NationStates Jolt Archive

I went to fast food place today (Subway) and my sandwich was made by a child I would guess to be 10-11 years old. He's actually there most of the time - he never seems to go to school - working away, making sandwiches in the sloppy, inefficient way you'd expect from a 10-year-old. He holds up lines, his hands aren't big enough to use the knives properly, and he generally makes crappy sandwiches. Plus, he does it slowly enough that if it started out as a warm sandwich, it isn't by the time you get it from him.

If you saw a child you thought was working illegally, would you report it to authorities?

If you saw a child you thought was working illegally, would you report it to authorities?
In all honesty? Probably not, unless it was something really dangerous or degrading.

yes at that age, but not if there 13 or above, then it more there own choice then them being taken advantage of

Yeah, as it's illegal.

Although, admittedly, there are possibly reasons for the kids to be working there, as they (the kid) could have made a concious decision to do so because of their, or their family's, current situation.

But it does come down to the fact that the business is happy to break the law, which is always inexcusible, especially for a big business such as Subway.

But it does come down to the fact that the business is happy to break the law, which is always inexcusible, especially for a big business such as Subway.
I suspect Subway would be pissed if they knew. Since Subway restaurants are franchises, each operates as an independent small business, so it's not Subway hiring the children, but they do have a brand to protect, so they'd probably want to stop it.

It could've been the owner's kid. I worked for family when I was too young to work for others legally - family businesses can do things others can't.

Anyway, no, I wouldn't report a kid if I saw him/her working unless it was something really inappropriate or dangerous.

Hell, I'd just be mad about the crappy service.

I wouldn't report it unless I was positive that he was underage.

I've met kids that are 14 that look like they are 10 and vice-versa.

I wouldn't report it unless I was positive that he was underage.

I've met kids that are 14 that look like they are 10 and vice-versa.

That'd be my guess. In the US you can start working when you are 14, which is pretty young. Of course, if he makes lousy sandwiches, you may want to report him anyway.

EDIT: I'm guessing from the way you spelled "labor" that you are not American. In that case, I have no idea what child labor laws are.

That'd be my guess. In the US you can start working when you are 14, which is pretty young. Of course, if he makes lousy sandwiches, you may want to report him anyway.

I doubt it would make a difference, knowing Subway. We had a retarded kid working one near us for years.

You should report it.

I wouldn't, but I was working when I was 6 so, I might be biased.

Also, in my family business my kids work, it's legal and all, I just have to pay them, and I do.

I went to fast food place today (Subway) and my sandwich was made by a child I would guess to be 10-11 years old. He's actually there most of the time - he never seems to go to school - working away, making sandwiches in the sloppy, inefficient way you'd expect from a 10-year-old. He holds up lines, his hands aren't big enough to use the knives properly, and he generally makes crappy sandwiches. Plus, he does it slowly enough that if it started out as a warm sandwich, it isn't by the time you get it from him.

If you saw a child you thought was working illegally, would you report it to authorities?
Isn't he able to get a job if his parent consents?

Isn't he able to get a job if his parent consents?

Nope. He can work for his parents, but below the age of 14, he legally can't work a job.

Hell, I'd just be mad about the crappy service.

Ditto. I'd also be disappointed with myself that the kid was able to get a job while I can't. :(

I'd report him if he was working there at a time when he should have been in school. Even if his family owns the place, putting him to work instead of sending him to school is not an okay option.

I'd report him if he was working there at a time when he should have been in school. Even if his family owns the place, putting him to work instead of sending him to school is not an okay option.

Unless the kid's homeschooled. I worked while homeschooling myself. All nice and legal.

Unless the kid's homeschooled. I worked while homeschooling myself. All nice and legal.
I'd still report it if it's during school time to be on the safe side. On other times I'd just assume it's the owner's kid who wants to pretend to be an adult. At like 8 I wanted to come to the hospital where mom worked to play doctor for real but wasn't allowed to.:(

It's against the law, ergo, it should be reported. Wether or not the kid makes a decent sandwich or not doesn't make it any more or less illegal.

The kid should be in school so at least he can have a fair chance at a decent life, which your not going to get skipping school and working in a fast food joint.

That'd be my guess. In the US you can start working when you are 14, which is pretty young. Of course, if he makes lousy sandwiches, you may want to report him anyway.

EDIT: I'm guessing from the way you spelled "labor" that you are not American. In that case, I have no idea what child labor laws are.

If I recall correctly, labor laws vary by state.
Back in Oregon I actually read one of those 'employee rights' posters in a spout of insanity. I dont recall it perfectly, but I do remember that you could start working at 14, but you were limited to something like an eight hour work week. You could go full time at 16, which was when you could drop out of high school.

In all honesty? Probably not, unless it was something really dangerous or degrading.
I am not surprised you wouldn't.

In all honesty? Probably not, unless it was something really dangerous or degrading.
surely working for Subway comes under that part?

Absolutely I would. Not because "on principle, because it is against the law", but "on principle, because it is against a law that conforms with my ideas on the matter". I believe that regular paid work is highly likely to be detrimental to the kid's development, be it educational, emotional, social etc., and should therefore not be allowed to take place or be encouraged.

There are a couple of different arguments:

1) Child labour is always wrong

2) Child labour is unfortunate, but if the child needs the money to support their family and/or buy food, the most you should do is ensure good working conditions

3) Child labour is fine

Personally, I agree with 1), but I can see that 2) makes sense.

Nope. He can work for his parents, but below the age of 14, he legally can't work a job.
As it happens, British Columbia (where this took place) has remarkably liberal labour laws.

Anyone over 14 can work legally.

Anyone under 14 but over 12 can work with parental consent.

Anyone under 12 can work with approval of the Minister of Labour.

As long as it's not something dangerous or a factory job, or something like that, I'm fine with child labor.

Ditto. I'd also be disappointed with myself that the kid was able to get a job while I can't. :(

that's my take...lol.


But in all seriousness...it may be a mistake in age...or the kid is son of the manager or owner(remember Subway is franchised, so each store is owned seprately)

I went to fast food place today (Subway) and my sandwich was made by a child I would guess to be 10-11 years old. He's actually there most of the time - he never seems to go to school - working away, making sandwiches in the sloppy, inefficient way you'd expect from a 10-year-old. He holds up lines, his hands aren't big enough to use the knives properly, and he generally makes crappy sandwiches. Plus, he does it slowly enough that if it started out as a warm sandwich, it isn't by the time you get it from him.

If you saw a child you thought was working illegally, would you report it to authorities?

I would report it. Child Labor Laws are in effect so that children like that little, 10 year old boy doesn´t get exploited. A child that young should be at school, not making sandwiches at a Subway. Plus, you should file a complaint with the local authorities on the Subway. The franchaise´s breaking the law by employing such a little kid.

I would report it. Child Labor Laws are in effect so that children like that little, 10 year old boy doesn´t get exploited. A child that young should be at school, not making sandwiches at a Subway. Plus, you should file a complaint with the local authorities on the Subway. The franchaise´s breaking the law by employing such a little kid.

Actually if it's a family business they probably are not breaking the law by letting the kid work. Just because he isn't "in school" during school hours it doesn't mean he's truant or not being educated, he could be homeschooled, and depending on the area everything might be legit.

People should not randomly call the cops on people just because they think they know what someone "should" be doing.

Actually if it's a family business they probably are not breaking the law by letting the kid work. Just because he isn't "in school" during school hours it doesn't mean he's truant or not being educated, he could be homeschooled, and depending on the area everything might be legit.

People should not randomly call the cops on people just because they think they know what someone "should" be doing.

Be that as it may, I still think it´s wrong to have such a young boy making sandwiches. Particularly since the child in question is very sloppy and, according to the OP, he holds the line and provides horrible service. As for the Subway being family owned, I highly doubt it, although I know these stores are separate branches owned by different people. Still, I don´t think Subway would hire a child to work there. To me there seems to be something strange going on.

Actually if it's a family business they probably are not breaking the law by letting the kid work.
Under BC law, they are if he's under 12.

But, he does appear to be the same ethnicity as the proprietor.

surely working for Subway comes under that part?

Hey, my friend's dad owns a Subway!

Under BC law, they are if he's under 12.

But, he does appear to be the same ethnicity as the proprietor.

even if it's a family business? family business gets different rules here than other businesses, I started working in my family business at 4 and started my own at 6. it was all legal.

It could've been the owner's kid. I worked for family when I was too young to work for others legally - family businesses can do things others can't.

Anyway, no, I wouldn't report a kid if I saw him/her working unless it was something really inappropriate or dangerous.

^^^
This.

My kids worked for me when they were little. The could file, take phone calls etc there isn't an age limit regarding family employees.

What there maybe though is one regarding food services. I know that you must be 18 in our state to work where there is a meat slicer, say a deli counter. Same thing on construction sites. Those laws have to do with the operation of equipment.

I wouldn't think any savvy business owner would want poor service though, family or not. That costs customers.

An old Swedish newspaper clipping I thought appropriate:

http://www.lytes.se/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/barntillverkat.jpg

Questions:
1. Do you care if the goods you buy are made by children?
2. Do you do anything to make sure they're not?

Circled answers:
1. Yes, I care, because children have no sense of quality, and it shows in the product.
2. No.

Damn straight I would. Without a second thought.

Damn straight I would. Without a second thought.

why? because you have nothing better to do?

An old Swedish newspaper clipping I thought appropriate:

http://www.lytes.se/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/barntillverkat.jpg

Questions:
1. Do you care if the goods you buy are made by children?
2. Do you do anything to make sure they're not?

Circled answers:
1. Yes, I care, because children have no sense of quality, and it shows in the product.
2. No.Finally, someone with a reasonable opinion on the subject.

Since I haven't stated my opinion yet, I would report the subway if I saw the kid there during school hours. Otherwise I would eat my shitty sandwhich in peace.

why? because you have nothing better to do?

Or maybe because child labor is morally repulsive? And because sticking it to business is fun?

why? because you have nothing better to do?

Well, there is something called the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that states that "States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development."

True, the USA and Somalia are the only UN member nations that haven't ratified it, Somalia because it doesn't have a functional government and the USA because it would've stopped them from executing children or sentencing them to life imprisonment, and also would have made them provide healthcare for the 25% of USA children that don't have access to it, and not least of all of course it would have been quite embarrassing for them to have to explain their alarmingly high (for a Western industrialised nation - the highest!) child poverty rates before the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

But non-ratification doesn't mean there isn't a global standard to be judged after.

Well, there is something called the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that states that "States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development."

True, the USA and Somalia are the only UN member nations that haven't ratified it, Somalia because it doesn't have a functional government and the USA because it would've stopped them from executing children or sentencing them to life imprisonment, and also would have made them provide healthcare for the 25% of USA children that don't have access to it, and not least of all of course it would have been quite embarrassing for it to explain its alarmingly high (for a Western industrialised nation - the highest!) child poverty rates before the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

But non-ratification doesn't mean there isn't a global standard to be measured by.


Ah, back to your anti-American trolling. We dont execute or sentence to life any kids, especially those young enough to be classified as "child labor".


We also have many, many more people than the other western countries. Of course we have more child poverty.

It occurs to me that even if this kid would be underage, if he's being home schooled this could count as "home ec." or something similar.

Or maybe because child labor is morally repulsive?
me paying my kid $9.00/hr to do something she wants to do during her free time is morally repulsive?

And because sticking it to business is fun?
I suppose you don't have a job anywhere? I mean businesses are so evil. You don't buy clothes or gas or ride the bus or buy groceries or anything? right?

me paying my kid $9.00/hr to do something she wants to do during her free time is morally repulsive?


The question is would you report the business owners kid. It was child labor in general. There is a difference.


I suppose you don't have a job anywhere? I mean businesses are so evil. You don't buy clothes or gas or ride the bus or buy groceries or anything? right?

I dont recall ever saying their evil. I said pwning them is fun.

Ah, back to your anti-American trolling.

It's always funny to be reminded that that's your name for facts.

We dont execute or sentence to life any kids, especially those young enough to be classified as "child labor".

You did sentence minors to death right up until 2005 (!!!) which is long after the CRC came into being, and you still do sentence minors to life imprisonment. And 25% of USA children are not covered by health insurance. That you don't blush with embarrassment at that in this day and age...

We also have many, many more people than the other western countries. Of course we have more child poverty.

... sort of does explain partially why you don't understand what a "rate" is. You are one of the richest countries in world, even when compared to other rich countries (actually, the richest of them all!), yet you have the highest child poverty rate of all Western nations. Having "more people" doesn't explain your child poverty rate, which quite frankly is despicable.

You did sentence minors to death right up until 2005 (!!!) which is long after the CRC came into being, and you still do sentence minors to life imprisonment. And 25% of USA children are not covered by health insurance. That you don't blush with embarrassment at that in this day and age...


Prove to me we sentenced kids under 16 to life or executions on a regular basis. Your lack of knowledge about America is sad. But Ill let you live in your fantasy land. Juvenile court and facilities are not something created in the last 3 years. Im calling you out.


Im not going to say the child poverty rate is anything but depressing, but no bodys perfect. If I really cared enough about offending your nationalistic, eurocentric sensibilites Id go look up shit on Sweden I find morally repulsive. I just have better things to do.

The question is would you report the business owners kid. It was child labor in general. There is a difference.
you find child labor morally repulsive, so I would assume the fact that my child works would also be morally repulsive. right?


I dont recall ever saying their evil. I said pwning them is fun.
because you are immature?

you find child labor morally repulsive, so I would assume the fact that my child works would also be morally repulsive. right?

No, I find child labor where the child doesnt really have a choice, ie sweatshops repulsive.



because you are immature?

Because they break the law so often when you catch them its epic lulz.

No, I find child labor where the child doesnt really have a choice, ie sweatshops repulsive.But Subway isn't a sweatshop.

But Subway isn't a sweatshop.

Jesus people I was commenting on child labor IN GENERAL not in this specific case.

Jesus people I was commenting on child labor IN GENERAL not in this specific case.
you were asked about a specific case. besides pwning businesses is fun right?

you were asked about a specific case. besides pwning businesses is fun right?

I just read the poll and stated my opinion.


And yes, pwning business is fun.

I just read the poll and stated my opinion.
so you would report kids for working in family businesses?


And yes, pwning business is fun.
because.......why exactly?

so you would report kids for working in family businesses?


Are obtuse? I said that would be fine already. The poll doesnt say anything about it being a family business. It asks about child labor. When I think child labor, I think sweatshops, so I voted yes.

Prove to me we sentenced kids under 16 to life or executions on a regular basis.

Minor doesn't mean "under 16". It means "someone below the age of maturity", which is internationally and as per the CRC commonly defined as 18. Nevertheless, your Supreme Court as late as 1989 (!) found it constitutional to sentence a 16-year-old to death in Stanford vs. Kentucky - a ruling that stood right up until 2005!

Oh, but I do find amusing your weaselling with "on a regular basis" - as if somehow if its only a few children you sentence to death, then it becomes perfectly acceptable and not at all morally reprehensible of you. Hilarious. And also completely ignorant of the fact that the USA had about 70 people (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/01/scotus.death.penalty/index.html) convicted as minors on death row when Roper v. Simmons was decided but a short three years ago, and also quite ignorant in that it didn't say anything on life imprisonment, so that's still OK in the USA.

Your lack of knowledge about America is sad. But Ill let you live in your fantasy land. Juvenile court and facilities are not something created in the last 3 years. Im calling you out.

You call all you want - your own lack of knowledge on the subject is apparent, and no matter how much you squeal "trolling" when confronted with facts, the facts don't change.

Im not going to say the child poverty rate is anything but depressing, but no bodys perfect. If I really cared enough about offending your nationalistic, eurocentric sensibilites Id go look up shit on Sweden I find morally repulsive. I just have better things to do.

Oh, you can look up the state of children in Sweden. Actually, UNICEF already did (http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf) among OECD countries. We're one from the top (damn you Netherlands!). The USA is one from the bottom (sorry, the UK!). Among others, we're 1 in material well-being, the USA is 17 (of 21). We're 1 in health and safety, the USA is dead last. We're 1 in behaviours and risk, the USA is dead last again! In fact, out of all the dimensions measured, the USA is among the very last in all but one. So, I can see that you do have better things to do, and really should get to them, quickly.

i wouldn't report it if he worked there from time to time because it's subway and not something extremely taxing or degrading. but if they're keeping him from going to school, then yes. education is important. and isn't it illegal not to send your children to school?

Oh, you can look up the state of children in Sweden. Actually, UNICEF already did (http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf) among OECD countries. We're one from the top (damn you Netherlands!). The USA is one from the bottom (sorry, the UK!). Among others, we're 1 in material well-being, the USA is 17 (of 21). We're 1 in health and safety, the USA is dead last. We're 1 in behaviours and risk, the USA is dead last again! In fact, out of all the dimensions measured, the USA is among the very last in all but one. So, I can see that you do have better things to do, and really should get to them, quickly.

The study you linked is more or less a test study to see if the numerous stats can be used to actually evaluate the material well being of children in the world. Numerous times it makes disclaimer statements such as:


The available data fall short of
capturing all the complexities of child
poverty, being unable, for example, to
address important issues such as the
depth and duration of child poverty,
or the extent of more extreme forms
of deprivation.

and this:

The choice of indicators for this assessment of child
well-being in OECD countries is heavily circumscribed
by the limited availability of internationally comparable
data.

even this:

Unfortunately, a lack of internationally comparable data
has prevented the report from adequately addressing
some important dimensions of children’s lives.

Not to mention part of it is completely subjective with stats drawn from children's responses to questions like "how healthy do you think you are?" Children's answers were then used as stats, which doesn't conclude a thing regarding whether they are truly healthy or not. And UNICEF concludes that too.

I simply don't see tauting this report as some kind of significant report card when it clearly states it cannot accurately achieve even it's own mission, but was simply an effort to begin to try to build a three dimensional reporting method.

Did I miss something deeper here?

you find child labor morally repulsive, so I would assume the fact that my child works would also be morally repulsive. right?


Smunk, if this is that same four year old child of yours that built the dog silencer, she's not "working" in the normal sense of things. She's probably building a doomsday device. :p

Are obtuse? I said that would be fine already. The poll doesnt say anything about it being a family business. It asks about child labor. When I think child labor, I think sweatshops, so I voted yes.
the poll also gives you options of "always" and "if I thought they were being mistreated" which did you vote?

also, no, I'm not obtuse (which I assume is what you were trying to ask, but no pronoun, so who knows?:confused:) you seem to have a real problem communicating what you believe, so I was unsure of exactly where you stand on the issue. questions help me learn things, so I ask a lot of them. I'm like a three year old in that sense.
i wouldn't report it if he worked there from time to time because it's subway and not something extremely taxing or degrading. but if they're keeping him from going to school, then yes. education is important. and isn't it illegal not to send your children to school?
you shouldn't confuse being educated with going to school.

Smunk, if this is that same four year old child of yours that built the dog silencer, she's not "working" in the normal sense of things. She's probably building a doomsday device. :p
she's 6 now, but yeah, she's actually auditing people's books and finding discrepancies so that when I go to do their taxes I don't find any surprises. If something doesn't make sense or information is missing she calls them and explains to them what is wrong before I waste my time trying to do things.

She has a patent for her puppy-shush now.

Surely if God hadn't meant children to work, he would not have made them chimney sized?

Prove to me we sentenced kids under 16 to life or executions on a regular basis. Your lack of knowledge about America is sad. But Ill let you live in your fantasy land. Juvenile court and facilities are not something created in the last 3 years. Im calling you out.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_juvenile_offenders_executed_in_the_United_States

Well, there is something called the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that states that "States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development."
At least one Canadian province denounced that declaration.

I would object to that declaration based solely on the sloppy wording. Since when is exploitation a bad thing?

At least one Canadian province denounced that declaration.

I would object to that declaration based solely on the sloppy wording. Since when is exploitation a bad thing?

"exploitation begins at home" [/ferengi]

No, I find child labor where the child doesnt really have a choice, ie sweatshops repulsive.
I would argue that sweatshops are less objectionable than this case because in sweatshops the children often don't have any other options. If they didn't work in the sweatshops they wouldn't eat or they'd be vulnerable to violent crime, and they improve their lives by working in the sweatshop.

But that can't be said of children working jobs in the western world.

Child labour is a sad fact of life. Doesn't mean we have to accept it. A lot of 'homeschooled' kids in rural areas aren't being schooled at all...they're just helping out on their parent's farm.

You can work with your parents permission if you're under 14...but only at certain jobs. You can not, for example, be a fry cook, or work with any cooking apparatus.

I could see letting your kid work a few days a week, or on the weekend if they're being homeschooled. But beyond that? WTF?

If it's a family business, same deal. Yes, it's nice that you're grooming your children to take over said business, but you should not get to sacrifice their education to do it. Idjuts.

That being said, Alberta is awash in child labour recently because of the labour shortages. It seems the cashiers at every fast-food joint are between 11 - 14. It's insane. Children are running these freaknig establishments...teens are cooking the food, and there is usually one mid-20s manager overseeing it all.

So come to Alberta if you're over 14 folks, we could really use you.

That being said, Alberta is awash in child labour recently because of the labour shortages. It seems the cashiers at every fast-food joint are between 11 - 14. It's insane. Children are running these freaknig establishments...teens are cooking the food, and there is usually one mid-20s manager overseeing it all.
Some restaurants in Fort McMurray got shut down about a year ago over this. Since the tar mines hired all the waitresses and trained them to drive giant trucks (Syncrude, specifically, prefers to hire women to drive the trucks because they treat the equipment more gently), every restaurant in town had to promote the busboys to servers and them hire 9-year-olds to be busboys (the 11-year-olds were already working somewhere).

I can't believe the labour shortage has lasted this long, and now with Saskatchewan taking its workers back (net migration out of Alberta last year) the problem isn't going to get better.

It's utterly fantastic what is happening in Alberta. When the boom busts you're going to have a whole generation of young men with no education beyond the trades, in an economy that won't be able to support them...a whole generation of teens who grew up working in the service industry and dropped out at the first opportunity...

I can see the trailer parks stretching out along the horizon, shimmering in the sunlight...oh yeah baby...we'll name it the 'Alberta Advantage'.

So come to Alberta if you're over 14 folks, we could really use you.

Soon Newfoundland will be a demographic wasteland, populated only by forcibly retired fishermen and pre-teens.

I went to fast food place today (Subway) and my sandwich was made by a child I would guess to be 10-11 years old. He's actually there most of the time - he never seems to go to school - working away, making sandwiches in the sloppy, inefficient way you'd expect from a 10-year-old. He holds up lines, his hands aren't big enough to use the knives properly, and he generally makes crappy sandwiches. Plus, he does it slowly enough that if it started out as a warm sandwich, it isn't by the time you get it from him.

If you saw a child you thought was working illegally, would you report it to authorities?

Is it possible his parents own the franchise he's working at? I know a lot of franchised businesses in the area are owned and operated largely by families (generally brown families.)

Soon Newfoundland will be a demographic wasteland, populated only by forcibly retired fishermen and pre-teens.

As opposed to how it's been exactly that for the past 20 years? :P

Is it possible his parents own the franchise he's working at? I know a lot of franchised businesses in the area are owned and operated largely by families (generally brown families.)

I think part of the point is, it shouldn't matter. Unless he is being homeschooled, and even then it's questionable.

Child labour is a sad fact of life. Doesn't mean we have to accept it. A lot of 'homeschooled' kids in rural areas aren't being schooled at all...they're just helping out on their parent's farm.
source?

You can work with your parents permission if you're under 14...but only at certain jobs. You can not, for example, be a fry cook, or work with any cooking apparatus.

are we really really really sure the kid is under 14? I'm 26 and just a few days ago I was mistaken for a junior high kid.
I could see letting your kid work a few days a week, or on the weekend if they're being homeschooled. But beyond that? WTF?

if they are working in their free time, what's the problem?
If it's a family business, same deal. Yes, it's nice that you're grooming your children to take over said business, but you should not get to sacrifice their education to do it. Idjuts.

do you have a source that children and teens with jobs are sacrificing their education?

I think part of the point is, it shouldn't matter. Unless he is being homeschooled, and even then it's questionable.

even if it's legal?

even if it's legal?

Yes. Because how many kids manage to actually do well in their schooling (at home) AND work? Fuck, how many ADULTS can manage it? It's not the kind of stress we should be putting on our kids, not unless it's honestly life or death. And if it's actually at that point in the industrialised West there's still no damn excuse...there are social services specifically in place to deal with these situations.

Education is a right, not a privilege, and it's not a right that the parents of this child should be allowed to deny him, in the name of the family business. Under any circumstances, legal or not.

source? None, merely anecdotal from my days doing long-distant ed, tracking down all the rural kids who 'went to ground' after their first units and somehow managed to avoid ever going back to school. They weren't getting their education through their local schools, nor were they getting it through any Alberta Education approved outlet, so they weren't getting their approved education period. We don't have truant officers anymore, despite there being provisions in the School Act to actually FORCE kids into schools if necessary, or bring charges against their parents if they pull them from school.

are we really really really sure the kid is under 14? I'm 26 and just a few days ago I was mistaken for a junior high kid. Na, he could be Chinese and 30.

Okay that sounds so bad.

But I carded a guy I seriously thought was underage once and found out he was 30. Now I assume all young Asians are in their 30s :P

You only HAVE to stay in school until 16. And really, even if you did report it, I can't imagine much being done about it.

if they are working in their free time, what's the problem? There are a finite number of hours you can work and still do well in school. I worked since I was 12, when it was illegal to do so...even worse, I worked as a fry cook. No, it didn't harm me, and my parents needed the money. But I only worked two evenings a week, and the full shifts on the weekends and holidays. It was fucking exhausting, even at that level, and school comes easy to me. I can't imagine working full time and going to school AND doing well. Sure, it's possible...but it should be looked into.

Again, no one will.

do you have a source that children and teens with jobs are sacrificing their education?
Yes. (http://advance.uconn.edu/1997/970929/09299710.htm)
Moar (http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/ep/kids_work.htm)
And moar (http://life.familyeducation.com/jobs-and-chores/29670.html)

Of course, there's a difference between working 40 hours a week and working 20, or 12, or 6. There is a difference between helping out with chores at home (on the farm or otherwise) and being exploited. There is a difference between kids who HAVE to work, and kids who work cuz they want designer jeans. The variables are infinite, but overall, research shows, the more kids work, the worse they do in school.

It's common sense.

Yes. Because how many kids manage to actually do well in their schooling (at home) AND work? Fuck, how many ADULTS can manage it? It's not the kind of stress we should be putting on our kids, not unless it's honestly life or death. And if it's actually at that point in the industrialised West there's still no damn excuse...there are social services specifically in place to deal with these situations.

Education is a right, not a privilege, and it's not a right that the parents of this child should be allowed to deny him, in the name of the family business. Under any circumstances, legal or not.

Not so at all. My children worked in their spare time in the family business from the time they could walk, and when they weren't doing that they were doing things like the laundry etc. There is absolutely no harm in them being a part of what makes a family prosperous.

Btw they were and are still (the one in school) honor roll students and all were academic team members, with my oldest son going on to captain the college academic team. So the idea that somehow working children in the family business is going to stunt their studies is silly.

I don't mean to sound arrogant. I am just saying that working never hurt my children, it was good for them actually.

Btw lots of adults manage school and working...and raising a family at the same time. I went back to college after my divorce and pulled a 3.0. While that isn't perfect it is great considering I ran a business, had two elementary age children, was pregnant AND was a single mother at the time, commuted 70miles back and forth each day and was a little league coach and cub scout leader.

You make it sound like kids should only go to school and play. The reality of life is as an adult we all have to do well more than just work and play. There is no harm in kids learning responsible time management at an early age....nor the reality that hard work is what gets you where you want to be in life. Those are lessons you don't learn in school.

Btw lots of adults manage school and working...and raising a family at the same time. I went back to college after my divorce and pulled a 3.0. While that isn't perfect it is great considering I ran a business, had two elementary age children, was pregnant AND was a single mother at the time, commuted 70miles back and forth each day and was a little league coach and cub scout leader. Yeah that's nice. I'm one of those adults btw. Two kids, working on a law degree, active in my community, and a husband who is mostly absent. I also walk uphill both ways in -40 fucking weather. Oh wait, that part is hyperbole.

It's not a picnic. Damn rights I could do better in school if I wasn't exhausted. It's a fact. And I've had years to get to the point where I can effectively manage my time and deal with the stress. I do this because I HAVE to.

My point is, it's hard enough for adults...it's even harder on kids. You cannot suceed in the industrialised West without a decent education. Not unless you inherit a fortune, or get into crime. And even then. It's idiotic on the part of parents to allow their children to sacrifice their education for the sake of 'teaching them a work ethic'. You can teach them that without fucking up their schooling.

You make it sound like kids should only go to school and play. Hardly. Read further.

The reality of life is as an adult we all have to do well more than just work and play. There is no harm in kids learning responsible time management at an early age....nor the reality that hard work is what gets you where you want to be in life. Those are lessons you don't learn in school.

Now if you care to look beyond absolutes, perhaps you'd like to refute the assertion I've made that the more hours a child works, the worse they are going to do in school...that this is a researched correlation, and not just something I pulled out of my ass?

And as I've pointed out there are degrees. Folding laundry, working weekends, babysitting here and there...not harmful. Usually. Coming to school and falling asleep in class because you've been working the nightshift, and are essentially the main caregiver for your younger siblings? Yeah, I've taught those kids. They don't do well, no matter how well they learn to manage their time.

To make myself clearer:

The burden of proof to show that the working child can handle both school AND work, should be on the parents allowing said child to be employed. Family business or no.

To make myself clearer:

The burden of proof to show that the working child can handle both school AND work, should be on the parents allowing said child to be employed. Family business or no.
guilty until proven innocent? no thanks.

Yes. (http://advance.uconn.edu/1997/970929/09299710.htm)
Moar (http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/ep/kids_work.htm)
And moar (http://life.familyeducation.com/jobs-and-chores/29670.html)

Of course, there's a difference between working 40 hours a week and working 20, or 12, or 6. There is a difference between helping out with chores at home (on the farm or otherwise) and being exploited. There is a difference between kids who HAVE to work, and kids who work cuz they want designer jeans. The variables are infinite, but overall, research shows, the more kids work, the worse they do in school.

It's common sense.

there are laws in my area that kids under 16 can only work limited hours........my child is only legally able to work 9 hours a week, it's not affecting her education, and yet according to many she is being 'exploited" and it's "always bad" for her to do something she chooses to do that is both legal and enjoyable.

guilty until proven innocent? no thanks.

Absolutely.

If there are labour restrictions stating no child may be employed under the age of 14, for example, unless they have parental permission, those parents should bear the onus of proving that the employment is not endangering their child's education.

If children 14 - 16 are prevented from working with deep-fryers, or other cooking mechanisms, no amount of parental permission should be allowed to circumvent that, family business or no.

You can not, as an employer, do certain things to your employees. At all. Then there are some things that can be done in certain circumstances, with the onus on the employer to ensure that the regulations are adhered to. I see nothing inherent in the position of parent that should allow that parent to overrule the law with their permission alone.

The laws vary, jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some state that children (older than a certain age, younger than age of majority) can work x number of hours, and only between the hours of y and z. Usually after school. If you want your kid to be able to work during school hours, why on earth wouldn't it be your responsibility to prove that you are providing for that child's education in some other way?

there are laws in my area that kids under 16 can only work limited hours........my child is only legally able to work 9 hours a week, it's not affecting her education, and yet according to many she is being 'exploited" and it's "always bad" for her to do something she chooses to do that is both legal and enjoyable.

Not my argument, and not my issue. I don't give a flying shit about people who think that little Sally pushing a broom at home once in a while is child exploitation. Or that helping to feed livestock before school is inherently wrong.

But neither do I support the people who suggest that the government should leave it up to parents to decide how many hours their children should work.

All in all, I don't think either of us would look at a specific situation, and judge it differently than the other.

The things that I would ask myself are these:

A) Is the child being mistreated in any way? Basically, if they are doing a job that could be considered dangerous to them, or they are being forced to do a job that is clearly too difficult for them to do.

B) Is it a family run business? Usually, family owned businesses will allow a younger child to help out from time to time so that one day they would be more able to help out the business when they can spend more time doing so.

If the answer to A is yes, then I would every time. If the answer to B is no, then again, I would report it. If A is no and B is yes, then I won't.

Not my argument, and not my issue. I don't give a flying shit about people who think that little Sally pushing a broom at home once in a while is child exploitation. Or that helping to feed livestock before school is inherently wrong.

But neither do I support the people who suggest that the government should leave it up to parents to decide how many hours their children should work.

All in all, I don't think either of us would look at a specific situation, and judge it differently than the other.
my argument is not AT ALL that child labor laws should not exist or that they shouldn't be followed, my argument is that you shouldn't call the police on every child you ever see working because "it's fun to pwn business" there are perfectly legal and non-exploitative ways for children to work, whether you personally like it or not.

you' know I applied for Subway a few weeks back (ad in window) and they said they had just filled the job, now I happened to walk past yesterday and the sign is still up so I don't like what this thread says about me :p

and my opinion is that if a kid wants to get experience working on a job they can so long as they stay in school to the required age (though I would demand a refund as all Subway staff must be hot at all times)

It's utterly fantastic what is happening in Alberta. When the boom busts you're going to have a whole generation of young men with no education beyond the trades, in an economy that won't be able to support them...a whole generation of teens who grew up working in the service industry and dropped out at the first opportunity...

I can see the trailer parks stretching out along the horizon, shimmering in the sunlight...oh yeah baby...we'll name it the 'Alberta Advantage'.[/QUOTE]
As long as I don't have to fund them, I'm okay with that. They should pay the price for their own bad decisions.

Okay that sounds so bad.

But I carded a guy I seriously thought was underage once and found out he was 30. Now I assume all young Asians are in their 30s :P


You would be wrong most of the time. We just age gracefully. :p

my argument is not AT ALL that child labor laws should not exist or that they shouldn't be followed, my argument is that you shouldn't call the police on every child you ever see working because "it's fun to pwn business" there are perfectly legal and non-exploitative ways for children to work, whether you personally like it or not.

Just like you are talking about a poster who is not me, who suggested that it's fun to pwn business...I am talking about a poster/person in general who is not you...namely one that thinks that parents should be the only one deciding how much or if children work.

Yeah that's nice. I'm one of those adults btw. Two kids, working on a law degree, active in my community, and a husband who is mostly absent. I also walk uphill both ways in -40 fucking weather. Oh wait, that part is hyperbole.

It's not a picnic. Damn rights I could do better in school if I wasn't exhausted. It's a fact. And I've had years to get to the point where I can effectively manage my time and deal with the stress. I do this because I HAVE to.

My point is, it's hard enough for adults...it's even harder on kids. You cannot suceed in the industrialised West without a decent education. Not unless you inherit a fortune, or get into crime. And even then. It's idiotic on the part of parents to allow their children to sacrifice their education for the sake of 'teaching them a work ethic'. You can teach them that without fucking up their schooling.
Hardly. Read further.


Now if you care to look beyond absolutes, perhaps you'd like to refute the assertion I've made that the more hours a child works, the worse they are going to do in school...that this is a researched correlation, and not just something I pulled out of my ass?

And as I've pointed out there are degrees. Folding laundry, working weekends, babysitting here and there...not harmful. Usually. Coming to school and falling asleep in class because you've been working the nightshift, and are essentially the main caregiver for your younger siblings? Yeah, I've taught those kids. They don't do well, no matter how well they learn to manage their time.

Yours might not, mine do and have done very well.

Yours might not, mine do and have done very well.

Your children work the nightshift and are essentially the primary caregivers for their younger siblings...and they 'do just fine'?

Then you are a shitty parent, hands down. There is no excuse for requiring your eldest children to be the primary caregivers for your younger children, and you most certainly should not be encouraging them to work the night shift and go to school in the morning.

And if that's not what you meant, then perhaps you should read more closely and be more precise in your answers.

Your children work the nightshift and are essentially the primary caregivers for their younger siblings...and they 'do just fine'?

Then you are a shitty parent, hands down. There is no excuse for requiring your eldest children to be the primary caregivers for your younger children, and you most certainly should not be encouraging them to work the night shift and go to school in the morning.

And if that's not what you meant, then perhaps you should read more closely and be more precise in your answers.

Where pray tell did I say they were primary caregivers?

I know what I wrote. I said all three of my children worked in the family business and were honor roll recipients, and all three served on their schools academic teams with my oldest son going further to captain his colleges academic team. And I did not mention that two of my sons are Eagle Scouts and my youngest son is an all-state violist.

My point being that working and going to school was and has not been too much for my children at all. It has not taken away from their education (and yes they worked nights and spring breaks and holidays etc).

Your misguided belief that somehow a child working and going to school is deterimental and damages his education is nonsense. And believe me I am certainly not the only parent with honor students who work in the family business. Many of my client's children work in their businesses also....and also carry gpa's worthy of note.

You seem to feel it is too much for your children, it isn't for mine.
That was my point.

I can only think you don't know anything about the dynamics of a family owned business and it's relationship with the entire family.

Some restaurants in Fort McMurray got shut down about a year ago over this. Since the tar mines hired all the waitresses and trained them to drive giant trucks (Syncrude, specifically, prefers to hire women to drive the trucks because they treat the equipment more gently), every restaurant in town had to promote the busboys to servers and them hire 9-year-olds to be busboys (the 11-year-olds were already working somewhere).

I can't believe the labour shortage has lasted this long, and now with Saskatchewan taking its workers back (net migration out of Alberta last year) the problem isn't going to get better.While that may be their official reason, I bet having feminists constantly slam them for having a 85:15 man:woman ratio probably has a significant effect on them.

I shopped at Extra Foods, and I believe the cashier I usually went through couldn't have been older than 12. It was a group of about 4 fourteen year olds at the A&W I went to.

About the only places in "the city" that don't have labour issues are bars and pizzerias. That is simply because it is possible to earn $200 in tips every Friday night.

Although, the place I currently work at (in BC) is starting to dip deep into 14 and/or white trash crack heads for staff. Not quite as bad as Alberta, but it seems to be headed that way.

Where pray tell did I say they were primary caregivers?

I know what I wrote. I said all three of my children worked in the family business and were honor roll recipients, and all three served on their schools academic teams with my oldest son going further to captain his colleges academic team. And I did not mention that two of my sons are Eagle Scouts and my youngest son is an all-state violist.

My point being that working and going to school was and has not been too much for my children at all. It has not taken away from their education (and yes they worked nights and spring breaks and holidays etc).

Your misguided belief that somehow a child working and going to school is deterimental and damages his education is nonsense. And believe me I am certainly not the only parent with honor students who work in the family business. Many of my client's children work in their businesses also....and also carry gpa's worthy of note.

You seem to feel it is too much for your children, it isn't for mine.
That was my point.

I can only think you don't know anything about the dynamics of a family owned business and it's relationship with the entire family.

Seriously, what are you on about? Do you actually mean to be replying to me? Because nothing you say seems to have any relationship to what I've said, whatsoever. Either that or you really are completely incapable of reading the posts you quote. Tsk.

Because you are incapable of seeing past the stark black and white portrait you have eroneously painted of me, I'll say it again. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between children who work FOR EXAMPLE the nightshift, and are the primary caregivers for their younger siblings…or those children who are working 30 hours a week and trying to succeed in school at the same time…or those who are working 15 hours, or 12, or less. Every situation is different but what is NOT different, is that children who work 15 hours or more a week ON AVERAGE do worse in school than children who aren’t working those kinds of hours.

I don’t care about your kids. My kids, being 4 and 6 are entirely too young to be working aside from the chores they do. Your little anecdotes in no way refute the FACT that more work DIRECTLY correlates to poorer achievement in school.

I haven’t been following your posts, don’t know your backstory, don’t care. I also am not quoting you, pretending to have read what you wrote, and then making up an argument you haven’t put forth. I’d ask you to do the same. READ what I’ve written if it interests you enough to reply to it. Don’t talk irrelevant shit for the sake of talking irrelevant shit. Don't tell my 'my kids do it and are just fine' when I've just given an extreme example of children who can not possibly succeed. No. Your children don't do it. And you'd know that if you were paying attention to what I said.

Clear?

Here in our school district, children are required, starting in high school (age 14) to do a lot of community service, which takes up about 20 hours a week.

It might as well be a paying job for all the time it takes up.

Ostensibly, this is "education".

Would the previous poster be outraged at this requirement?

Back to the subject of Subway, I just went there. When paying for my meal, she asked me if I would like to pay the regular rate, or the special rate as the Italian BMT is the sub of the day. It is only now that this seemed odd to me.

I went to fast food place today (Subway) and my sandwich was made by a child I would guess to be 10-11 years old. He's actually there most of the time - he never seems to go to school - working away, making sandwiches in the sloppy, inefficient way you'd expect from a 10-year-old. He holds up lines, his hands aren't big enough to use the knives properly, and he generally makes crappy sandwiches. Plus, he does it slowly enough that if it started out as a warm sandwich, it isn't by the time you get it from him.

If you saw a child you thought was working illegally, would you report it to authorities?

Depends on the situation. Why is the child working? Is it a family business? If so, then I would not.

In this case, maybe he's the owner's son. If not, I'd definitely report.

Seriously, what are you on about? Do you actually mean to be replying to me? Because nothing you say seems to have any relationship to what I've said, whatsoever. Either that or you really are completely incapable of reading the posts you quote. Tsk.

Because you are incapable of seeing past the stark black and white portrait you have eroneously painted of me, I'll say it again. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between children who work FOR EXAMPLE the nightshift, and are the primary caregivers for their younger siblings…or those children who are working 30 hours a week and trying to succeed in school at the same time…or those who are working 15 hours, or 12, or less. Every situation is different but what is NOT different, is that children who work 15 hours or more a week ON AVERAGE do worse in school than children who aren’t working those kinds of hours.

I don’t care about your kids. My kids, being 4 and 6 are entirely too young to be working aside from the chores they do. Your little anecdotes in no way refute the FACT that more work DIRECTLY correlates to poorer achievement in school.

I haven’t been following your posts, don’t know your backstory, don’t care. I also am not quoting you, pretending to have read what you wrote, and then making up an argument you haven’t put forth. I’d ask you to do the same. READ what I’ve written if it interests you enough to reply to it. Don’t talk irrelevant shit for the sake of talking irrelevant shit. Don't tell my 'my kids do it and are just fine' when I've just given an extreme example of children who can not possibly succeed. No. Your children don't do it. And you'd know that if you were paying attention to what I said.

Clear?

Sort of. I see what you are saying. I didn't see the links you posted after these post you made about working children in family businesses. You didn't differentiate in the least here.

This:

I could see letting your kid work a few days a week, or on the weekend if they're being homeschooled. But beyond that? WTF?

If it's a family business, same deal. Yes, it's nice that you're grooming your children to take over said business, but you should not get to sacrifice their education to do it. Idjuts.

Originally Posted by Smunkeeville
even if it's legal?
Yes. Because how many kids manage to actually do well in their schooling (at home) AND work? Fuck, how many ADULTS can manage it? It's not the kind of stress we should be putting on our kids, not unless it's honestly life or death. And if it's actually at that point in the industrialised West there's still no damn excuse...there are social services specifically in place to deal with these situations.

Education is a right, not a privilege, and it's not a right that the parents of this child should be allowed to deny him, in the name of the family business. Under any circumstances, legal or not.


I simply didn't see every word you posted after this, this is what I have been addressing.

I am guilty of skimming all your posts that are about Alberta's labor issues, they weren't relevent to the point I was trying to follow.

Much of the thread has been questions about family businesses and kids working in them. Then along you came with your accusations and comments like "idjuts". It appeared very presumptuous to be honest.

Clear?

Much of the thread has been questions about family businesses and kids working in them. Then along you came with your accusations and comments like "idjuts". It appeared very presumptuous to be honest.

Clear?

Thank you for admitting that you have been 'skimming my posts' and then telling me how presumptuous I 'appear'. Excellent observation from your position as a skimmer.

If you sacrifice the education of your children so they can help out in the family business, you are an idiot.















Do you?

It's very simple. Are your children doing poorly in school? No? Well, wow, doesn't it seem obvious that you are not sacrificing your children's education?

Forgive me for making the assumption that you'd have the sense to understand when a statement applies to your situation and when it does not.

And as I said before, I belive the onus on proving that work is not interfering with school should be on the parents allowing their children to work. To do it the other way, to assume that a working child can handle work and school and come out on top runs absolutely contrary to research, and common sense. Some kids can handle it, absolutely. Should we then assume that more likely than not, all kids will handle it? Absolutely not.

Going on about how kids can handle it and blah blah blah without including the qualifications that at some point it is going to become impossible for the average child to get a good education, is as ridiculous as those who think that children making their beds is child labour and should be banned.

Thank you for admitting that you have been 'skimming my posts' and then telling me how presumptuous I 'appear'. Excellent observation from your position as a skimmer.

If you sacrifice the education of your children so they can help out in the family business, you are an idiot.


Do you?

It's very simple. Are your children doing poorly in school? No? Well, wow, doesn't it seem obvious that you are not sacrificing your children's education?

Forgive me for making the assumption that you'd have the sense to understand when a statement applies to your situation and when it does not.

And as I said before, I belive the onus on proving that work is not interfering with school should be on the parents allowing their children to work. To do it the other way, to assume that a working child can handle work and school and come out on top runs absolutely contrary to research, and common sense. Some kids can handle it, absolutely. Should we then assume that more likely than not, all kids will handle it? Absolutely not.


I think we both have established that perhaps we are either slow or simply tired. :p

I started skimming AFTER your presumptuous post calling parents "idjuts" without clarification. I said that...or did you skim it? ;)

I missed doing the math equation, I was too busy trying to figure out how you connected all night babysitting to anything I said. It finally hit me you were not in fact equating it to what I said, but to what you had said. Sorry about that, it really wasn't clear at all to me. :(

I think we both have established that perhaps we are either slow or simply tired. :p

I started skimming AFTER your presumptuous post calling parents "idjuts" without clarification. I said that...or did you skim it? ;)

I missed doing the math equation, I was too busy trying to figure out how you connected all night babysitting to anything I said. It finally hit me you were not in fact equating it to what I said, but to what you had said. Sorry about that, it really wasn't clear at all to me. :(

Whew, was I EVAH bitchy last night! Sorry, I'm freaking out about finals and having someone miscontsture my arguments made me go all esplodey.

Glad we're both clear that neither one of us is an all or nothing nutjob when it comes to kids working. *olive branch*

Whew, was I EVAH bitchy last night! Sorry, I'm freaking out about finals and having someone miscontsture my arguments made me go all esplodey.

Glad we're both clear that neither one of us is an all or nothing nutjob when it comes to kids working. *olive branch*

I so understand, it is April 9th and I'm a tax accountant....wired and frazzled is my bread and butter right now, I don't know why I think I can come here to relax....:p

Good luck with your finals! :)

I so understand, it is April 9th and I'm a tax accountant....wired and frazzled is my bread and butter right now, I don't know why I think I can come here to relax....:p

Because arguing with people is fun?

Because arguing with people is fun?

keeps our minds off of tax forms

"hey, uh.......I found another 1099"
"we already filed, when you told me that was all your reporting forms"
"can you amend?"
"yes"
"by the end of the week?"
"no, after April 15th"
"but I want it done now!"
"too bad"

Isn't he able to get a job if his parent consents?

Only in a small number of approved industries, like the movie industry, and only on very short (< 25 a week) off-school hours.

Here in our school district, children are required, starting in high school (age 14) to do a lot of community service, which takes up about 20 hours a week.

It might as well be a paying job for all the time it takes up.

Ostensibly, this is "education".

Would the previous poster be outraged at this requirement?

Sure. The imaginary poster you're talking about, who thinks that a child putting dishes away is 'child labour' would totally be outraged by that.

"Work experience" is offered in most school jurisdictions here. It's class time, and out of class time. It is for credit, and it helps a kid get work experience on their resume. 20 hours a week is a bit extreme if that's the minimum. I've never heard of a work experience program that did more than 10 hours a week max (required).

Sure. The imaginary poster you're talking about, who thinks that a child putting dishes away is 'child labour' would totally be outraged by that.

"Work experience" is offered in most school jurisdictions here. It's class time, and out of class time. It is for credit, and it helps a kid get work experience on their resume. 20 hours a week is a bit extreme if that's the minimum. I've never heard of a work experience program that did more than 10 hours a week max (required).

This isn't intended to be "work experience" as it's not likely that high school graduates will have a career picking up trash by the side of the road (some will, I imagine).

This is intended to forcibly instill a sense of "community responsibility".

Most students feel it's an outrage (their parents, by and large, think it's ok to get them off the XBox for 20 hours a week). Most students around here have no intention of being remotely involved in manual labor as a career, especially one that involves changing bedpans at a hospital or picking up roadkill off the street.