is homework considered child labor

Homework – Top 3 Pros and Cons

Pro/Con Arguments | Discussion Questions | Take Action | Sources | More Debates

From dioramas to book reports, from algebraic word problems to research projects, whether students should be given homework, as well as the type and amount of homework, has been debated for over a century. [ 1 ]

While we are unsure who invented homework, we do know that the word “homework” dates back to ancient Rome. Pliny the Younger asked his followers to practice their speeches at home. Memorization exercises as homework continued through the Middle Ages and Enlightenment by monks and other scholars. [ 45 ]

In the 19th century, German students of the Volksschulen or “People’s Schools” were given assignments to complete outside of the school day. This concept of homework quickly spread across Europe and was brought to the United States by Horace Mann , who encountered the idea in Prussia. [ 45 ]

In the early 1900s, progressive education theorists, championed by the magazine Ladies’ Home Journal , decried homework’s negative impact on children’s physical and mental health, leading California to ban homework for students under 15 from 1901 until 1917. In the 1930s, homework was portrayed as child labor, which was newly illegal, but the prevailing argument was that kids needed time to do household chores. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 45 ] [ 46 ]

Public opinion swayed again in favor of homework in the 1950s due to concerns about keeping up with the Soviet Union’s technological advances during the Cold War . And, in 1986, the US government included homework as an educational quality boosting tool. [ 3 ] [ 45 ]

A 2014 study found kindergarteners to fifth graders averaged 2.9 hours of homework per week, sixth to eighth graders 3.2 hours per teacher, and ninth to twelfth graders 3.5 hours per teacher. A 2014-2019 study found that teens spent about an hour a day on homework. [ 4 ] [ 44 ]

Beginning in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic complicated the very idea of homework as students were schooling remotely and many were doing all school work from home. Washington Post journalist Valerie Strauss asked, “Does homework work when kids are learning all day at home?” While students were mostly back in school buildings in fall 2021, the question remains of how effective homework is as an educational tool. [ 47 ]

Is Homework Beneficial?

Pro 1 Homework improves student achievement. Studies have shown that homework improved student achievement in terms of improved grades, test results, and the likelihood to attend college. Research published in the High School Journal indicated that students who spent between 31 and 90 minutes each day on homework “scored about 40 points higher on the SAT-Mathematics subtest than their peers, who reported spending no time on homework each day, on average.” [ 6 ] Students in classes that were assigned homework outperformed 69% of students who didn’t have homework on both standardized tests and grades. A majority of studies on homework’s impact – 64% in one meta-study and 72% in another – showed that take-home assignments were effective at improving academic achievement. [ 7 ] [ 8 ] Research by the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) concluded that increased homework led to better GPAs and higher probability of college attendance for high school boys. In fact, boys who attended college did more than three hours of additional homework per week in high school. [ 10 ] Read More

Pro 2 Homework helps to reinforce classroom learning, while developing good study habits and life skills. Students typically retain only 50% of the information teachers provide in class, and they need to apply that information in order to truly learn it. Abby Freireich and Brian Platzer, co-founders of Teachers Who Tutor NYC, explained, “at-home assignments help students learn the material taught in class. Students require independent practice to internalize new concepts… [And] these assignments can provide valuable data for teachers about how well students understand the curriculum.” [ 11 ] [ 49 ] Elementary school students who were taught “strategies to organize and complete homework,” such as prioritizing homework activities, collecting study materials, note-taking, and following directions, showed increased grades and more positive comments on report cards. [ 17 ] Research by the City University of New York noted that “students who engage in self-regulatory processes while completing homework,” such as goal-setting, time management, and remaining focused, “are generally more motivated and are higher achievers than those who do not use these processes.” [ 18 ] Homework also helps students develop key skills that they’ll use throughout their lives: accountability, autonomy, discipline, time management, self-direction, critical thinking, and independent problem-solving. Freireich and Platzer noted that “homework helps students acquire the skills needed to plan, organize, and complete their work.” [ 12 ] [ 13 ] [ 14 ] [ 15 ] [ 49 ] Read More

Pro 3 Homework allows parents to be involved with children’s learning. Thanks to take-home assignments, parents are able to track what their children are learning at school as well as their academic strengths and weaknesses. [ 12 ] Data from a nationwide sample of elementary school students show that parental involvement in homework can improve class performance, especially among economically disadvantaged African-American and Hispanic students. [ 20 ] Research from Johns Hopkins University found that an interactive homework process known as TIPS (Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork) improves student achievement: “Students in the TIPS group earned significantly higher report card grades after 18 weeks (1 TIPS assignment per week) than did non-TIPS students.” [ 21 ] Homework can also help clue parents in to the existence of any learning disabilities their children may have, allowing them to get help and adjust learning strategies as needed. Duke University Professor Harris Cooper noted, “Two parents once told me they refused to believe their child had a learning disability until homework revealed it to them.” [ 12 ] Read More

Con 1 Too much homework can be harmful. A poll of California high school students found that 59% thought they had too much homework. 82% of respondents said that they were “often or always stressed by schoolwork.” High-achieving high school students said too much homework leads to sleep deprivation and other health problems such as headaches, exhaustion, weight loss, and stomach problems. [ 24 ] [ 28 ] [ 29 ] Alfie Kohn, an education and parenting expert, said, “Kids should have a chance to just be kids… it’s absurd to insist that children must be engaged in constructive activities right up until their heads hit the pillow.” [ 27 ] Emmy Kang, a mental health counselor, explained, “More than half of students say that homework is their primary source of stress, and we know what stress can do on our bodies.” [ 48 ] Excessive homework can also lead to cheating: 90% of middle school students and 67% of high school students admit to copying someone else’s homework, and 43% of college students engaged in “unauthorized collaboration” on out-of-class assignments. Even parents take shortcuts on homework: 43% of those surveyed admitted to having completed a child’s assignment for them. [ 30 ] [ 31 ] [ 32 ] Read More

Con 2 Homework exacerbates the digital divide or homework gap. Kiara Taylor, financial expert, defined the digital divide as “the gap between demographics and regions that have access to modern information and communications technology and those that don’t. Though the term now encompasses the technical and financial ability to utilize available technology—along with access (or a lack of access) to the Internet—the gap it refers to is constantly shifting with the development of technology.” For students, this is often called the homework gap. [ 50 ] [ 51 ] 30% (about 15 to 16 million) public school students either did not have an adequate internet connection or an appropriate device, or both, for distance learning. Completing homework for these students is more complicated (having to find a safe place with an internet connection, or borrowing a laptop, for example) or impossible. [ 51 ] A Hispanic Heritage Foundation study found that 96.5% of students across the country needed to use the internet for homework, and nearly half reported they were sometimes unable to complete their homework due to lack of access to the internet or a computer, which often resulted in lower grades. [ 37 ] [ 38 ] One study concluded that homework increases social inequality because it “potentially serves as a mechanism to further advantage those students who already experience some privilege in the school system while further disadvantaging those who may already be in a marginalized position.” [ 39 ] Read More

Con 3 Homework does not help younger students, and may not help high school students. We’ve known for a while that homework does not help elementary students. A 2006 study found that “homework had no association with achievement gains” when measured by standardized tests results or grades. [ 7 ] Fourth grade students who did no homework got roughly the same score on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math exam as those who did 30 minutes of homework a night. Students who did 45 minutes or more of homework a night actually did worse. [ 41 ] Temple University professor Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek said that homework is not the most effective tool for young learners to apply new information: “They’re learning way more important skills when they’re not doing their homework.” [ 42 ] In fact, homework may not be helpful at the high school level either. Alfie Kohn, author of The Homework Myth, stated, “I interviewed high school teachers who completely stopped giving homework and there was no downside, it was all upside.” He explains, “just because the same kids who get more homework do a little better on tests, doesn’t mean the homework made that happen.” [ 52 ] Read More

Discussion Questions

1. Is homework beneficial? Consider the study data, your personal experience, and other types of information. Explain your answer(s).

2. If homework were banned, what other educational strategies would help students learn classroom material? Explain your answer(s).

3. How has homework been helpful to you personally? How has homework been unhelpful to you personally? Make carefully considered lists for both sides.

Take Action

1. Examine an argument in favor of quality homework assignments from Janine Bempechat.

2. Explore Oxford Learning’s infographic on the effects of homework on students.

3. Consider Joseph Lathan’s argument that homework promotes inequality .

4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.

5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives .

More School Debate Topics

Should K-12 Students Dissect Animals in Science Classrooms? – Proponents say dissecting real animals is a better learning experience. Opponents say the practice is bad for the environment.

Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms? – Proponents say uniforms may increase student safety. Opponents say uniforms restrict expression.

Should Corporal Punishment Be Used in K-12 Schools? – Proponents say corporal punishment is an appropriate discipline. Opponents say it inflicts long-lasting physical and mental harm on students.

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

Cite This Page

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Child Labor Rules Advisor

Alert: The Wage and Hour Division is providing information on common issues employers and workers face when responding to COVID-19 , including the effects on wages and hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act and job-protected leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The FLSA Child Labor Rules Advisor is one of a series of elaws (Employment Laws Assistance for Workers and Small Businesses) Advisors developed by the U.S. Department of Labor to help employers and employees understand their rights and responsibilities under Federal employment laws. To view the entire list of elaws Advisors please visit the elaws website . To learn more about the Labor Department's efforts to promote and achieve compliance with labor standards in place to protect and enhance the welfare of the nation's workforce, visit the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) website .

Begin Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Child Labor Rules Advisor Now

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 200 Constitution Ave NW Washington, DC 20210 1-866-4-USA-DOL 1-866-487-2365 TTY www.dol.gov

ABOUT THE SITE

• Freedom of Information Act
• Privacy & Security Statement
• Disclaimers
• Important Website Notices
• Plug-ins Used by DOL
• Accessibility Statement

LABOR DEPARTMENT

• Español
• Office of Inspector General
• Subscribe to the DOL Newsletter
• Read the DOL Newsletter
• Emergency Accountability Status Link
• A to Z Index

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Homework Bound

By Michael Winerip

• Jan. 3, 1999

Heidi Lehman was always an academic achiever. She finished high school a year early, went through college in three and a half years and then earned a law degree. But nothing in those 18 1/2 years of formal education prepared the 36-year-old lawyer for her daughter Carly's first-grade homework.

''The teachers said it should take just 20 minutes,'' Ms. Lehman recalled. ''Right! These are little kids -- they get frustrated, they're tired, they're working hard all day in school. It'd stretch out for an hour, easy. We'd have tears, screaming, kicking the table. Then there'd be lots of hugs and kisses and I'd say, 'Don't do it, Carly. It's not worth it.' I never had homework myself in elementary school. Carly would scream, 'I have to do it, Mom!' ''

And if Carly didn't do it? Shame and scorn. The mother has saved Carly's first spelling test from first grade with the words unable to spell at this time written in large letters at the top by the teacher. First graders in Millburn, N.J., don't just have regular spelling lists for homework; they also get a challenge list and a superchallenge list.

''We're told only the boys and girls who want to do it should do it,'' Ms. Lehman said. ''Is that pressure or what?'' Among the first-grade superchallenge words: ''experiment,'' ''observation,'' ''measuring.''

''First grade!'' Ms. Lehman said. ''And there are kids who can do this. You say to yourself, 'Is that natural or not?' ''

Carly survived first grade, is now a third grader and has grown used to the homework life. One recent day, she came home from school at 3:05, hoisted her backpack onto the kitchen table and by 3:10 was doing her homework. ''You want a snack?'' her Mom asked. ''You want to watch a little TV first?''

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Child Labor in America: History, Policy, and Legislative Issues

February 9, 2005 – November 18, 2013 RL31501

The history of child labor in America is long and, in some cases, unsavory. It dates back to the founding of the United States. Historically, except for the privileged few, most children worked—either for their parents or for an outside employer. Through the years, however, child labor practices have changed. So have the benefits and risks associated with employment of children. In some respects, altered workplace technology has served to make work easier and less hazardous. At the same time, some processes and equipment have rendered the workplace more advanced and dangerous, especially for children and youth.

Child labor first became a federal legislative issue at least as far back as 1906 with the introduction of the Beveridge proposal for regulation of the types of work in which children might be engaged. Although the 1906 legislation was not adopted, it led to extended study of the conditions under which children were employed or allowed to work and to a series of legislative proposals—some approved, others defeated or overturned by the courts—culminating in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938. The latter statute, amended periodically, remains the primary federal law dealing with the employment of children.

Generally speaking, work by young persons (under 18 years of age) in mines and factories is not allowed. The types of nonfarm work that may be suitable (or especially hazardous) for persons under 18 years of age has been left mainly to the discretion of the Secretary of Labor. Some types of work—for example, some newspaper sales and delivery, theatrical (and related) employment—are exempt from the FLSA child labor requirements. Finally, a distinction has been made between employment in nonagricultural occupations and in agricultural occupations and, in the latter case, between work for a parent and commercial employment.

This report examines the historical issue of child labor in America and summarizes legislation that has been introduced from the 108th Congress to the 113th Congress.

Early Child Labor in America

Opposition to child labor begins to organize, the early federal role in child labor regulation, the child labor initiatives (1916-1924), early new deal enactments (1933-1937), the flsa and general child labor regulation (1938), child labor under the fair labor standards act, the basic pattern of coverage, hazardous occupations orders, enforcement, re-emergence of the child labor issue (1982-2000), the reagan-era initiatives, controversies and changes of law, the "bat boy" issue, paper balers and compactors, work-related operation of motor vehicles, child labor legislation, the 113 th congress, the care act of 2013, the 112 th congress, the care act of 2011, the 111 th congress, the care act of 2009, the 110 th congress, the child labor protection act of 2007, the care act of 2007, the child labor safety act, the 109 th congress, protecting child models, young american workers' bill of rights, the care act of 2005, the safe at work act, the 108 th congress, the traveling sales crew protection act, some questions of public policy, sawmilling/woodworking by 14-year-olds.

Table 1. Summary of Child Labor Regulation Under the Fair Labor Standards Act

Table 2. Hazardous Occupations Orders Issued by the Secretary of Labor: Work Generally Unsuitable for Certain Young Persons

Table 3. Hazardous Occupations Orders Issued by the Secretary of Labor: Work Unsuitable for Young Persons Under 16 Years of Age Employed in Agriculture

Table 4. Child Labor Proposals in the 110 th Congress

Table 5. Child Labor Proposals in the 109 th Congress

This report examines the historical issue of child labor in America and summarizes legislation that has been introduced from the 108 th Congress to the 113 th Congress.

Efforts to set standards for child labor in America largely began late in the 19 th century, mostly at the state level. During the first decade of the 20 th century, child labor became a federal concern. Congressional hearings were followed by extensive study of the issue—and by several unsuccessful efforts to deal with child labor through law. Finally, with the adoption of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, the modern federal role in child labor regulation took shape. 1

The history of child labor in the American workplace can be divided, roughly, into four periods. First, from the late 19 th century to 1941, reformers sought to remove children from the workplace (whether factory, field, or tenement house) and to encourage more extended school attendance. Second, with World War II, the focus shifted to alleged labor shortages for war production. Some urged modification of work restrictions for older children: too young for the draft but old enough to be useful employees. Third, by the late 1940s, another shift took place. Too many older youths were believed to be out of school, out of work, and unable to find employment for which, it was argued, they were often unprepared both in terms of training and discipline. Thus, various "school-to-work" transition programs were developed together with "incentives" for employers to hire youth workers. Fourth, since roughly the late 1980s, child labor in its various aspects has largely disappeared from the policy scene; the issue is often viewed as a remnant of an earlier period in American history.

Debate over the regulation of child labor is often contentious, sparking sharp differences of opinion. Some have urged modification of existing federal child labor law to afford greater opportunities for young persons to learn the value of work or to gain entry into a skilled occupation. Others have questioned whether minors should be employed at all, especially while attending school. Child labor can also provide an occasion for youth to be exploited and, possibly, endangered.

This report briefly describes the early history of child labor regulation, reviews recent federal initiatives in that area, and summarizes legislation from the 108 th Congress through the 113 th Congress.

Prior to the 20 th century, employment of children largely reflected socioeconomic class stratification. Where children were of working-class families, it was largely assumed that they would work—even when they were very young. Some were employed in the street trades, delivering newspapers and telegrams, shining boots and shoes, running errands, and at whatever hours the duties demanded. Others were engaged in industrial homework, in tasks often reserved for the very young who could work, usually alongside a parent or another adult, in a tenement flat in segments of garment production or in other types of work that could be performed, sometimes on a piece rate basis, in one's place of residence. Still others worked in mines or factories, most notoriously, perhaps, the "breaker boys" (who separated coal from slate and rock) in the coal mines, the child workers in the textile mills, and the helpers in the glass factories.

Agricultural labor by children seems always to have been in a category by itself. Usually, until the early 20 th century, such work seems to have been on the family farm (whatever its size) or in an agricultural operation in the general vicinity of a youth's place of residence, though he (or she) might reside and work beyond the view and reach of a parent.

Regulation of child labor has been motivated by diverse concerns: economic, humane, and more broadly social. In the 19 th and early 20 th centuries, child workers were often viewed as an alternative source of low-wage labor who vied with their parents and other adults for employment—even at the cost of their own health and education. Products of child labor competed with goods produced by adults, exerting a downward pressure on wages and living standards. Aside from health and safety hazards, inadequate rest, it was argued, left children ill-suited for educational activities and, in turn, as adults, ill-prepared for employment or for the support of their own children, thus extending the cycle of poverty and adding to social-welfare costs. 2

Early on, the trade union movement voiced strong opposition to child labor. New York labor activist Samuel Gompers championed child labor reform during the late 19 th century and later, as president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), used his influence to improve the lot of working children. 3 Workers advocate "Mother" (Mary Harris) Jones brought added visibility to the plight of child workers and to that of their parents as well. 4 After its organization in 1899, the National Consumers League (NCL), under the leadership of Florence Kelley, took up the campaign against child labor, as did a significant body of social workers, clergy, and concerned individuals. 5 In 1904, these forces were drawn together with the establishment of the National Child Labor Committee (NCLC) which, thereafter, would remain a central force in the movement to end the exploitation of children in the workplace. 6

The regulation of child labor generally began at the state level. Initial laws were often loosely drawn and, where they exerted a restraining influence, subject to court challenge. Each type of work by children—for example, in the mines, factories, fields, or street trades—presented its own special challenges for reformers. Industrial homework by children was especially difficult to restrain. Although often not formally employed, children worked in tenement sweatshops making clothing, processing food, and engaging in whatever other work might profitably be conducted at home. Any tenement might become a little factory where conditions were often adverse and hours of work were unrestrained. Thus, child labor and industrial homework, from a regulatory/reform perspective, became intermeshed. Reformers tended to agree that child labor could not be controlled while industrial homework continued. 7

Reformers, however, did not always agree on timing or overall strategy. Most seem to have concurred that, ultimately, reform would need to be federal. Faced with state regulation of child labor or industrial homework, employers could simply move to another state. Further, those who utilized child labor could play one jurisdiction against another. At the same time, the strength of reform organization varied from one state to another. Some believed that state action was more nearly feasible than securing broader national change, at least at that time.

In 1906, Senator Albert Beveridge (R-IN) and Representative Herbert Parsons (R-NY) introduced legislation to prevent the employment of children in factories and mines. Debate on this first federal initiative continued for several years but it did not become law. However, with the work of the various reform groups, the proposal raised the visibility of child labor as a public policy issue. 8 In 1907, legislation was approved (P.L. 59-41) that authorized the Secretary of Commerce and Labor (then, a single department) "to investigate and report upon the industrial, social, moral, education[al], and physical condition of woman and child workers in the United States." The result was a detailed survey which appeared in 19 volumes between 1910 and 1913. 9 Building from that evidentiary record, Congress turned again to the legislative process to deal with child labor and related problems.

Although Congress and the advocates of reform sought to limit oppressive child labor, the best approach was not immediately clear. Thus, sequentially, Congress moved in three directions—each uniformly unsuccessful.

In 1916, a decade after the Beveridge proposal, new federal child labor legislation was introduced by Senator Robert Owen (D-OK) and by Representative Edward Keating (D-CO) with support from the reform community. A regional struggle then in progress pitted one state against another in a contest for economic growth with low-wage nonunion labor a bargaining chip. Southern manufacturers viewed child labor restrictions as an "effort of northern agitators to kill the infant industries of the south." 10 The Owen-Keating Act (1916), based on the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, sought to ban the movement in interstate commerce of certain products of child labor. In June 1918, however, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional ( Hammer v. Dagenhart , 247 U.S. 251), and reformers searched for a new approach. 11

Congress next turned to its taxing power as an indirect method for controlling child labor. Senator Atlee Pomerene (D-OH) proposed to levy a 10% tax "on the annual net profits of industries" that employed children in violation of certain age and hours standards. 12 The tax penalty would offset any competitive advantage that child labor might otherwise provide. Although the measure was in reality child labor legislation, it was hoped that it might secure Court approval. However, the Supreme Court declared the Pomerene Act (child labor tax) of 1919 unconstitutional in May 1922 ( Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company , 259 U.S. 20). 13

In the wake of the Drexel case, Samuel Gompers met at AFL headquarters with Florence Kelley of the National Consumers League, representatives of the NCLC, and others. After extended discussion and a weighing of options, the group developed a proposal for a constitutional amendment to grant Congress the right "to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under 18 years of age." The child labor amendment (1924) involved far more than the mere passing of legislation since the case for approval had to be made to each state legislature. While the proponents of child labor reform began optimistically, support began to erode on a number of fronts for reasons not necessarily associated with child labor per se. The proposed amendment remained unratified in 1937 when Congress turned back to direct legislation with consideration of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 14

From the period of the Beveridge bill (1906) to the New Deal era, children's advocates remained divided over the means for ending oppressive child labor. The reform community initially split with respect to federal action. Then, it had largely coalesced behind the Owen-Keating (1916) and Pomerene (1918) bills, debating long and hard over the wisdom of a constitutional amendment (1924). By late 1932, leaders of the Children's Bureau in the Department of Labor (DOL) and the NCLC, with others, decided to shift their focus away from ratification of the constitutional amendment (which was then perceived to be in doubt) and back toward action by individual states.

In retrospect, this shift of emphasis may have been a misreading of the times. "By 1933," notes Walter Trattner in his reform-oriented study, Crusade for the Children , "the spreading contagion of child labor had found every weakness and loophole in state labor legislation." He observes: "Sweatshops and fly-by-night plants were exploiting children for little or no pay, moving at will across state lines to take advantage of laws of nearby states. The individual states were unable to halt these abuses which had far-reaching effects, including the complete breakdown of wage scales." Thus, in competitive terms, some argued, it was not feasible for individual states to lead in labor-related reform, even were they predisposed to do so. Trattner concludes: "Everywhere people were looking to Washington for help and direction." 15

Soon after the inauguration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, Congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA, 1933). Under the National Recovery Administration (NRA), industries were encouraged to develop codes of fair competition, which in many instances came to include minimum wage and overtime pay standards, a ban on industrial homework, and the restriction or elimination of child labor. Elimination of child labor under the Cotton Textile Code seemed, momentarily, a major breakthrough. However, in May 1935, the Supreme Court declared that the NIRA was unconstitutional ( Schechter Poultry Corp. et al. v. United States , 295 U.S. 495). 16

The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of May 1933 and the Jones-Costigan Sugar Stabilization Act (1934) were roughly companion measures to the NIRA. In exchange for certain price supports, the government required grower/producer adherence to certain labor and marketing standards. 17 In 1937, the AAA was similarly declared unconstitutional.

In an effort to salvage NIRA and AAA labor standards, less comprehensive measures followed. First, Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, long a child labor reformer, urged that government, as a consumer (a more likely constitutional strategy), refuse to purchase items produced by child labor or under unsafe and unclean conditions in tenements (industrial homework). These restrictions were made part of the Public Contracts Act (1936), co-sponsored by Senator David Walsh (D-MA) and Representative Arthur Healey (D-MA), also called the Walsh-Healey Act. 18 Second, agricultural labor standards, though limited, reemerged in the Beet Sugar Act (1937), again linked to a federal support system. 19

Following the adoption of the Walsh-Healey Act, Secretary Perkins urged passage of general federal minimum wage and overtime pay legislation. Trattner notes that Roosevelt, possibly believing that the wage and hour measure could more easily be enacted "if it were made more attractive by integrating it with child labor," combined the several provisions. 20 Perkins recalls that child labor provisions were added late in the process at the urging of Grace Abbott, who was then head of the Children's Bureau at DOL. "The President readily agreed and was delighted that we might make this bill cover child labor as well as low wages and long hours." 21 After exhaustive debate, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), with its child labor provisions, became federal law during the summer of 1938. 22

The FLSA was not a complete victory for advocates of child labor regulation. Historian Jeremy Felt argues that the act may have served "as a deterrent and as an educational force" but added that "in those areas where children are useful they continue to be employed." 23 Further, the act did not address the competition from goods produced abroad by child workers under conditions the FLSA proscribed in America.

During the early 1940s, as enforcement of the FLSA commenced, DOL found (like reformers early in the century) that illegal exploitation of children as laborers was extremely difficult to eradicate where industrial homework persisted. Attempts to regulate the latter were largely unproductive. By the mid-1940s, DOL had imposed an outright ban on industrial homework in certain garment-related fields. Thereafter, abusive child labor seems to have faded as a public policy issue, gradually being replaced by concern with youth unemployment, training, and "school-to-work" transition. 24

The FLSA, as amended, protects children by setting conditions under which they may be employed and, in certain types of work, prohibiting their employment altogether. 25 Although the basic structure of the act has changed little since 1938, Congress has altered specific provisions of the statute and DOL has variously refined its administration through the rulemaking process.

Under the FLSA, employers may not use "oppressive child labor in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce." "Oppressive" is defined in the act and left to the Secretary of Labor to administer. Persons under 18 years of age may not be employed in mining or manufacturing or "in any occupation which the Secretary of Labor shall ... declare to be particularly hazardous for the employment of children ... or detrimental to their health or well-being." Otherwise, 16 years of age is the usual minimum age for employment. The Secretary may permit the employment of persons 14 to 16 years of age in work not deemed "oppressive," that does not interfere with schooling, and that is not detrimental to "health and well-being." The Secretary has established hours during which children of various ages may work.

The Fair Labor Standards Act sets forth general policies and, at the same time, may specify in precise detail, either in the statute or through implementing regulations, how coverage is to be applied: namely, who is covered and who is exempt. 26

The FLSA, rooted in the commerce clause of the Constitution, excludes from coverage children who are not involved in activities affecting interstate commerce—though such persons may be protected by state statutes. Also excluded are children employed by "a parent or a person standing in place of a parent employing his own child or a child in his custody." A child, for instance, assisting a parent (helping around a "mom-and-pop" corner grocery or doing chores around the home) would not be covered under federal child labor law. Nor do the child labor provisions of the act apply to children employed as actors or in related activities. Traditionally, the "street trades" (such as newspaper delivery) have been regarded as appropriate for children and, thus, are not restrained by FLSA child labor provisions. During the mid-1990s, departmental regulations were altered, administratively, to allow youths of 14 and 15 years of age to work in certain "sports-attending services at professional sporting events."

Youth and child employment in agriculture is treated somewhat differently from nonagricultural employment. 27 For example, a child working for a parent on a family farm is not covered under the FLSA. The law and regulations include differences with respect to age and the types of work that children and teenagers may perform. Table 1 provides a general summary of these requirements.

Source: Material in this table has been excerpted from the Handy Reference Guide to the Fair Labor Standards Act , published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, WH Publication 1282, Revised October 1996. See Title 29 C.F.R, Part 570, for a more complete explanation of child labor regulation.

a. The "not covered by minimum wage" provision limits the exemption, effectively, to small farms.

Under the FLSA, manufacturing and mining work is deemed too hazardous for persons under 18 years of age. However, the Secretary may, at his or her discretion, designate other types of work as similarly too hazardous for persons under 18. In such cases, the Secretary will issue "hazardous occupations orders" or HOs which are incorporated in the Code of Federal Regulations (see Table 2 ).

Note: Each of these Hazardous Occupation Orders is developed in detail in the Code of Federal Regulations with specific qualifying factors explained. DOL made several changes to the Hazardous Occupation Orders, effective July 29, 2010. U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, "Child Labor Regulations, Orders and Statements of Interpretation," Federal Register , vol. 75, May 20, 2010, pp. 28404-28461.

Often, an exception will be made (and written into the HO) with respect to apprentices and student-learners. The regulations make clear that, where there is a conflict between the HOs and any other provision of law, the higher standard prevails. Each HO is precise, frequently responding to problems that have arisen in the workplace. Currently, there are 17 HOs in place with respect to nonagricultural employment and include occupations such as work involving "manufacturing or storing explosives," "operation of power-driven meat-processing machines," "forest fire fighting," and "logging occupations and occupations in the operation of any sawmill."

Eleven HOs have been published with respect to agricultural employment (see Table 3 ).

Source: 29 C.F.R. Parts 570-571.

On September 2, 2011, DOL issued a proposed rule to change the regulations that implement the child labor provisions in agriculture. The proposed rule would have modified and expanded the number of hazardous occupations in agriculture. In response to concerns about the potential effects of the proposed rule on the parental exemption, DOL announced, on February 1, 2012, that it was going to reconsider the part of the rule dealing with the interpretation of the parental exemption. 28 On April 26, 2012, DOL announced that it was withdrawing the proposed rule. 29

Child labor law is enforced by the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the U.S. Department of Labor. Much enforcement is complaint driven. Child advocates argue that child workers may not be likely to complain. If children are employed illegally with parental knowledge or consent, complaints may be infrequent. Enforcement may be complicated in the case of migrant farmworkers.

In addition to WHD enforcement, some have urged other forms of nonparental oversight of child labor. Academic problems or frequent truancy could indicate oppressive child labor. Physicians may detect health problems that could be work-related. Efforts in these directions, early in the century, were often unsuccessful but systems of work permits—sometimes linking school attendance and performance to employment—continue to be urged, together with work injury reporting.

Employers who illegally employ child workers are subject to both criminal and civil penalties. An employer who willfully violates child labor law is subject to a criminal fine of up to $10,000. For a second conviction of a willful violation, an employer is subject to a fine of up to $10,000, a sentence of up to six months in prison, or both. 30

Effective June 1, 2010, DOL increased the minimum fines that can be imposed against employers who illegally employ children under the age of 14. For employers who illegally employ a worker under the age of 12, the minimum penalty for violating child labor law was raised to $8,000 per minor (from $850 for nonagricultural employers and $1,150 for agricultural employers). The penalty for illegally employing persons ages 12 or 13 was raised to a minimum of $6,000 per employee (from $850 for nonagricultural employers and $1,025 for agricultural employers). The maximum penalty for illegally employing children under the age of 14 is $11,000 per minor. 31

A civil penalty of up to $50,000 may be assessed for each child labor violation that causes the serious injury or death of a minor. This penalty may be doubled, up to $100,000, if the violations are determined to be willful or repeated. 32

By the late 1940s, exploitation and endangerment of young children in the world-of-work was popularly believed to have been resolved through legislation (the FLSA) and through the administrative discretion of the Secretary of Labor in implementing the FLSA. But, occasionally someone would recall that very young children still toiled in field harvest work, or an especially egregious accident would bring the more general issue back to the front page.

At the same time, there had begun a gradual shift of focus to a new issue—inadequate opportunities for youth employment—and the related question of delinquency. In May 1961, for example, some 500 men and women met in Washington, DC, "to discuss [this] ... serious but little known national problem." The summary report of the conference observed that

Again and again in the past decade, juvenile delinquency and the outbreaks of youthful street gangs have made headlines. The fact that large numbers of our youth, 16 to 21 years of age, are out of school and unemployed, significant as it may be in terms of delinquency, has far greater significance in terms of what changes are taking place in our society....

The summary report pointed to an unemployment rate of 17.1% for this age group—with a somewhat higher rate for minority youth. "There have always been young people who dropped out before finishing high school or grade school.... But until recently, except during the depression, there were ample unskilled jobs for workers of limited education." That, the report stated, was no longer true. "When no work is to be had at home, the small-town boys and the farm boys go off to the cities where, ill-prepared for urban jobs, they swell the ranks of the young unemployed." And that, argued Harvard's James B. Conant, "is social dynamite " (emphasis in the original). 33

Through the next two decades, the literature on youth employment (youth joblessness) grew rapidly with numerous panaceas for the problem being advanced. In retrospect, there seems to have been little agreement among policy analysts—except that the problem was serious. 34 However, youth unemployment (or joblessness) notwithstanding, large numbers of youths have continued to seek and to find work.

Although many young persons under the age of 15 are employed, there are more data on the employment status of older youth. 35 Looking at the labor force participation of 15- to 17-year-old-youth through the period 1996-1998, on average, "about a fourth of both male and female youths were employed during average school months. During the summer, about one-third of both male and female youths worked," the Department of Labor reported. But DOL also reported significant variations in employment status when considered in terms of race and ethnicity. About 28% of white youths were employed during school months; about 38% during the summer. For blacks, the comparable figures were 13% (school months) and 20% (summer); for youth of Hispanic origin, 15% (school months) and 20% (summer). 36

In July 1982, Labor Secretary Raymond Donovan (for the Reagan Administration) proposed that existing child labor policy be updated. The Administration's plan would have (1) opened more opportunities for employment for children 14 and 15 years of age; (2) extended the number of hours per day and per week that children might be employed; (3) revised standards for the employment of child workers in jobs once considered too hazardous; and (4) simplified and broadened the manner in which employers could become certified by DOL to employ full-time students at less than the standard minimum wage.

The Donovan proposal sparked an immediate reaction. When opening hearings before the House Labor Standards Subcommittee of which he was chair, Representative George Miller (D-CA) sharply criticized the Administration's proposals. 37 In turn, Wage/Hour Administrator William Otter defended them as sound and reasonable public policy. He read from letters from young persons, parents, and potential employers urging flexibility in child labor regulation so that 14- and 15-year-olds could be more easily employed. Although acknowledging a high unemployment rate among 16- to 19-year-olds, Otter affirmed his concern "about the unemployment levels of all age groups" and stated the view that "[u]nreasonable and artificial impediments to the employment of all age groups should be eliminated." 38

Proponents and critics seemed to agree that the Reagan Administration "had walked into a minefield" where the child labor issue was concerned. 39 In February 1983, Nation's Restaurant News reported that "Federal wage and hour regulators are sifting through a blizzard of letters from restaurant operators across the nation supporting the Reagan Administration's plan to relax child labor restrictions on the employment of young teenagers in food-service outlets." But, the News also reported that the proposal had "generated a storm of protest from educational groups, labor unions, and Congressmen who expressed outrage over what some described as a scheme to enable restauranteurs to exploit school age workers." 40

For a time, the regulations remained under review with periodic speculation that their release was imminent. In the spring of 1984, the Nation's Restaurant News speculated that they would likely appear "by the end of the year." 41 Later, it was reported that the proposal was "likely to resurface" in the near future. 42 But, after a year, it was noted that DOL was again delaying "action on a regulation governing the employment of minors between the ages of 14 and 16." 43 Some suggested "a politically inspired delay" in release of a final rule. 44 Whatever the cause, a final revision never appeared.

As the Reagan Administration proposals receded ever further into the background, several committees of Congress conducted hearings on aspects of child labor—a process that would continue, intermittently, through the 1980s and 1990s. But, although they established an evidentiary record, no general legislation restructuring child labor law was approved.

In 1987, Labor Secretary William Brock announced the formation of a Child Labor Advisory Committee to assist him with interpretation of child labor issues. The committee was chaired by Linda Golodner, who was also executive director of the National Consumers' League. The advisory body quickly concluded that child labor was "often on the low end of the priority list" at DOL and that it took "very, very long for [its] ... recommendations to get through the bureaucracy." In the spring of 1989, the department explained that the suggestions of the committee had, gradually, moved through four lower levels of review and that, by mid-May, they had reached the desk of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division. 45

Administrative changes in the wake of the 1988 election may have caused further delay in moving forward with child labor issues. With the appointment of Elizabeth Dole as Secretary of Labor (January 1989), the department appeared to have adopted a more active interest in the child labor issue. In mid-1989, Secretary Dole announced the appointment of William Brooks of General Motors to serve as Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards and charged him, inter alia, with child labor issues. 46

Almost at once, the new assistant secretary was confronted with a GAO report affirming that child labor violations had increased dramatically during recent years. But GAO also suggested that data concerning work (and injuries) involving young persons were not entirely satisfactory. A more nearly adequate database was needed. 47

Departmental initiatives, with investigations by GAO and the Consumers' League, combined with existing congressional concern to give the issue of child labor enhanced visibility. In early 1990, Brooks informed the Advisory Committee that a special task force on child labor would be formed within DOL and would look into such issues as possible revision of the hazardous work orders and the penalty structure for child labor violations. Brooks promised, the Daily Labor Report reported, "that in the next six months, rigorous enforcement of child labor law will be the watchword of the agency." 48 Hearings followed, along with new legislative proposals. And, DOL launched Operation Child Watch, the first in a series of "sweeps" or general inspections aimed at compliance. 49 Changes were made in the penalty structure and, presumably, in DOL's enforcement policy.

Some viewed DOL's initiatives as a "commendable start"—but there were also misgivings. Representative Don Pease (D-OH), one of the more outspoken advocates of child labor reform, argued that something more was needed than "occasional public relations events" and intermittent crack-downs on violators. Although Pease seems to have favored legislative reform, the Bush Administration apparently did not. 50 In June 1990, Brooks assured the National Grocers Association that no new legislation was necessary: that any needed changes "can be made administratively." 51 The status of the Advisory Committee was unclear. Golodner reported in November of 1990 that no meeting of the committee had been held since early in the year, that the terms of current members had expired in March, and that no new members had been named by DOL. In late 1990, Secretary Dole indicated her intent to retire. Brooks resigned to return to General Motors. 52

In 1994, the Clinton Administration proposed a general review of child labor regulation, similar in scope to that proposed by Secretary Donovan, though of a different thrust. Comprehensive oversight and administrative reform continued to be discussed but, essentially, both Congress and DOL proceeded on an ad hoc basis.

In April 1986, Senator Dan Quayle (R-IN) proposed that child labor law be relaxed to permit 14- and 15-year-olds to work as bat boys or bat girls for professional baseball teams, even when games might run until late at night. The Senator stated that baseball "is the All-American sport" and indicated that youngsters should not be forced to wait until they were 16 years of age "to associate with the players of their home town teams." 53 Congress mandated a study of the question, and the issue was allowed to die.

In the spring of 1993, the matter was raised again when it prevented a 14-year-old youngster from Georgia from serving as a bat boy for the Savannah Cardinals. Labor Secretary Robert Reich, faced with the difficulty of explaining the logic of the work hours requirement, suspended its enforcement and proposed to allow children of 14 and 15 years of age to work as late as circumstances might dictate—"before, during, and after a sporting event," around the playing field, "club house or locker room"—to provide "sports-attending services at professional sporting events." Certain conditions were specified, intended to protect children from hazardous activity. And thus, by the spring of 1995, the regulation had been changed. 54

But questions remained. For example, if it were inappropriate, per se, for young persons (14 and 15 years of age) to work late hours on a school night, did it really matter what sort of work they were doing? How did "sports-attending services" differ, in that context, from work in the food services industry or in a real estate or law office entering data into a computer? Might a more routine business environment be preferable to that of professional sports for the education and welfare of 14- and 15-year-olds? Some in the restaurant industry argued that "it was unfair to exempt the sports industry from the hours and time restrictions while leaving the restrictions in place for all other employment." 55

Under Hazardous Occupations Order No. 12, persons under 18 were not allowed to load waste paper and boxes into commercial (industrial) paper balers and compactors. Operation of such equipment, DOL had determined, was especially hazardous for younger workers. Even loading them was viewed by the department as a serious risk. Karen Keesling, Acting Administrator of DOL's Wage and Hour Division, explained that it was not just the loading but that individuals involved in that process would likely reach into a baler or compactor to keep the materials from falling out or to clear jammed materials—and "that is extremely hazardous." 56 Conversely, the National Grocers Association termed HO 12 "a prime example of regulatory excess." 57

In March 1995, Representative Thomas Ewing (R-IL) introduced H.R. 1114 , legislation that would have permitted operation of the baling/compacting machinery by "minors under 18 years of age"—so long as the equipment met safety standards established by the private sector American National Standards Institute (ANSI). A similar proposal was introduced by Senator Larry Craig (R-ID). The legislation was supported by the National Grocers Association and opposed by the Child Labor Coalition (a youth advocacy group) and by people in the trade union movement. As signed into law ( P.L. 104-174 ) on August 6, 1996, the legislation had been redrawn to permit workers "who are 16 and 17 years of age ... to load materials into, but not operate or unload materials from, scrap paper balers and paper box compactors" that meet ANSI safety standards and where certain other requirements have been met. Whether the qualifying language was adequate to protect the youthful workers, however, remained in dispute. 58

Hazardous Occupations Order No. 2, as developed at the discretion of the Secretary of Labor, restricted the work-related operation of certain motor vehicles by persons under the age of 18 as "particularly hazardous" for younger workers. While not absolutely precluded, strict guidelines and limitations had to be complied with. Conformity with specified safety standards and operation only during daylight hours was required. Employment-related driving could only be "occasional and incidental" though there might be some doubt about the definition of such terms.

In April 1994, Representative Mike Kreidler (D-WA) introduced legislation directing the Secretary to modify HO 2 to permit a wider opportunity for young persons to drive in conjunction with their regular work. No action was taken on the Kreidler bill and in July 1995, new legislation was introduced by Representative Randy Tate (R-WA) and Senator Slade Gorton (R-WA). Hearings followed but the legislation died at the close of the 104 th Congress. In July 1997, Representative Larry Combest (R-TX) reintroduced the issue as H.R. 2327 (the Drive for Teen Employment Act).

Though modification of HO 2 had been endorsed by automobile dealers, it had been opposed by the Department of Labor and by groups associated with children's advocacy such as the Child Labor Coalition and the National Consumers League. Persons 16 and 17 years of age, normally, are beginning drivers who will have only recently qualified for a driver's license. Although some youngsters may be fine drivers, it was argued that their lack of experience created a significant risk, both to the young persons themselves and to the public.

In its final form, the legislation proposed to allow persons 17 years of age to engage in limited professional driving, under specified safety conditions and with certain limitations, but would still prohibit such activity by persons under 17. The Combest bill, as amended, was signed by President Clinton on October 31, 1998 ( P.L. 105-334 ). 59

The remainder of this report summarizes child labor legislation in recent Congresses, beginning with the most recent Congress and ending with the 108 th Congress.

On June 12, 2013, Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) introduced H.R. 2342 , the Children's Act for Responsible Employment of 2013, or CARE Act of 2013. Among other things, H.R. 2342 would raise from 14 to 16 the minimum age at which youth may be employed in agriculture. The act would raise from 16 to 18 the minimum age at which youth employed in agriculture can work in occupations declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor.

Under current law, the minimum age at which youth can be employed in nonagricultural occupations is 16. The minimum age to be employed in agricultural occupations is 14. H.R. 2342 would raise the minimum age to be employed in agricultural occupations to 16, the same as in nonagricultural occupations.

Under current law, youth under the age of 18 cannot be employed in nonagricultural occupations found by the Secretary of Labor to be particularly hazardous for the employment of youth. In agriculture, the minimum age to be employed in hazardous occupations is 16. H.R. 2342 would raise the minimum age to work in hazardous occupations in agriculture to 18, the same as in nonagricultural occupations.

H.R. 2342 would not allow the employment of youth in hazardous occupations on a farm owned by a parent. Under current law, the restrictions on the employment of youth in hazardous occupations in agriculture do not apply to a farm owned or operated by a parent. Outside of agriculture, the restrictions on the employment of youth in hazardous occupations apply to all businesses, whether or not owned by a parent.

Under current law, in nonagricultural occupations, except in mining, manufacturing, and hazardous occupations, youth under the age of 16 may work in a business owned by a parent. 60 In agriculture, youth of any age may work on a farm owned or operated by a parent. 61 H.R. 2342 would change the parental exemption in agriculture to a farm owned by a parent, instead of a farm owned or operated by a parent.

Under current law, youth ages 12 or 13 can be employed on a farm with the consent of the parent or if the parent is employed on the same farm. Also, with the consent of the parent youth under 12 can be employed on a farm that is exempt from the minimum wage standards of the FLSA (i.e., on small farms). 62 H.R. 2342 would remove these exemptions.

H.R. 2342 would direct the Secretary of Labor to revise federal child labor regulations to prohibit the employment of children under the age of 18 in occupations that involve the handling of pesticides.

H.R. 2342 would establish minimum civil penalties and raise the maximum civil penalty for each employee subject to a violation of child labor law. The legislation would establish criminal penalties for repeated or willful violations of child labor law that result in the death or serious injury or illness of an employee under the age of 18.

H.R. 2342 was referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

In the 112 th Congress, Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) introduced H.R. 2234 , the Children's Act for Responsible Employment of 2011, or CARE Act of 2011. The text of H.R. 2234 is the same as H.R. 2342 , which was introduced in the 113 th Congress and described above. H.R. 2234 was introduced on June 16, 2011, and was referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

On September 15, 2009, Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) introduced H.R. 3564 , the Children's Act for Responsible Employment of 2009, or CARE Act. The legislation would prohibit the employment of persons under 18 in agriculture, unless they are employed by a parent (or someone standing in the place of a parent) on a farm owned and operated by the parent.

The legislation would also repeal Section 213(c)(4) of the FLSA, which allows the Secretary of Labor to grant requests for waivers from employers to allow them to hire persons ages 10 and 11 to work outside of school hours in the hand harvesting of crops.

The bill would increase civil penalties and establish criminal penalties for violations of child labor law.

The legislation would direct the Secretary of Labor to analyze data and report annually to Congress on each work-related injury, illness, or death of persons under the age of 18 employed in agriculture. Employers would be required to report to the Secretary of Labor any work-related death or any serious injury or illness of agricultural employees under the age of 18.

The bill would require the Secretary of Labor to issue rules to prohibit the employment of persons under the age of 18 in occupations where workers are protected from exposure to pesticides.

H.R. 3564 was referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the House Committee on Education and Labor.

Several child labor bills were introduced in the 110 th Congress. ( Table 4 , below, provides a summary of this legislation.)

Different bills with same title—the Child Labor Protection Act of 2007—were introduced in the 110 th Congress.

In the House, on June 8, 2007, Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) introduced H.R. 2637 , the Child Labor Protection Act of 2007. The legislation was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. The House approved the bill by voice vote on June 12, 2007. H.R. 2637 would increase from $10,000 to $11,000 the maximum employer penalty for each employee who is subject to a violation of the child labor provisions of the FLSA. The measure would also establish a maximum civil penalty of $50,000 for each violation that causes the death or serious injury of any employee under the age of 18. The $50,000 penalty may be doubled for repeated or willful violations of child labor law. The bill would also increase from $1,000 to $1,100 the maximum penalty for violating the minimum wage or overtime provisions of the FLSA.

In the Senate, Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN), on June 12, 2007, introduced S. 1598 , which was also called the Child Labor Protection Act of 2007. The measure was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP). S. 1598 includes the identical changes in civil penalties as contained in H.R. 2637 .

On April 23, 2008, Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced an amendment ( S.Amdt. 4573 ) in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 493 , the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. H.R. 493 was approved by the House on April 25, 2007. Senator Snowe's amendment included the provisions of H.R. 2637 / S. 1598 . The Senate approved the amendment by a vote of 95 in favor and none opposed. The measure was signed into law by President George W. Bush on May 21, 2008, and became P.L. 110-233 .

On June 13, 2007, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced S. 1614 , another bill that was called the Child Labor Protection Act of 2007. S. 1614 would amend the FLSA to establish a minimum civil penalty of $500 and a maximum penalty of $15,000 for each employee who is subject to a child labor violation. The bill would also create a minimum penalty of $15,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 for each violation of child labor law that causes the death or serious injury of an employee under the age of 18. The latter penalty could be doubled to a maximum of $100,000. The bill would also increase from $1,000 to $1,100 the maximum penalty for violating the minimum wage or overtime provisions of the FLSA. Finally, the measure would establish criminal penalties (fines, imprisonment, or both) for violations of the child labor provisions of the FLSA. The bill was referred to the Senate HELP Committee.

On June 12, 2007, Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) introduced H.R. 2674 , the Children's Act for Responsible Employment of 2007, or CARE Act of 2007. Except for two provisions, the measure is the same as the CARE Act of 2005 ( H.R. 3482 ), which was introduced in the 109 th Congress. Unlike H.R. 3482 , the CARE Act of 2007 does not direct the Secretary of Labor to employ additional inspectors to enforce child labor law. Also, the CARE Act of 2007 would not amend the WIA law with respect to youth activities under the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Programs.

H.R. 2674 was referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the Education and Labor Committee.

Representative Bruce Braley (D-IA) introduced the Child Labor Safety Act. The act would increase from $11,000 to $50,000 the maximum civil penalty for each employee who is subject to a violation of the child labor provisions of the FLSA. The bill would also raise from $50,000 to $100,000 the maximum penalty for each violation that causes the death or serious injury of any employee under the age of 18. The measure would impose criminal penalties (a maximum fine of $50,000 or imprisonment for up to six months) for violations of child labor law. The bill was introduced on September 10, 2008, and was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor.

As with previous years, child labor remained a subject of interest among some Members of the 109 th Congress. Several bills from prior Congresses were re-introduced. Several new bills were added. (See Table 5 , below.)

On March 8, 2005, the Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act ( H.R. 1142 ) was introduced in the House by Representative Mark Foley (R-FL), with others. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the House Committee on the Judiciary. No further action was taken on the measure.

For a number of years, Representative Foley had raised the issue of children engaged in modeling on Internet sites. "What occurs," he explained in a floor statement, "... is that young girls, 10, 12, 13 years old, are encouraged by their parents and aided and abetted by individuals to display themselves on the Internet for viewer ship, if you will, [by] people who pay a fee, a monthly fee in order to view the site." Although some parents, he suggested, are deceived into thinking that such activity is legitimate modeling, Mr. Foley disagreed. He stated that he was "not suggesting that there is not an appropriate place in commerce for young people to display their talents" but, rather, that he had in mind a particular type of website that encourages "inappropriate" types of modeling by children. 63

In the 109 th Congress, Representative Foley introduced H.R. 1142 , which was similar to legislation introduced in the previous Congress (by Representative Foley in the House and Senator Jim Bunning in the Senate). 64 The proposal amended Section 12 of the FLSA to provide that "no employer may employ a child model in exploitive child modeling." It went on to explain:

(A) In this subsection, the term 'exploitive child modeling' means modeling involving the use of a child under 17 years old for financial gain without the purpose of marketing a product or service other than the image of the child.

(B) Such term applies to any such use, regardless of whether the employment relationship of the child is direct or indirect, or contractual or noncontractual, or is termed that of an independent contractor.

The measure distinguished between an image that is exploitive and one that, "taken as a whole, has serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The legislation proposed both fines and imprisonment (of not more than 10 years) for violators.

General restructuring of the child labor components of the FLSA has long been sought, though from somewhat different perspectives, by industry and by labor. In 1990 (the 101 st Congress), Representatives Don Pease (D-OH), Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Tom Lantos (D-CA ) introduced legislation titled the "Young American Workers' Bill of Rights." With various changes (but with a continuity of thrust), the legislation would be reintroduced in each Congress thereafter.

In the 109 th Congress, the initiatives were set forth in H.R. 2870 (Lantos), the Youth Worker Protection Act. The Lantos bill was comprehensive, providing for a wide variety of changes in current law and practice. 65

(a) The bill begins by defining a "minor." He or she must be "is at least 14 years old or, if younger than 14 years old, is otherwise permitted to work under this Act." "In the case of a minor who is between the ages of 16 and 18 years, the employment is not in an occupation that is particularly hazardous for the employment of children between those ages or detrimental to their health or well-being.... " "The minor is employed in accordance with this Act and in accordance with any other Federal, State, or local law that provides greater protection to minors."

(b) The minor has a work permit that includes the specified provisions under this Act.

—The work permit shall include name, date of birth, gender, racial or ethnic background, and contact information for the minor; name, contact information, and consent of a parent of the minor; a certification (if appropriate) by a school official showing attendance requirements; e.g., name, contact information, and type of business of the employer; and type of work.

—The Secretary of Labor will prescribe a unified model for such work permits that will contain information concerning the identity of the child worker and his/her parent (or a similar person where appropriate), contact information and parental consent for the child to work, school status, identification of employer, type of work to be engaged in, name and contact information of the designated state agency, summary of age limitations and other legal requirements for employment of minors, among other information. A system of expiration dates for individual work permits is specified.

—The designated state agency may revoke a work permit if the agency finds either of the following: (1) the minor "is not in compliance with school attendance requirements," or (2) the minor is adversely affected by the employment involved. The minor or the parent of the minor would have had an option for appeal of the revocation.

(c) Hours that are allowable for work by minors were specified in H.R. 2870 , together with the number of hours per day and week that can be worked.

(d) If the minor sustains a serious work-related injury, the designated state agency must be notified by each of the following: the employer, the appropriate medical professional, the appropriate law enforcement officer (where applicable), and an employee of the school attended by the minor where an absence of more than three days is involved. 66

(e) The bill provided that the designated state agency must collect and retain (for seven years) statistical data concerning the work permit system and any work-related injury information.

(f) The designated state agency must report annually to the Secretary of Labor. The report shall include assorted statistical data (see item "e" above) and information concerning "the activities and number of work-hours devoted by State and local government employees (including contractors) to the administration and enforcement of child labor laws in the State."

(g) The bill would have provided that "[no employer may employ a minor in youth peddling" and defines what is included in the concept of youth "peddling." (See discussion of the "peddling" issue, above.)

(h) It set forth extensive requirements for enforcement and penalties.

(i) The bill amended Section 13(c) of the FLSA to raise the age for employment in agriculture outside of school hours from "twelve years of age" to "fourteen years of age."

(j) It makes uniform the standard for employment in hazardous agricultural work.

(k) The bill would repeal the provision of current law permitting, at the discretion of the Secretary (with certain specific criteria), children as young as 10 years of age to work in hand harvest agricultural work.

(l) It would eliminate the employment of children under 18 years of age in connection with commercial paper balers and compactors. (See discussion above.)

(m) "Not later than 24 months after the date of the enactment of this section," the Secretary of Labor is directed to promulgate a rule revising the Hazardous Occupations restraints in certain specified industries. The Secretary was also directed at "appropriate intervals, but in no case less than once during each five-year period," to conduct "a comprehensive review" of the Hazardous Occupations Orders to assure that they are current.

(n) Within 24 months of enactment of this section, the Secretary is directed to promulgate a rule to prohibit employment of minors in (1) seafood processing and (2) employment "requiring a minor to handle or dispose of oil or other liquids from fryers."

(o) Within 36 months, the Secretary was directed to review the employment of minors in work involving: (1) "[r]epetitive bending, stooping, twisting, or squatting," (2) "[l]ifting of heavy and/or unwieldy objects," (3) "[w]orking alone or late at night in retail establishments where there is direct contact with the public and cash is handled," and (4) "[w]ork in the entertainment industry that is detrimental to the health, safety, education or well-being of minors." 67 The Secretary shall submit to Congress a report of the review, together with proposed regulations governing such work.

On July 25, 2005, H.R. 2870 was referred to the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. The subcommittee took no action on the bill.

For several years, Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) presented legislation that dealt primarily, though not exclusively, with child labor in agriculture. On July 27, 2005, Representative Roybal-Allard introduced H.R. 3482 , the Children's Act for Responsible Employment of 2005, or the CARE Act of 2005.

The Roybal-Allard bill began with a revision of Section 13(c), eliminating the option of having young persons under 16 years of age employed in agriculture "including in an agricultural occupation that the Secretary of Labor finds and declares to be particularly hazardous." The bill offered two exceptions: where the employee "is employed by a parent of the employee or by a person standing in the place of the parent," or "on a farm owned or operated by the parent or person" standing in the place of a parent. Further, the bill repealed Section 213(c)(4), which allows the Secretary of Labor to grant requests for waivers from employers to allow them to hire minors ages 10 and 11 to work outside of school hours in the hand harvesting of crops. 68

The bill expanded the penalties, both civil and criminal, for persons found to be in violation of the act. Also, the Secretary of Labor, with respect to persons under 18 years of age employed in agriculture, was to gather data with respect to "each serious lost-time work-related injury, serious lost-time worker-related illness," or work-related death. An employer was expected to submit a report to the Secretary. Failure to file a report was subject to a civil penalty of up to $7,000 per violation. The Secretary could employ at least 100 additional inspectors, whose principal purpose would be to enforce compliance with child labor laws.

The bill provided that the Secretary, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment, would issue rules relating to the exposure of child workers to certain pesticides and related chemicals. It allowed for some measure of accommodation between the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to pesticide-related fines.

Finally, H.R. 3482 amended the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 to provide the greater of $10 million or 4% of the amount appropriated for WIA youth activities for youth activities under the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Programs.

The Roybal-Allard bill was referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. On October 12, 2005, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections and to the Subcommittee on 21 st Century Competitiveness. The subcommittee took no action on the bill.

On November 1, 2005, Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CN) introduced the Safe at Work Act ( H.R. 4190 ). The bill was referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and, on March 24, 2006, to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections. No action was taken on the proposal.

The DeLauro bill was divided into two parts: First, the bill required that the Secretary of Labor "not enter into any agreement to provide any person with notice prior to commencing an investigation or inspection." Second, it required the Comptroller General to conduct a study of violations of child labor laws "including the number and type of allegations of child labor violations, when and whether inspections or investigations commenced for each such allegation, what enforcement action or other outcome resulted from such inspections or investigations, and a comparison of the extent to which such violations occurred in both large and small businesses.... " The time period for the Comptroller General's study was five years prior to the date of enactment.

On September 23, 2003, Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA) introduced H.R. 3139 , the Youth Worker Protection Act, one component of which was the provision that "No employer may employ a minor [a person under 18 years of age] in youth peddling." The bill, which went on to define what is included within the concept of "peddling," was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce and, in mid-October 2003, to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

Periodically through recent years, concerns have been raised about the welfare of young persons (the age varies) who are engaged in certain types of outside sales work. On occasion, the focus has been upon the "street trades": selling newspapers, candy, or other items at subway stops or, locally, from door-to-door. In such cases, a manager or supervisor may recruit young persons, move them to various local sites and, at day's end, collect them and bring them back to their homes. But, there is also another arrangement: the "traveling sales crews" in which a sales team goes on the road and remains away from its home base, possibly for extended periods. Some argue that each of these types of sales ("peddling") can encompass risks, especially for young persons.

Such sales work by young persons suggests numerous questions of public policy. For example, how young is too young for children to be engaged in street sales, potentially in rough neighborhoods with which they may not be familiar? And, if they do engage in such work, through what hours should they be employed: how early in the morning and how late at night?

The situation becomes more complicated when groups of recruits are transported from their homes to a distant city to engage in sales work. Are the vehicles in which they are transported safe and insured? How and where are these workers housed? Does the manager or supervisor have authority and responsibility with respect to the off-hours behavior of these young workers? What happens if one of these young persons becomes ill and needs medical attention?

Beyond the personal, there are strictly workplace questions. What is the employment relationship between these workers and the manager or supervisor? Are the youth workers employees, independent contractors, or something else entirely? To the extent that they are employees, by whom are they employed? The manager or supervisor may also be an employee of some more distant entity. Where does responsibility ultimately reside? How are wages and benefits handled? What employment records are maintained—and by whom?

From a policy perspective, some may ask: Should young persons be excluded, by law, from working in street or door-to-door sales or in related support services other than actual selling? Were otherwise applicable hours restrictions to be observed, would such work be acceptable? Would a blanket prohibition on outside sales work by persons under 18 years of age unduly restrict their capacity to earn? Is there something inherently inappropriate about street sales or door-to-door sales? Is such work wrong when 16- and 17-year-olds are involved, but a legitimate entrepreneurial activity if all of the sales staff (and, perhaps, support staff) are 18 and over? Is such work acceptable when confined to a certain radius from the permanent residence of the sales staff? And, how expansive should that radius be?

The Wyden Initiative

In May 1985 (the 99 th Congress), then-Representative Ron Wyden (D-OR), stating that "unscrupulous door-to-door selling groups" were exploiting young persons (some of them, children; others, young adults), introduced legislation to establish a National Clearinghouse on Fraudulent Youth Employment Practices. While Wyden conceded that "the vast majority of door-to-door sellers are wholly honorable and reputable," others, he suggested, were not. These companies "can be peddling anything from magazine subscriptions to chemical cleaners." He outlined a host of alleged violations of law and fraudulent sales practices engaged in by such firms and urged his colleagues to help "put these dangerous and unscrupulous operators out of business. And ... take a step toward protecting our youth from dangerous employment practices." 69

Hearings were conducted (November 1985) by the House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. Susan Meisinger, speaking for the Reagan Labor Department, testified that there was indeed a problem. "Unlawful practices reported by the States include violations of their child labor laws, violations of minimum wage laws, employer failure to pay taxes and unemployment insurance, and abuse of child workers," Meisinger noted, "including forcing them to pay kickbacks, child molesting, and placing them in high risk, late night employment environments." 70

But the Reagan Administration was divided on the issue. Victoria Toensing, representing the Department of Justice, agreed that "problems relating to the recruitment and use of salespersons do exist" but she suggested that any legislative action would be premature. "The extent of these problems has not yet been established," Toensing stated, and, in any case, state and local authorities "may be as effective, if not more so, than the federal government in preventing such abuses." Further, she suggested, not all of the alleged worker/victims were minors. After reviewing a series of federal statutes that might apply if there actually were a problem, Toensing noted that the Department of Justice "... considers present statutory provisions adequate." 71

The Wyden bill ( H.R. 2544 ) died at the close of the 99 th Congress. Hearings on the general issue were subsequently conducted by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (1987) 72 and by the House Committee on Government Operations' Subcommittee on Employment and Housing (1990). 73 In each case, the matter was restricted to general oversight. Further legislation was not then proposed. 74

The Kohl Proposals

In November 1999 (the 106 th Congress), Senator Kohl introduced S. 1989 , the Traveling Sales Crew Protection Act—his interest sparked by an auto accident in Wisconsin in which seven young people were killed and others injured. The Senator explained: "The driver [in the Wisconsin case] had a suspended license and a series of violations." These firms, he stated, "employ crews who travel from city to city selling products door to door. Often times," he asserted, "... [they] mistreat their workers and violate local, state, and federal labor law. Because they rapidly move from state to state, enforcement efforts are difficult if not impossible for local authorities." Senator Kohl recalled that it had been 12 years since the hearing by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (noted above) and affirmed: "... nothing has changed. These abuses continue, and Congress should act." 75 But, no action was taken: the bill died at the close of the 106 th Congress.

Early in the 107 th Congress, Senator Kohl introduced new traveling sales crew/peddling legislation ( S. 96 ). The Kohl bill would have amended the FLSA to provide that "No individual under 18 years of age may be employed in a position requiring the individual to engage in door to door sales or in related support work in a manner that requires the individual to remain away from his or her permanent residence for more than 24 hours." After defining the operative language, the bill set forth a registration requirement for employers and supervisors of traveling sales crew workers. Then, assuming that such practices were to be allowed, it outlined the obligations of the parties—dealing with such issues as housing, transportation, wages (and deductions therefrom), insurance, and related matters. It then proposed a system for enforcement.

A comprehensive and detailed proposal, S. 96 was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) where no action was taken. 76 Then, on May 22, 2002, Senator Kohl introduced S. 2549 , an abbreviated version of the traveling sales crew/peddling legislation. An amendment to Section 12 of the FLSA, S. 2549 read, in pertinent part:

No individual under 18 years of age may be employed in a position requiring the individual to engage in door to door sales or in related support work in a manner that requires the individual to remain away from his or her permanent residence for more than 24 hours.

It further authorized the Secretary of Labor to "issue such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out" the proposed amendment. On August 1, 2002, the HELP Committee, to which the bill had been referred, was discharged from further consideration and the bill, under unanimous consent, was agreed to by the Senate. 77 It was referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, where it died at the close of the 107 th Congress.

The issue was raised in the 108 th Congress, again in an abbreviated form, with introduction of H.R. 3139 by Representative Lantos: an umbrella child labor reform proposal, discussed below. No action, however, was taken on the Lantos bill. 78 In the 109 th Congress, Lantos again introduced the issue as part of H.R. 2870 , a general bill dealing with child labor. But once more, the bill was directed to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, where it remained.

On May 1, 2003, legislation to permit employment of young persons (of at least 14 years of age) in sawmilling and woodworking facilities was introduced by Representative Joseph Pitts (R-PA) and Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)—respectively H.R. 1943 and S. 974 . On October 8, 2003, a hearing on the Pitts bill was conducted by the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

A Question of Public Policy

Work in or around sawmills and wood-working machinery has been deemed by DOL as especially hazardous for persons under 18 years of age. The practice violates at least two Departmental Hazardous Occupations (HO) Orders: HO 4, covering sawmills, and HO 5, dealing with power-driven woodworking machines. 79

Speaking generally, the Amish resist requirements of law that would alter their traditional way of life and have rejected compulsory school attendance beyond the 8 th grade. The Daily Labor Report explains: "After completing their formal classroom training [elementary school] at age 14 or 15, Amish boys typically receive training in farming or carpentry from their fathers." 80 In recent years, the opportunity for the Amish to farm has diminished—in part, because of increased land values and property taxes. Therefore, the Amish have sought other activities for their children. "What are we supposed to do with them if they don't work here," lamented one member of the Amish community, "have them stay on the street all day?" 81

The Amish have sought to have their sons work in sawmills and woodworking plants where there is Amish supervision (or where they are supervised by an adult relative). 82 The Department of Labor has held that permitting children to work in such plants would be a violation of federal child labor law: HO 4 and HO 5. The result has been a clash between the Amish and DOL. The Amish have pressed for an amendment to the child labor provisions of the FLSA in order to accommodate their practices.

Taking the Issue to Congress

At least since the 105 th Congress, legislation to amend federal child labor law on behalf of the Amish has been repeatedly introduced, both in the House and in the Senate. The bills, generally, would widen the opportunity for youth ages 14 to 18 "to be employed inside or outside places of business where machinery is used to process wood products." In order to qualify for such employment, a youth would have to be "a member of a religious sect or division thereof whose established teachings do not permit formal education beyond the eighth grade." In the 105 th and 106 th Congresses, the Amish legislation was passed by the House under suspension but the Senate did not act. 83

Had the legislation been adopted, Amish children, having left school after the 8 th grade, could have been employed in work otherwise regarded as too hazardous for persons under 18 years of age. Some have suggested that constitutional issues may be involved in affording special treatment to the Amish that is not afforded to other religious groups. Setting aside issues of legality, other questions could be raised, given that Amish children are permitted to leave school after the 8 th grade. 84 First, would elimination of federal restrictions upon child labor—to the extent proposed in the legislation—provide an opportunity (and, perhaps, an incentive) for Amish children to leave school and to enter the world-of-work? Or, would it merely recognize that Amish children are already out of school and, thus, permit them to be productively occupied? Second, assuming that these children do leave school to work, are sawmills and wood processing establishments appropriate places of employment for any youngsters under the age of 18? Might other areas of skills training be more suitable for children than mill work with its attendant hazards? What types of work are suitable for 14-year-old Amish children and who should decide? 85

In order to strengthen the ties of Amish children to the Amish community, youngsters are systematically separated from the non-Amish world. 86 The work experience of Amish children with the skills they acquire on the family farm may not be readily transferable to the non-Amish marketplace. Thus, with only an 8 th -grade education and lacking experience in the non-Amish world, their subsequent choices may be, accordingly, restricted, rendering their out-migration from the community within which they were raised extremely difficult. 87 Some may applaud this result; others may question the appropriateness of a federal role in its facilitation.

On May 3, 2001, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, conducted an oversight hearing on the employment needs of Amish youth. Representative Mark Souder (R-IN) spoke in support of exemption. Mr. Souder, representing a partly Amish constituency, explained that the Amish had not been able to persuade DOL to acquiesce in industrial employment for Amish children at age 14. Urging amendment of the FLSA to permit such employment, he argued that the Amish children would be "supervised by adults who know and care about them" and that the proposed amendment "would protect a truly endangered religion and culture." 88

Thomas M. Markey of DOL testified in opposition, arguing: "Sawmills are dangerous places to work, even for adults." Pointing to a high accident and fatality rate for the industry nationwide, he stated that such work is "even more dangerous for children." 89

On June 13, 2001, during consideration of S. 1 (reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act), Senator Specter proposed S.Amdt. 420 . It would have amended the FLSA to permit Amish youngsters, 14 years of age and older, to work, under specified conditions, in mills and woodworking plants. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), and Senator Specter engaged in a brief debate. Senator Kennedy affirmed that it "would be valuable to have ... an open hearing" on the issue—particularly with respect to the safety of prospective workers—and agreed that his committee would conduct such a hearing. With that understanding, Senator Specter then withdrew his proposed amendment. 90

On July 25, 2001, legislation to permit Amish youth to work at age 14 in wood processing plants was introduced both in the House and in the Senate: H.R. 2639 (Pitts) and S. 1241 (Specter). No action was taken on these proposals.

Revived in the 108 th Congress

The Pitts ( H.R. 1943 ) and Specter ( S. 974 ) bills of the 108 th Congress largely follow the pattern of recent years. To be exempt from the restraints of federal child labor law, several standards would be imposed.

The targeted youth must be "at least 14" years of age. Further, the child:

(a) Must be "by statute or judicial order ... exempt from compulsory school attendance beyond the eighth grade." 91

(b) Must be "supervised by an adult relative" or "by an adult member of the same religious sect or division as the individual."

(c) May not "operate or assist in the operation of power-driven woodworking machines."

(d) Must be "protected from wood particles or other flying debris within the workplace by a barrier appropriate to the potential hazard of such wood particles or flying debris or by maintaining a sufficient distance from machinery in operation ... "

(e) "[I]is required to use personal protective equipment to prevent exposure to excessive levels of noise and saw dust."

Other concerns aside, some may ask: Would the safeguards be adequate? In the absence of frequent DOL inspections, would the precautions be observed? Does the fact that a supervisor would be of "the same religious sect" as the child worker render the work any less hazardous—or the supervisor any more diligent in monitoring the youth's work?

On October 8, 2003, the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections conducted a hearing on H.R. 1943 . In an opening statement, Chairman Charlie Norwood (R-GA) observed that the bill provides:

that certain youth whose religious faith and beliefs dictate that they "learn by doing" are afforded an opportunity to do so, and that the federal government—however well-meaning—does not endanger the belief and culture of these young people and their families. 92

As the lead witness (DOL was not represented at the hearing), Representative Pitts stated that actions of the department had "severely threatened the lifestyle and religion of this respected and humble community" and averred that the "government should not interfere" with Amish practices lest "their strong heritage ... be undermined." 93 Representative Mark Souder (R-IN), while reviewing the proposed safeguards embodied in the amendment, also framed the issue in religious terms. Government bureaucracy, he stated, "... is threatening the Amish people's very way of life. It is interfering with their religious freedom." 94 Christ K. Blank, speaking for the Old Order Amish, concurred, declaring "the ages 14 through 17 to be a very tender receptive age" and a period during which "to instill ... Amish values and work ethics in our children." 95

But, not all were in complete agreement. Nicholas Clark of the United Food and Commercial Workers, AFL-CIO, recognized the religious desires of the Amish community. He pointed out, however, that federal government studies had found that working conditions in "sawmilling and woodworking are among the most hazardous occupations for adults, with a death rate that is five times the national average for all industries," and that such work is "especially inappropriate for young workers" (emphasis in the original). Clark expressed concern about constitutional issues and raised, as well, the issue of equity. The proposed amendment "... would grant Amish-owned sawmills and woodworking firms an exception from child labor laws that are [sic] denied firms owned by persons of non-Amish faiths." Further, he argued, it would deny "Amish children the very real benefits of governmental health and safety protections that are afforded Catholic, Baptist, Jewish or any other" non-Amish children. While sawmills and woodworking plants "provide much needed employment for Amish adults," he concluded, "they cannot safely or constitutionally serve that purpose for Amish children." 96

Amish Child Workers and the 2004 Appropriations Bill

As the first session of the 108 th Congress moved to a close, several appropriations bills (among them, the measure providing funding for the Department of Labor) remained to be passed. Ultimately, the several appropriations bills were combined in H.R. 2673 , the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations bill.

A conference report on H.R. 2673 ( H.Rept. 108-401 ) was filed on November 25, 2003. Included in the conference report (Senator Specter had served as a Senate conferee) was language roughly paralleling that of H.R. 1943 , the Amish child labor bill. In an explanation of the measure, the conference report stated:

The conference agreement includes a provision to permit youth, ages 14 through 17, who by statute or judicial order are exempt from compulsory school attendance beyond the eighth grade, to work inside or outside places of business where machinery is used to process wood products. The youth would be permitted to perform activities such as sweeping, stacking wood, and writing orders. Safety provisions include prohibiting the youth from operating machinery, and requiring the use of eye and body protections.

On December 8, 2003, the House voted to approve the conference report (with the Amish child labor provision included). The vote was 242 yeas to 176 nays. 97 Senate consideration of the measure was deferred until the second session of the 108 th Congress. 98 On January 20 and 22, the Senate considered the conference report, though attention appears to have focused on overtime pay regulations and subjects other than the Amish child labor provision. On January 22, the Senate approved the conference report by a vote of 65 yeas to 28 nays. 99 The measure was signed by the President on January 23, 2004 ( P.L. 108-199 ).

In a statement to the press, Senator Specter noted that he had "toured an Amish sawmill in Lancaster County, PA," had met with some members of the Amish people, and had come to "know of the importance of this legislation to their community and culture. This is an issue of freedom of religion," he affirmed, "where the Amish prefer to educate their children aside from the public schools and part of that educational process is for teenagers to work in the lumber mills." 100

Acknowledgments

This report is an update of a CRS report originally written by [author name scrubbed].

Find anything you save across the site in your account

Child Labor Is on the Rise

You may think that child labor was abolished a century ago, at least in the United States. That was never quite true. The Fair Labor Standards Act, passed during the New Deal, outlawed “oppressive child labor” but exempted agricultural work from many of its restrictions, which, in the decades since, has left hundreds of thousands of children in the fields. In every industry, enforcement of the law has been uneven. States have always been free to strengthen protections, which some did, but challenges to the federal standards have been rare. The Reagan Administration, in its pro-business zeal, proposed lowering the standards, but abandoned the idea under fire from teachers, parents, unions, and Democratic lawmakers armed with Dickens references.

Today, however, child labor in America is on the rise. The number of minors employed in violation of child-labor laws last year was up thirty-seven per cent from the previous year, according to the Department of Labor, and up two hundred and eighty-three per cent from 2015. (These are violations caught by government, so they likely represent a fraction of the real number.) This surge is being propelled by an unhappy confluence of employers desperate to fill jobs, including dangerous jobs, at the lowest possible cost; a vast wave of “unaccompanied minors” entering the country; more than a little human trafficking; and a growing number of state legislatures that are weakening child-labor laws in deference to industry groups and, sometimes, in defiance of federal authority.

In the past two years, according to a recent report from the Economic Policy Institute, at least fourteen states have enacted or proposed laws rolling back child-labor protections. Typically, the new laws extend work hours for minors, lift restrictions on hazardous work, lower the age at which kids can bus tables where alcohol is served, or introduce new sub-minimum wages. In Iowa, a new law allows children as young as fourteen to work in industrial laundries, and, with approval from a state agency, allows sixteen-year-olds to work in roofing, excavation, demolition, the operation of power-driven machinery, and other dangerous occupations. Jennifer Sherer, a co-author of the E.P.I. report, said, “Iowa’s new law contains multiple provisions that conflict with federal prohibitions on ‘oppressive child labor.’ ” It also limits employer liability for the injury, illness, or death of a child on the job. Adolescents are almost twice as likely as adults to be injured at work.

The reasons offered to justify these initiatives often emphasize child welfare. In Ohio, where Republican legislators are also proposing weaker laws, a spokesman for the Ohio Restaurant Association testified that extending work hours for minors would cut down on their screen time. (The lawmakers offered a concurrent resolution urging Congress to lower federal child-labor standards to conform with Ohio’s proposed rules.) Arkansas’s Republican governor, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, recently signed a law ending a requirement that fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds obtain a parent’s consent and a state permit before starting work. Linking the bill, strangely, to parental rights, the governor’s office called the permit “an arbitrary burden on parents.”

“It was a one-page form,” Nina Mast, the other co-author of the E.P.I. report, said. “It contained basic information and informed parents of a child’s rights. Removing it eliminates a paper trail, makes enforcement and monitoring much more difficult. It opens the door to exploitation.” Sherer said that a lobbying template being used in state legislatures to gut child-labor laws had been provided by conservative groups such as the Foundation for Government Accountability, a think tank based in Florida.

Many employers are clearly not waiting for the laws to change. Fast-food chains, which rely on teen-age workers, seemingly treat fines for violating the laws as a cost of doing business. (It’s the franchisees who actually break the laws, while the parent corporations pay lobbyists to help loosen them.) In February, the Labor Department announced that it had found more than a hundred children between the ages of thirteen and seventeen working in meatpacking plants and slaughterhouses, in eight states, for Packers Sanitation Services, one of the nation’s largest food-sanitation companies. The facilities themselves are owned by major corporations, including Tyson Foods and JBS. (All three companies denied that they had engaged in any wrongdoing.) The children worked overnight shifts at such jobs as cleaning bone saws and head splitters with hazardous chemicals. At least three were injured. Packers, which is owned by Blackstone, the world’s largest private-equity firm, paid a civil fine of a million and a half dollars.

Social-service agencies were frustrated that the Labor Department referred none of the children from Packers to them. The Times reported that some had found jobs at other plants. It was clear, in any case, from a range of reports, that they were all, or nearly all, drawn from the great underage labor pool of children who have crossed the border in recent years. “Unaccompanied minors” who arrive from non-neighboring countries—which, in effect, means Central America—are permitted to remain in the U.S. and are remanded to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, which delivers them as quickly as possible to a sponsor while asylum applications are processed. The asylum processing typically takes years.

In 2022, a hundred and thirty thousand unaccompanied minors entered the H.H.S. system, nearly half of them from Guatemala. In the rush to house such numbers, sponsors are barely vetted. Some are relatives, some are traffickers, some are a combination. Follow-up by H.H.S. has been tenuous—the agency loses track of a huge number of children within a month of their placement. But one thing is certain: although these kids, like all children, are required to go to school—until the age of sixteen in some states, eighteen in others—and many want nothing more, they also need to work. There are debts to be repaid, living expenses, and remittances to be sent home. If employers ask for an I.D. or a Social Security number, faked documents can be easily bought; many employers do not ask.

There are signs that the Biden Administration has begun to face the child-labor crisis—the announcement of a crackdown, a request to Congress to increase penalties against employers. And yet strengthening enforcement when the budget of the regulatory state is shrinking under pressure from the debt-ceiling negotiations seems unlikely. Republicans say that the problem is an insecure border. Certainly, crumbling economies in Central America intensify this crisis. But the immediate problem is a broad indifference to the well-being of children when profits are at stake. ♦

New Yorker Favorites

As he rose in politics, Robert Moses discovered that decisions about New York City’s future would not be based on democracy .

The Muslim tamale king of the Old West .

Wendy Wasserstein on the baby who arrived too soon .

An Oscar-winning filmmaker takes on the Church of Scientology .

The young stowaways thrown overboard at sea .

Fiction by Jhumpa Lahiri: “ A Temporary Matter .”

Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Ind Psychiatry J
• v.27(1); Jan-Jun 2018

Challenges and perspectives of child labor

Amir radfar.

College of Graduate Health Studies, A.T. Still University, Mesa, Arizona, USA

Seyed Ahmad Ahmadi Asgharzadeh

1 Faculty of Medicine, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran

Fernando Quesada

2 Department of Medicine, Universidad de El Salvador, San Salvador, El Salvador

Irina Filip

3 Department of Psychiatry, Kaiser Permanente, Fontana, California, USA

Child labor is one of the oldest problems in our society and still an ongoing issue. During the time, child labor evolved from working in agriculture or small handicraft workshops to being forced into work in factories in the urban setting as a result of the industrial revolution. Children were very profitable assets since their pay was very low, were less likely to strike, and were easy to be manipulated. Socioeconomic disparities and lack of access to education are among others contributing to the child labor. Religious and cultural beliefs can be misguiding and concealing in delineating the limits of child labor. Child labor prevents physical, intellectual, and emotional development of children. To date, there is no international agreement to fully enforced child labor. This public health issue demands a multidisciplinary approach from the education of children and their families to development of comprehensive child labor laws and regulations.

INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL FACTS

Child labor is an old problem well rooted in human history. Children were exploited to various extents during different periods of time. The problem was common in poor and developing countries. In the 1800's, child labor was part of economic life and industrial growth. Children less than 14 years old worked in agriculture, factories, mining, and as street vendors.[ 1 ] Children from poor families were expected to participate to the family income, and sometimes they worked in dangerous conditions in 12-hour shifts.[ 1 ]

In the 1900's, in England, more than a quarter of poor families lost their children to diseases and death, endangering their extra financial support.[ 1 ] Boys worked in glass factories in high heat in three shifts because the furnaces were kept fired all the time to increase productivity, while girls were forced into prostitution. In 1910, it was estimated that more than two million children in the United States were working.[ 1 ]

With the increase of education, economy, and the emergence of labor laws, child labor decreased. However, child labor is still a widespread problem in many parts of the world in developed and developing countries. With the development of agriculture, children were again forced to be employed mostly by the families rather than factories. The main cause of child labor is the lack of schools and poverty.[ 2 ]

Per International Labor Organization (ILO, 2002), in the world, there are 211 million children laborers, 73 million under 10 years of age, 126 million children work in the worst forms of child labor, and more than 8 million are kept as slaves for domestic work, in trafficking, armed conflict, prostitution, and pornography. More than 20,000 children die yearly due to work-related accidents. Nearly, one-third of the world's children work in Africa.[ 3 ] Countries such as India have made efforts to tackle the worst forms of child labor. Despite this, 56.4% of children aged 5–14 work in agriculture and 33.1% work in industry.[ 4 ] Indian children are forced into labor to pay family debt. They work sometimes in hazardous environments, being forced into commercial sexual exploitation, human trafficking, or forcibly recruited or kidnapped to be part of terrorist groups.[ 4 ]

Child labor is morally and ethically unacceptable. United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) was the first international body that signed in 1989 the Convention on the Rights of the Children. It is for the first time in history when children are seen as humans with rights rather than economic assets of their parents. Child labor was defined as labor that harms the health of the children and deprives them of education rights. This law does not exclude children that work for their families.

ETHICAL FACETS OF CHILD LABOR

Child labor has many facets from the ethical point of view. Autonomy, beneficence, justice, nonmaleficence, privacy, and veracity are endangered during child labor.[ 5 ] Utilitarianists would support the idea of child labor as long as they are the sole providers for the family and without their income, the family would not survive and as long as the labor is voluntarily provided. The ends justify the means. Forced child labor is unethical because it is against the autonomy of the children. The consent of the working child is mostly manipulated by the parents. To give consent, a child needs to understand the situation, the consequences, and voluntarily agree to work. Children of young age, who have a less than fully competent capacity, can assent to an action by getting involved in the decision-making process. Children fall easy victims to unfair job conditions, and they do not have the power to stand-up against mistreatments.[ 6 ] The maleficence of this act has long-term physical, psychological, behavioral, and societal consequences. Even if they are lacking the competency of making informed decisions, they are considered individuals with autonomy that should be protected and safeguarded.[ 6 ]

Child labor is more common in developing countries where more than 90% of children live.[ 3 ] Child labor in developing countries affects 211 million children.[ 3 ] The continent with the highest child employment rate is Asia with 61%, followed by Africa and Latin America. Nearly 41% of the children in Africa are below 14 years old, followed by Asia with 22% and Latin America 17%.[ 3 ] India has made progress in reducing the child labor. However, more than 4 million children in India between 5 and 14 years old work more than 6 hours a day, while about 2 million children aged 5–14 work 3–6 months in a year.[ 4 ]

CULTURAL BELIEFS AND CHILD LABOR

Cultural beliefs have an important role in encouraging child labor. In developing countries, people believe that work has a constructive effect on character building and increases skill development in children. There is a tradition in these families, where children follow the parents' footsteps and learn the job from an early age. Some cultural beliefs may contribute to the misguided concept that a girl's education is not as important as a boy's education, and therefore, girls are pushed into child labor as providers of domestic services.[ 7 ] In India, not putting a child to work means the family would not make enough income to sustain their living. Sociocultural aspects such as the cast system, discrimination, and cultural biases against girls contribute to child labor.[ 4 ]

RELIGION AND CHILD LABOR

It is generally accepted that parents have the fundamental right to educate and raise their children. Parents almost always try to act in the child's best interest at the best of their knowledge and beliefs. In doing so, they are reasonably motivated by their intellectual growth, social development, and at times by spiritual salvation. Oftentimes, parents seek guidance in religion to shape the upbringing of their children and to enhance their progress. Hard work is among others, an important religious value to instill from a young age.

Krolikowski found that Christian children were the least likely to work, while Muslim children, children with no religion, and children affiliated with a traditional African religion were more likely to work than Christians.[ 8 ] The 40% higher incidence of child labor among Indian Muslims compared with Indian Hindus is due perhaps to the impoverishment of Muslim community.[ 4 ] Amish people's life is also regulated by religious values. They believe that work and faith bring people closer to God.[ 9 ] Amish children are initiated from childhood into apprenticeship to learn the trade, and beyond eighth grade, they have to provide like an adult for the community. Education of children beyond eighth grade is considered a threat to the community values. The U. S. labor laws forbid children less than 16 years of age to work in hazardous places such as sawmill or woodworking. However, in 2004 an exception was made by the United States Department of Labor, who approved an amendment that allows Amish children between 14 and 18 years old to work.[ 10 ]

POLICIES AND CHILD LABOR

Child labor is rooted in poverty, income insecurity, social injustice, lack of public services, and lack of political will.[ 7 ] Working children are deprived from a proper physical and mental development. The millennium development goals (MDGs), issued in 2001 to implement the Millennium Declaration, set up commitments for poverty reduction, education, and women's empowerment. Persistence of poverty is the major cause of labor. However, child labor also causes poverty because it deprives the children from education and from a normal physical and mental development hampering a prosperous life as adults. The first MDG in addressing poverty is the elimination of child labor.[ 11 ]

The International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor (IPEC) was created by ILO in 1992 to progressively eliminate child labor. The priority addresses the worst forms of child labor such as slavery, prostitution, drug trafficking, and recruitment of children in armed conflicts.[ 12 ] IPEC is working with stakeholders from many countries to increase strengths and promote the fight against child labor. IPEC engage with multiple organizations, international and governmental bodies, community-based organizations, religious groups, private plural form businesses, children and their families.

Policy reform was promoted through country-based programs. The capacity building of institutions has been increased to better understand the obstacles and increase the ability of obtaining sustainable measures. These measures were meant to decrease child labor and bring children back in schools. In all these processes, statistical data were collected at the worldwide level, methodologies were set in place, and guidelines were created.

The Child Labor Platform was created as a business-led initiative by ILO in 2012, to identify the obstacles of the implementation of ILO conventions at the community level and to come up with solutions. This platform is a win-win situation for all parties involved: stakeholders as well children and their families. This platform offers training, research, and specialized tools to member companies, so they can carry out activities against child labor. Eliminating child labor is part of the corporates' social responsibility in line with their values and is what the society expects from them. This platform provides information how to get involved and how to find businesses that work collaboratively with the communities to solve the problem. Training and knowledge is a real value added for companies.[ 12 ] The Indian Government implemented a national project deemed to assist population to eradicate child labor, and set in place enforcements of criminal and labor law.[ 4 ]

ARGUMENTS FAVORING CHILD LABOR

Despite all these international and national measures against child labor, there are arguments in favor of child labor. Some argue that poor families would be even poorer without the supplemental financial contribution of children. Lack of money will deprive them of the basic needs of food and shelter which will decrease their survival rate. In addition, an increase in poverty would make children even more susceptible to exploitation.

The supporters of these ideas argue that the benefit of creating a safe workplace and allowing children to work is helpful in certain situations. They also emphasize that child work is not child labor as long as it does not interfere with schooling and children have safe workplace conditions with a limited number of hours per day.[ 13 ]

STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE AND CHILD LABOR

The stakeholders most directly affected are the children and their families. Children are working at the expense of their education and normal mental development. Education is important not only for the intellectual development but also for the empowerment and acquisition of new skills for adult life. The health of children is endangered by work in hazardous conditions, abuse, exhaustion, malnutrition, or exposure to toxic materials. The psychological harm leads to behavioral problems later on in life.[ 14 ]

Despite the implementation of laws and measurements at the international level, child labor still persists, and it is caused by the same factors as 100 years ago. There is a need to address poverty and access to education. To date, there is no international agreement to define child labor. Every country has different laws and regulations regarding the minimum age for starting working based on the type of labor. The lack of international consensus on child labor makes the limits of child labor very unclear.[ 15 ]

Therefore, it is mandatory to create international policies that adopt a holistic approach to free quality education for all children, including labor children from poor families. Education should be continued beyond the primary school level and should be done in a formal setting. Studies show that nonformal education is a necessary but not a sufficient prerequisite for permanently withdrawing children from work.[ 15 ] The public educational system should be expanded to accommodate laborer children who still do not have access to school. More schools should be built, more teachers should be trained, and more educational materials should be available. A special attention should be given to children living in exceptional geographical conditions and mobility should be provided at the cost of the community. Children who dropped out of school should receive adequate guidance and support, and a smooth reentry should be facilitated. The development of schools in the rural areas would decrease the load of children in urban schools. This will allow parents to accommodate children's needs without having to migrate in big cities.

Another phenomenon that should be addressed is the social exclusion. Children engaged in the worst forms of child labor come from the lowest strata of the society. International Labor Organization launched a project on Indigen and tribal people, who are the most targeted by social exclusion. This project promotes their rights and encourages building capacity among their community.[ 15 ] Proper enforcement of child labor policies and the focus on education can break the cycle of poverty that drives the children into labor.

Child labor is a public health issue with negative outcomes that demands special attention. A multidisciplinary approach is needed to tackle child labor issues. Per ILO, poverty is a major single cause behind child labor. Lack of affordable schools and affordable education is another major factor to force children to work. Certain cultural beliefs rationalize this practice and encourage child labor as character building and skill development for children. Some cultural traditions encourage child labor as footsteps to their parents' jobs. Socioeconomic disparities, poor governance, and poor implementation of international agreements are among major causes of child labor. Macroeconomic factors also encourage child labor by the growth of low pay informal economy. Child labor prevents the normal well-being including physical, intellectual, and emotional psychosocial development of children. This public health issue cannot be eliminated by only enforcement of child labor laws and regulations. Any comprehensive policies should engulf a holistic approach on the education of children and their families, investment in early childhood development programs, establishing public education task forces in rural areas, implementing policies with focus on increasing adult wages, and discouraging consumers to buy products made by forced child labor. As such, ethical practice requires protection of all rights of children and protective policies and procedures which support the provisions of ILO's standards.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgment

The authors wish to thank the University Writing Center at A.T. Still University for assistance with this manuscript.

Top of page

Lesson Plan Child Labor in America

Children have always worked, often exploited and under less than healthy conditions. Industrialization, the Great Depression and the vast influx of poor immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries, made it easy to justify the work of young children. To gain a true understanding of child labor, both as an historical and social issue, students should examine the worlds of real working children. This unit asks students to critically examine, respond to and report on photographs as historical evidence. Students will discover the work of reformer/photographer Lewis Hine, whose photographs give the issue of child labor a dramatic personal relevance and illustrate the impact of photojournalism in the course of American history.

Students will:

• develop an understanding of the importance of historical inquiry;
• recognize the factors which contributed to the Industrial Revolution in the United States;
• evaluate primary source materials as artifacts for greater understanding of the past;
• function as historians by formulating their own questions from encounters with primary source documents and images;
• identify the problems confronted by people in the past, analyze how decisions for action were made and propose alternative solutions;
• understand that political, economic, and social history are connected; and
• recognize the impact of citizen action on public policy.

Time Required

Two to three weeks

Lesson Preparation

• Primary Source Analysis Tool
• Confidential Memo  (PDF, 20 KB)
• Modern Memo  (PDF, 20 KB)
• Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information Black-and-White Negatives
• Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information Color Photographs
• American Treasures of the Library of Congress: Memory: Child Labor
• Lewis Hine's Report on Child Labor in the Cotton Mills of Mississippi, 1911
• National Child Labor Committee Collection: Photographs by Lewis Hine
• Detroit Publishing Company
• Using Primary Sources
• Teachers Guide to  Analyzing Photographs and Prints

Lesson Procedure

In order to establish background, students will be introduced to the causes and effects of the Industrial Revolution. Students will then critically analyze primary source materials with the help of organizers and teacher-guided questions, developing additional questions to support their own inquiry. Students will then react to their encounter with these materials by selecting among a menu of projects, with each student assuming the role of an early 20th century journalist.

Activity One: Introduction and Background (1 - 2 class periods)

• Discuss or review the causes and effects of the Industrial Revolution. This can be done using a variety of methods depending on your time needs. An encyclopedia or textbook section would offer basic introduction. Consider the possibility of class field trips to a local museum or role play to highlight the effects of industrialization.

Activity Two: Primary Source Analysis - Documents (1 - 2 class periods)

• Start with an open-ended question such as "How do we discover our history? How do we learn about our family's past?" Discuss the role of oral or written histories. Read definitions of primary and secondary sources in  Using Primary Sources  and discuss with students as necessary
• Access  Lewis Hine's Report  on Child Labor in the Cotton Mills of Mississippi, 1911.
• Why did Hine make "quiet visits?"
• Why did he visit during "working hours", "noon-hours" and "around homes?"
• What kind of information would Hine collect from the children?
• Why did Hine keep such accurate records?
• Why did Mr. Mitchell move to Meridian, Mississippi?
• Why is the statement "miles from any railroad" important?
• How would you describe the Mitchell household?
• Do you think the Mitchell story is typical? Why or Why not?
• Discuss answers.

Activity Three: Primary Source Analysis - Photographs (1 - 2 class periods)

• Pass around several personal snapshots, and discuss what can be learned from examining a photograph.
• Distribute or project the image of  Coal Breaker Boys  from  Detroit Publishing Company  on a large screen. Feel free to use any other appropriate image.
• Brainstorm observations.
• Students analyze the photograph, recording their thoughts on the  Primary Source Analysis Tool . Before the students begin, select questions from the teacher's guide  Analyzing Photographs and Prints  to focus and prompt analysis and discussion.
• Discuss the experience of investigating the photographs.
• How are photographs used by historians?
• What other types of primary sources do you know about?
• What is the importance of using primary sources in understanding history?
• What if no one took photographs of these children?

Activity Four: Guided Practice (2 - 3 class periods) (May be adapted for lab or classroom)

• Divide students into pairs or small groups.
• Sweeper boy
• Glass factory workers
• Breaker boys
• The Slebzak family
• Gather the class back as a large group. Solicit observations and discuss the images with students. Compare student findings, attempt to draw consensus, some teacher guidance may be needed. (It may be helpful to project each image on a large screen to prompt discussion.)

Activity Five: Student Project (4 - 6 class periods)

• Form small research groups, approximately four or five students per group.
• Distribute a copy of the simulated  Confidential Memo  from the editor of  The New York Examiner  to each research team. Please understand that this memo is a prompt for this activity; it is NOT a primary source.
• Acting as journalists, students will select tasks. Each group should have at least one of the following:

1. Historian Historians will create a graphic and visually appealing timeline. The purpose of the timeline is to present readers with an overview of the issue of child labor as it relates to industrialization, immigration and economic cycles. Background should reach back to 18th century Europe and conclude with the Great Depression.

2. Editor Student will choose a persona (a parent, factory owner/employer, reformer or politician) and write an editorial aimed at persuading readers to take some form of action relating to changing child labor conditions or defending the conditions which make it necessary for children to work. Work should display an emotional involvement in the issue and definite point of view.

3. Photojournalist Photojournalism is an important part of telling a news story. Often photographs present accounts far more powerfully than text. Your task is to locate compelling photographs which deal with the issue of child labor and present these photographs with original captions.

4. News Reporter The task of the news staff is to present readers with accounts of children at work as news stories. Your work is not editorial. Rather, you should present the facts, represent opinions only as quotes, and attempt to present balanced news stories.

5. Other tasks to reflect student talents or interests, such as poet, political cartoonist, etc.

• Traditional print newspaper (a cut and paste activity on large paper)
• Newspaper story boards on trifold cardboard displays
• Desktop published newsletter
• Multimedia presentation or Web site
• Reminder: though our own communication technology has improved dramatically since the turn of the century, remind students to try to convey a sense for the period through their product (e.g. old-fashioned fonts and images).
• Using the simulated  Modern Memo  prompt, create a newspaper activity which deals with the issue in today's world, mirroring the activity presented above.
• On a map of the world, label areas where children are working and describe the working conditions.
• Write a letter to a policy maker or editor expressing your opinions, based on your research.
• Search for and select a photograph that you find especially moving from the Library of Congress digital collections . Write a poem expressing the feelings of the child/children in the photograph.
• Consider a field trip to a museum which focuses on the work of children.
• Write a letter from the perspective of a working child. Imagine yourself writing to a friend. Describe a typical day working at a mill, factory, cannery, a mine or a farm.
• Read a work of fiction to get a greater understanding of the life of a child during the Industrial Revolution. (e.g. Katherine Paterson's  Lyddie  or Dicken's  Oliver Twist  or  Hard Times )
• Compare a photograph of children working from the early 20th century with a photograph of children working toward the end of the 21st century.
• Create a simulation of a town meeting in which the issue of child labor is discussed. Participants may play the roles of: parents, employers, children, mayor, social reformers, journalists.
• Should there be stiffer legislation?
• Should there be more careful monitoring of children's work by parents and teachers?
• What should the rules be regarding the hours and responsibilities of young workers?
• Should there be rules be regarding interference with school work?

Lesson Evaluation

Participation in discussion and completion of projects according to criteria specified by the teacher or generated in conjunction with the class.

Joyce Kasman Valenza and Carl Atkinson

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Child labor violations are on the rise as some states look to loosen their rules

Kaitlyn Radde

Child labor violations have been on the rise since 2015 after declining for years, according to data from the U.S. Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division. The total number of violations is much lower than it was two decades ago, but experts are still troubled.

In 2015 — the low point in the data — the Wage and Hour Division found 1,012 minors employed in violation of child labor laws, with an average of 1.9 per case. In 2022, that number more than tripled to 3,876, averaging 4.6 per case.

"We're doing more outreach and education," which helps people recognize violations, says Jessica Looman, principal deputy administrator of the Wage and Hour Division. "We also are doing more investigations."

The division is finding more minors per case, and it's not clear why. Investigators are also finding more minors working in hazardous occupations, where children could get seriously injured.

"Those numbers are creeping back up again, and that's a real concern to us," says Looman.

It's important to hold employers accountable, "but this is also an issue that is community based. It is school based. It is parent based," Looman says. "All of us together as a society and an economy have to come together and make sure that we are protecting our kids. And when we look at the increase in child labor violations, we have to ask ourselves the question, how are we letting this happen in 2022, 2023?"

What does child labor look like in the U.S.?

Child labor negatively affects the education and health of children who engage in it, experts say. Employers are responsible for ensuring a safe workplace that complies with child labor laws, Looman says.

Part of the division's focus is on prevention — educating teens about their rights and employers about their responsibilities and strategies to ensure compliance. The division also has a range of enforcement mechanisms at its disposal to respond to violations of different levels of severity, from fines to injunctions.

Looman says most violations occur in places where it's appropriate for minors to work, meaning teenagers are working too many hours at a grocery store or operating a fryer and staying too late at a fast-food chain . For example, in 2022, more than 100 kids across several McDonald's locations in Pennsylvania were illegally scheduled to work too many hours or too late at night. Subway, Burger King and Popeyes restaurants in South Carolina were fined for similar violations in 2022.

But Looman says the division is troubled by the fact that investigators are finding more children working in dangerous jobs.

There's no excuse for "why these alarming violations are occurring, with kids being employed where they shouldn't even be in the first place," Looman says.

This month, Packers Sanitation Services paid a $1.5 million fine for employing 102 children to work in dangerous meatpacking facility jobs across eight states. Last summer, Reuters revealed that children as young as 12 — many of whom were migrants — were hired to work in a metal shop owned by Hyundai .

These cases represent common types of hazardous-occupation violations found by investigators — namely cleaning or operating dangerous machinery.

The U.S. generally has good child labor laws, except for agriculture, says Reid Maki, director of child labor advocacy for the National Consumers League and coordinator of the Child Labor Coalition, which works to end abusive child labor. Minors as young as 12 can work long hours, and agriculture's hazardous-occupation orders aren't as strict as in nonagricultural industries .

While child labor violations can affect minors of all backgrounds, "a lot of the kids we see working in exploitative situations tend to be from immigrant families" and Latino, Maki said.

They're often harvesting fruits and vegetables. In a 2019 study , 30 child farmworkers in North Carolina ranging from 10 to 17 told researchers they were pressured to work quickly in dangerous conditions, faced wage theft and worked long hours in the heat.

"We walk a lot. That's hard. Sometimes your hands hurt," a 13-year-old boy who picked tomatoes told the researchers. "And your back, sometimes it will be hurting."

But immigrant children are vulnerable to other kinds of labor, too, from construction to meatpacking. Immigration raids in the early 2000s inadvertently revealed the children of migrant workers employed in meatpacking plants, and advocates like Maki have been concerned about child labor in those facilities ever since.

Maki says such workplaces are "one of the worst environments for children to be in."

Labor shortages are driving efforts to loosen child labor laws. They could be contributing to violations too.

In a tight labor market — like the current one — employers sometimes prefer to fill jobs with minors, who tend to be cheaper and more docile workers, Maki says.

"At a time when they were saying there are labor shortages, they were finding kids that would do the work," Maki says of the recent Packers Sanitation case. "I think they felt that if they could get kids, they would take them."

To ease labor shortages, lawmakers in some states have introduced legislation to loosen child labor laws, including in some of the most dangerous jobs.

Bills introduced in January in Minnesota and Iowa would allow some teenagers to work in construction and meatpacking plants, respectively. The Iowa bill would also let some youth under 16 drive themselves to work and extend the hours teenagers could work. In 2022, efforts to expand teens' working hours passed in New Jersey but weren't signed into law in two other states.

Supporters of legislation to allow minors to work more jobs and more hours say it fills an economic need and can teach them responsibility and financial literacy.

"Having kids get the opportunity to work is important," Jessica Dunker, president and CEO of the Iowa Restaurant Association, said in testimony to Iowa lawmakers . She also said minors who want to work deserve the same level of choice as those who want to participate in other after-school activities.

Maki says he and other advocates aren't against safe, part-time work for teens, where "they can learn work ethic and work skills."

But he says that allowing children to work longer hours increases the risk they'll get into car accidents — driving in the dark, exhausted — and that the jobs these bills allow minors to take are dangerous.

"There's no safe part of a loading dock," Maki says. With the provision in the Iowa bill that would lessen businesses' civil liability if child laborers got sick, injured or killed on the job, "it's as if they know that kids are going to get hurt."

• child labor
• Department of Labor

• Fundamentals NEW

• Biographies
• Compare Countries
• World Atlas

child labor

In the United States before 1938, many children under the age of 14 worked in factories.

Related resources for this article

• Primary Sources & E-Books

Introduction

The employment of children below a specified legal age is referred to as child labor. While work such as apprenticeship programs or after-school part-time employment can build character and prepare young people for careers, work that exploits children and interferes with their education is seen as a social problem. Unsafe working conditions frequently cause injuries or illnesses in children. In its most extreme forms child labor can resemble slavery .

Poverty is perhaps the single most important reason children are put to work: their families need the extra income. Local traditions may also encourage child labor. In many cultures it is believed that children should learn and participate in the trade of their parents, even if that trade is strenuous or hazardous. In some places there is a tradition of bonded labor (also called debt bondage), in which a poor family receives an advance payment from an employer and then hands over a child to work off the debt. Schooling, as an alternative to work, is simply not available in some areas. Gender or ethnic discrimination can play a role if girls or members of minority groups are put to work because they are considered less worthy of education than boys or members of the dominant group. Employers often actively recruit children because they can be paid lower wages than adults and are easier to control.

Child Labor in Great Britain and the United States

During the Industrial Revolution , children in the cities of Great Britain and other countries, including the United States, were forced to work in factories and shops in harsh conditions to help themselves and their families to survive. Outside cities, some children were put to work in mines. Children were paid very little and were made to work in cramped conditions, sometimes at precise work for which their small hands and keen eyesight were special assets.

At the beginning of the 19th century poor children—some only 4 years old—had workdays as long as 16 hours. At that time children made up about one-fourth of the total workforce of cotton mills in some regions of Great Britain. In one region, local government officials sent children from orphanages to the mills so that the government could be spared the cost of caring for them. In 1824 the father of the novelist Charles Dickens was sent to debtors’ prison, and young Dickens, at age 12, had to work in a factory. Dickens later documented the harsh lives of poor children in such novels as Oliver Twist (published 1838).

The earliest efforts of the British government to curb child labor were unsuccessful. The first law that was effective, the Factory Act of 1833, forbade the employment of children under the age of 9. It also limited the number of hours older children could work: between ages 9 and 13 the limit was nine hours per day; between ages 13 and 18 the limit was 12 hours. The law also provided for state inspections. However, the Factory Act applied only to the textile industry and exempted many other industries, such as shipbuilding and the mining of iron and coal. In 1847 the workday of children between ages 13 and 18 was limited to 10 hours. Further legislation extended the regulations to other industries. In 1870 the introduction of compulsory education in Great Britain helped reduce the scale of child labor in the country.

Child labor was common in the United States from colonial times. The 1900 census showed that about 2 million children were employed. Many were engaged in mining and manufacturing. Roughly one in four workers in Southern cotton mills were below age 15, and many were below age 12.

In 1904 a reform group called the National Child Labor Committee was organized, but it took a state-by-state approach to legal reform that proved to be inadequate. After at least one false start, the U.S. Congress in 1916 passed the Keating-Owens Child Labor Act, banning the sale of products from businesses that employed child workers under a specified age (which varied by type of industry), or that employed children under age 16 for more than eight hours per day. This law and another child labor law passed in 1918 were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court , but support for reform grew. In the mid-1920s Congress passed a constitutional amendment that overruled the Supreme Court. Before the amendment had been ratified by enough states to take effect, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was passed. This law set a minimum age of 14 for employment outside school hours in nonmanufacturing jobs, of 16 for employment during school hours in interstate commerce, and of 18 for hazardous occupations. This law was upheld by the Supreme Court. Now, 14- and 15-year-olds are allowed to work under strict conditions (for no more than three hours on a school day or eight hours on a non-school day) and 16-year-olds are allowed to work on most non-farm jobs.

Child Labor in the World Today

Before the 20th century child labor was common throughout Europe. In Belgium, for example, children made up about 50 percent of the workforce in the craft flax and hemp industries and about 20 percent in coal mining and textiles. Likewise, in Japan at the beginning of the 20th century children made up significant proportions of those employed in matchmaking, glassmaking, rope braiding, and rug weaving.

In the 21st century child labor continues to exist in the developed world though on a much smaller scale. In the developing world, however, it remains a major issue. In 2000 it was estimated that more than 200 million children between ages 5 and 14 (including some 75 million 9 years of age or younger) were employed throughout the world, with many working full-time. About half of these children experienced hazardous working conditions. In Africa, where nearly one in three children works, the problem is made worse by the AIDS epidemic, which created many orphans with no one to support them. Child labor is also common in Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America, and the Middle East. Agriculture is the leading employer of child workers: in Brazil, for example, it was estimated that in the late 1990s children accounted for up to 40 percent of workers on some sugar plantations and that on some farms children began work as young as 3 years of age. Child labor is especially prevalent in several industries, including sporting goods, precious gems, and textiles. Child labor increased dramatically in the 1990s in central and eastern Europe, where the transition to democracy affected child welfare adversely. Even in Italy there are estimated to be more than 1 million child workers, and in the United States many children of migrant workers and others toil long hours on farms and in garment industry sweatshops.

Bonded labor is widespread in India, Pakistan, and Nepal and is also practiced in some parts of Africa and Latin America. Bonded labor is similar to slavery, as few children are ever able to pay off their debt and are thus forced into servitude for years. Children are also lured or kidnapped and sold into child labor or prostitution. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of children are forced to serve as fighters in rebellions and civil wars.

World Efforts to Reduce Child Labor

Child labor was recognized as a worldwide problem in the 20th century. The issue was addressed at the first meeting of the International Labour Organization (ILO) in 1919. The ILO passed several international agreements on the subject that were replaced in 1973 by a Minimum Age Convention that set 15 (14 in less developed countries) as the minimum age for most forms of employment. Children of at least 13 years of age (12 in less developed countries) were allowed to perform light work, however, and the minimum age for hazardous work was 18. The convention has been ratified by more than 100 countries. Child labor was also addressed by the United Nations General Assembly in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which took effect in 1976.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted in 1989, declared that children should be protected from work that is hazardous, interferes with their education, or is detrimental to their health or physical or social development. In 1992 the ILO established the International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour, and the ILO conference in 1999 adopted the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention. The latter was especially aimed at slavery, bonded labor, child prostitution, and the use of children in illegal activities such as drug trafficking. It has been ratified by more than 100 countries. In addition to such legislation, opposition to child labor has led to consumer boycotts of products and to campaigns for labeling of products to guarantee that they were not made by children.

It’s here: the NEW Britannica Kids website!

We’ve been busy, working hard to bring you new features and an updated design. We hope you and your family enjoy the NEW Britannica Kids. Take a minute to check out all the enhancements!

• The same safe and trusted content for explorers of all ages.
• Accessible across all of today's devices: phones, tablets, and desktops.
• Improved homework resources designed to support a variety of curriculum subjects and standards.
• A new, third level of content, designed specially to meet the advanced needs of the sophisticated scholar.
• And so much more!

Want to see it in action?

Start a free trial

To share with more than one person, separate addresses with a comma

Choose a language from the menu above to view a computer-translated version of this page. Please note: Text within images is not translated, some features may not work properly after translation, and the translation may not accurately convey the intended meaning. Britannica does not review the converted text.

After translating an article, all tools except font up/font down will be disabled. To re-enable the tools or to convert back to English, click "view original" on the Google Translate toolbar.

• Privacy Notice
• Terms of Use

• Littler GPS
• Workplace Policy Institute
• Littler CaseSmart
• Littler Home Care Toolkit
• Littler LaborSmart
• ComplianceHR
• Littler X-celerator Toolkits
• Littler Knowledge Management
• General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
• Littler Edge
• Littler Pay Equity Assessment
• Workplace Training
• Littler onDemand
• Remote Work Toolkit for Employers
• Self-Service Toolkits
• Recognized for Innovation
• We’re ready for your tomorrow – because we’re built for it.
• Littler Investigation Toolkit for Employers
• Littler Inclusion, Equity and Diversity Playbook

New Illinois Child Labor Law Brings Enhanced Workplace Rules for Minors Under 16

On July 30, 2024, Governor JB Pritzker signed into law S.B. 3646 (the “Act”), repealing the state’s prior child labor law, and replacing it with the “Child Labor Law of 2024.” 1  The stated intent of the Act is to “safeguard all working minors’ health, safety, welfare, and access to education,” and the new law “shall be interpreted to provide the greatest protection of a minor’s well-being.” The Act covers minors under 16 years of age, and will go into effect on January 1, 2025.

While numerous states including Arkansas, Ohio, and New Jersey, to name a few, have recently introduced legislation to ease the restrictions on child labor, this Illinois law enhances restrictions on the employment of minors. Indeed, the Act imposes certain new civil and criminal penalties on violating employers, and is the second new child labor law signed by Governor Pritzker. S.B. 1782, which went into effect July 2024, incorporated new restrictions for minors featured in “vlogs,” defined as content shared on an online platform in exchange for commission. 2

The Act applies to minors aged 15 and younger. It calls out minors 13 years old and younger as those who may not be employed “in any occupation or at any worksite” unless explicitly authorized by or exempted under the Act.  

What should an employer do to hire a minor?  

The Act requires Illinois employers to obtain an employment certificate authorizing a minor’s work. To obtain a certificate, an employer must first provide the minor with a notice of intention to employ, which then must be submitted by the minor to their school’s issuing officer, along with an application for the employment certificate, which must be filled out by the minor and their parent or guardian. 3

Employers must maintain, for at least the duration of the minor’s employment at the premises, the minor’s employment certificate, plus records that include the minor’s name, date of birth, address, and the notice of intention to employ the minor at the premises where the minor is performing the work.

What are the permitted working hours for minors?

The Act restricts the number of hours minors can work in a given workweek and workday, and outlines the times of day when minors should not be working.

Specifically, the following are prohibited:

• working more than 18 hours a week when school is in session.
• working more than 40 hours a week when school is not in session.
• working more than 8 hours in any single 24-hour period.
• working more than 3 hours per day or more than 8 hours total of work and school hours on days when school is in session.
• from Labor Day until June 1, working between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m.
• from June 1 until Labor Day, working between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.

Note, there are exceptions to these general work-hour and time-of-day restrictions, including an exception for work on weekends when certain conditions are met, as well as an allowance for minors to work later into the evening when performing certain work including minors employed as live theatrical performers, models or performers for live or pre-recorded broadcast, or work in recreational or educational activities for a park district, not-for-profit youth clubs, or municipal parks and recreation departments.

What are the permitted occupations for minors?

In addition to the prohibited occupations found in the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 4  the Act outlines over 30 additional types of work that minors are prohibited from performing, including factory work, construction work, meat packing, poultry and seafood processing, various jobs involving the use of power-driven machinery, and in any work where a minor is expected to serve alcohol or otherwise handle open containers of alcohol. 5

However, the Act also exempts minors working in the following specific occupations from these restrictions, including:

• certain agricultural pursuits;
• the sale and distribution of magazines and newspapers;
• household chores and babysitting;
• caddying at golf courses;
• participation in work-based learning programs; and
• serving as an officiant or assistant instructor of youth sports activities, so long as a certification is obtained, and certain hour restrictions are followed.

The Act carves important exceptions into these exemptions. For example, the exemption of caddying at golf courses does not apply to those ages 13 or younger, i.e ., the strictures of the Act apply in full force to minors ages 13 and under when caddying.

What other special employment requirements apply to employing a minor?

Employers are also responsible for ensuring the following:

• Supervision: All minors must be supervised in person by an adult 21 years of age or older at all times when the minor is working;
• Meal Breaks: A 30-minute meal break must be provided for minors who work more than 5 hours continuously.
• Posting Requirements: A notice summarizing the requirements of the Act must be posted in a conspicuous place where minors work. For minors who do not regularly report to a physical workspace, the notice should also be sent via email or posted on the employer’s website or intranet page.
• Record Retention Requirements: Employers must retain employment certifications for the period of employment of each minor and for three years thereafter.
• Reporting of Work-Related Injury: Employers must report work-related fatalities and injuries to the IL Department of Labor and the school official who issued the minor’s employment certificate, in addition to other reporting requirements.

Special Rules for Child Models and Performers

In addition to the general restrictions outlined above, the Act provides additional requirements for the employment of minors working in live theatrical performances, including plays, musicals, recitals, or concerts, as well as special rules for minors who are employed as models or performers on live or pre-recorded radio or television, in motion pictures, or in other entertainment-related performances.

These industry-specific rules outline different work-hour restrictions, require that a trust account be created for the minor, and provide for a waiver process whereby an employer can seek an exception to allow for a minor working in radio, television, or film, to work outside the hours prescribed in the Act.

Prohibition Against Retaliation

Employers are prohibited from retaliating against a person who exercises any right under the Act, makes a complaint to the minor’s employer or to the Director of Labor, or otherwise causes or participates in an investigation or proceeding under the Act.

However, terminating a minor’s employment because the employment was unlawful under the Act, or because the IL Department of Labor suspended or revoked the minor’s employment certificate, does not constitute retaliation under the Act.

Illinois Department of Labor Investigation and Enforcement Powers

The IL Department of Labor is authorized to investigate and enforce compliance with the provisions of the Act. Department agents are permitted to visit and inspect worksites at “all reasonable times, and as often as possible.” The Department also has the authority to subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and production of records during an investigation or hearing related to the Act.

The Department is further authorized to adopt and enforce reasonable rules relating to the administration and enforcement of the Act. We anticipate that the Department will issue relevant rules in the months ahead of the Act’s January 1, 2025, effective date.

Civil and Criminal Penalties

Employers that violate any provision of the Act will be subject to the following penalties:

• If a minor dies while working in violation of the Act, a penalty not to exceed $60,000.
• If a minor suffers a reportable injury or illness, a penalty not to exceed $30,000.
• If a minor is employed in a prohibited occupation as outlined in the Act, a penalty not to exceed $15,000.
• If an employer fails to post or otherwise provide the notice summarizing the requirements of the Act, a penalty not to exceed $500.
• Any other violation of the Act, a penalty not to exceed $10,000.

In determining the amount of any penalty, the Department will consider the appropriateness of the penalty to the size of the business, and the gravity of the violation. Significantly, the Act states that each day a violation occurs is considered a separate and distinct offense, for which a separate penalty can be assessed.

Individuals who obstruct an investigation under the Act, or willfully fail to comply with the Act, can also be subject to criminal penalties up to a Class A misdemeanor.

What should Illinois employers do as next steps?

In advance of January 1, 2025, the effective date of the Act, Illinois employers should take stock of their hiring practices (including age verification systems), policies, and notices that apply to child labor, and revise them as needed. Training hiring managers, floor managers, and other workers on these revised procedures is critical to meaningfully implement these changes. These changes should be consistent with the Act as well as the rules that the Illinois Department of Labor is expected to issue prior to January 1, 2025.

Employers are facing increasing scrutiny on child labor practices under international law , federal law , and now, under the law of states like Illinois. This scrutiny can be confusing for those employers in states like Arkansas, Ohio, and New Jersey, where state law is easing child labor restrictions. Indeed, employers are dealing with a legislative patchwork, which requires them to carefully consider the laws that apply to them. Beyond legal risks of non-compliance, employers should also consider the adverse public relations consequences of engaging in unlawful child labor practices.

See Footnotes

1  2024 Ill. Legis. Serv. P.A. 103-721 (S.B. 3646).

2  2024 Ill. Legis. Serv. P.A. 103-0556 (S.B. 1782).

3  The IL Department of Labor is charged with creating the employment certificate forms and providing these to the school issuing officers. 

4   See  29 U.S,C. § 212,  29 C.F.R. §§ 570.33, 570.50-68.

5  For a complete list of the prohibited occupations for minors in Illinois, see Section 40 of the Child Labor Law of 2024.

Information contained in this publication is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or opinion, nor is it a substitute for the professional judgment of an attorney.

Get the Latest From Littler

Subscribe RSS Updates

Lavanga V. Wijekoon

Focus Areas

Related news & analysis.

An official website of the United States government.

Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Misclassification
• Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
• Pump at Work
• Maternal Health
• Retaliation
• Government Contracts
• Immigration
• Child Labor
• Agricultural Employment
• Subminimum Wage
• Employment of Workers With Disabilities
• Lie Detector Tests
• Davis Bacon Prevailing Wage Survey
• WORKER RIGHTS
• Resources For Employers
• Regulatory Library
• Interpretive Guidance
• Industry-Specific Resources
• Compliance Assistance
• elaws Advisors
• Fact Sheets
• New and Small Businesses Resources
• Presentations
• External User Portal (EUP)
• Compliance Assistance Toolkits
• New and Small Business Resources
• Publications By Language
• FLSA Compliance Videos
• Know Your Rights Video Series
• Employer.gov
• DOL Enforcement Database
• Workers Owed Wages
• Order Publications
• Laws and Regulations
• Field Handbook
• Administrator Interpretations, Opinion and Ruling Letters
• Field Bulletins
• State Minimum Wage Laws
• State Labor Law Topics
• State Labor Offices
• Resources for State and Local Governments
• NEWS RELEASES

WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Fact Sheet #24: Homeworkers Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

Revised July 2008

This fact sheet provides general information concerning the application of the FLSA to homeworkers.

Characteristics

Under the FLSA, industrial homework (as defined in 29 CFR 530.1(d) ) means the production by any person in or about a home, apartment, tenement, or room in a residential establishment, of goods for an employer who suffers or permits such production, regardless of the source (whether obtained from an employer or elsewhere) of the materials used by the homeworker in such production.

The FLSA applies to homeworkers who are covered on an "individual" basis or whose employer is covered on an "enterprise" basis. The enterprise coverage test requires a specified annual dollar volume of business. However, in most instances, a homeworker is covered under the FLSA on the basis of individual coverage (i.e. production of goods for out of state shipment and/or receipt of out of state materials or goods used in the production process).

Requirements

Homework requires certification in only seven specific industries: women's apparel, jewelry manufacturing, knitted outerwear, gloves and mittens, button and buckle manufacturing, handkerchief manufacturing and embroideries. Certification occurs when the employer obtains an employer certificate, or homeworkers obtain individual certification, from the Department's Wage and Hour Division, authorizing such work. Certified employers of homeworkers in these industries will be required to renew their certificate every two years. Employer certification is not available for women's apparel and certain hazardous jewelry manufacturing operations; only individual certification is permitted. Homework under the FLSA is not restricted in any industry other than those listed above. However, all individually covered homework is subject to the FLSA's minimum wage, overtime and recordkeeping requirements.

Homeworker employees must be paid the Federal minimum wage . This rate must be met regardless of whether the worker is paid by time, piece, job, incentive, or any other basis. The cost of tools, tool repair, or other similar requirements, may not be borne by the worker where such cost would reduce the wages paid below the required minimum wage or in any way reduce wages due for overtime hours. Overtime must be paid at one and one-half times the employee's regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in any workweek. The regular rate includes all remuneration for employment, such as piece rate earnings and commissions paid. Time and one-half of the average piece rate of pay is to be paid for hours worked over 40 per week, if the average is greater than the employee's regular rate of pay (never less than the required minimum wage ).

Records which must be kept for all employees include: name, social security number, home address and telephone number, date of birth (if under 19 years of age), hours worked each day (including time spent transporting), total hours worked each workweek, basis of pay computations, regular pay, overtime premium pay, total gross pay, deductions (specifying the nature and amount of each), and net pay. All employees who have been hired since November of 1986 must also fill out the I-9 form, required by INS.

When employing homeworkers, a separate homeworker handbook is required. These handbooks are available through Wage and Hour offices. Employers are responsible for insuring that handbooks are completed as required. The handbooks require homeworkers to also list business related expenses, such as equipment and supplies.

In the case of clerical workers who may perform duties at home on only an occasional or sporadic basis, employers are not required to follow homework regulations. However, all hours, including the time worked at home, must be recorded and compensated as required by the FLSA for every employee.

Typical Problems

(1) Employer improperly treats homeworkers as "independent contractors".

(2) Employer fails to maintain required record of hours, production, etc., or fails to instruct the employee to record the required data in the DOL homeworker handbook.

(3) Employer fails to assure that homeworker paid on piece rate basis has earned the minimum wage .

(4) The employer must bear the cost of tools purchased as well as tool maintenance and repair to the extent that these costs cut into the minimum wage or overtime wages required.

(5) Employer fails to count as hours worked preparatory and concluding activities, time spent at the shop, travel time and training time.

(6) Employer fails to ensure proper certification for the restricted industries.

Where to Obtain Additional Information

For additional information, visit our Wage and Hour Division Website: http://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd and/or call our toll-free information and helpline, available 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in your time zone, 1-866-4USWAGE (1-866-487-9243).

This publication is for general information and is not to be considered in the same light as official statements of position contained in the regulations.

The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.