wife and I thought "We can't really blame her, she can't possibly know some of the stuff and their ramifications that she did wrong". However, my wife and I only half-joked that we probably wouldn't go back to that particular location again.

I realize that this is just my opinion, but I think pre-teens should not be in this particular job, and I don't think the majority of 12-14 yr olds have the maturity to face the same challenges as the same number of 30-50 yr olds. I also wonder, if others feel the same as me, that having one franchise choose a certain course of action, could bear negatively on another location with a different philosophy, or would they all be required to 'fill quotas', even though it may hurt business?