Were child labor laws seen as “conservative”, “liberal”, or neither in the 1920s

[darklordoftech]

In the 19th century and the pre-Depression 20th century, where were child labor laws viewed as being on the political spectrum?

[GP270watch]

In the 19th century and the pre-Depression 20th century, where were child labor laws viewed as being on the political spectrum?

 It was a progressive reform starting in the 1910s on the state level. The biggest opposition not surprisingly was in the south.

 The federal government was finally able to pass national standards after the great depression when FDR passed the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as part of his New Deal coalition.

 I think it's accurate to say that the move against child labor was a progressive reform,the biggest opponents were the Southern states, Church organizations, and people who feared the federal government and favored states rights.

[Indy Texas]

Liberal (in the modern, progressive sense of the word)

Forbidding children from working was regarded as:

(1) "Burdensome regulations" on "job-creating businesses."

(2) Intruding on parental decisions. (If a parent wants their child to "contribute" to the family, that's their business - not the government's.)

[Ye We Can]

In the 1920's there was a general consensus among both progressives and most conservatives that child labor laws needed to be regulated to some degree-congressional approval of a constitutional amendment to allow Congress to regulate it on the Federal level was easily achieved in 1924 despite a clear conservative majority (as in conservative Republicans and southern Democrats) and Speaker Gillett could have blocked it had he wanted to.

Of course, it took a political realignment and the depression to actually form a true consensus.

[JA]

It was a progressive policy position.

Conservative opposition was of course primarily motivated by business interests that refused to surrender the cheap, low-skilled labor offered by child labor. Many social conservatives objected on the basis that children are, essentially, the property of their parents and, therefore, it should be left to the parents to decide whether their child(ren) work or not. So, it struck at then existing notions of family values and parental rights.

Many progressive reformers weren't solely motivated by altruistic beliefs. The newly emergent Social Liberalism (which became and is standard American Liberalism) was inspired by academics (largely from UW-Madison) who studied under the leadership of German academics who developed a form of Liberalism that was more adapted to the business and societal needs of the changing economic landscape. Increasingly sophisticated technology and methods of production required more skilled and productive labor. Many basic welfare policies (and company benefits) developed as a result of research into what most benefitted productivity. The results were shorter work days, higher wages, some basic benefits, and a more educated workforce.

Agriculture was among the most resistant because small family farmers needed their children's free labor to produce a profit and the speed at which that field became more complex was slower than in industry. Thus, the more rural parts of America were far more reluctant to embrace the abolition of child labor, since it made maintaining a farm more difficult and harmed lower income families' ability to make additional money to support themselves.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It was a progressive policy position.

Conservative opposition was of course primarily motivated by business interests that refused to surrender the cheap, low-skilled labor offered by child labor. Many social conservatives objected on the basis that children are, essentially, the property of their parents and, therefore, it should be left to the parents to decide whether their child(ren) work or not. So, it struck at then existing notions of family values and parental rights.

Many progressive reformers weren't solely motivated by altruistic beliefs. The newly emergent Social Liberalism (which became and is standard American Liberalism) was inspired by academics (largely from UW-Madison) who studied under the leadership of German academics who developed a form of Liberalism that was more adapted to the business and societal needs of the changing economic landscape. Increasingly sophisticated technology and methods of production required more skilled and productive labor. Many basic welfare policies (and company benefits) developed as a result of research into what most benefitted productivity. The results were shorter work days, higher wages, some basic benefits, and a more educated workforce.

Agriculture was among the most resistant because small family farmers needed their children's free labor to produce a profit and the speed at which that field became more complex was slower than in industry. Thus, the more rural parts of America were far more reluctant to embrace the abolition of child labor, since it made maintaining a farm more difficult and harmed lower income families' ability to make additional money to support themselves.

I do think there is a fundamental difference between a child working in a family business and a child working for an industrial employer, or for some other agricultural employer as a migrant worker.  I'm certainly not for child labor in industries, but family farms (and, to a large measure, family businesses) are different, in that the children are "owners" of a sort and have a stake in that business that an employee does not.  Which is not to say that allowing a kid to operate heavy machinery or do foundry work in a family-owned business is OK.  But there is a difference.

[GP270watch]

Child labor laws have never really effected kids working for a family business or a farm so long as they go to school. I know kids who grew up on farms and they did plenty of work and many immigrant families that start a business have their children "work" often times because their English is better. The greatest thing about child labor laws was that it insured most kids would be educated to at least the high school level and as JA stated it gave America the skilled workforce it needed especially post WWII.

[Indy Texas]

Child labor laws have never really effected kids working for a family business or a farm so long as they go to school. I know kids who grew up on farms and they did plenty of work and many immigrant families that start a business have their children "work" often times because their English is better. The greatest thing about child labor laws was that it insured most kids would be educated to at least the high school level and as JA stated it gave America the skilled workforce it needed especially post WWII.

I remember a Thai restaurant I used to go to where their 10 year old son would disinterestedly hand me a menu and then go back to doing his math homework at the cash register.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Child labor laws have never really effected kids working for a family business or a farm so long as they go to school. I know kids who grew up on farms and they did plenty of work and many immigrant families that start a business have their children "work" often times because their English is better. The greatest thing about child labor laws was that it insured most kids would be educated to at least the high school level and as JA stated it gave America the skilled workforce it needed especially post WWII.

The highlighted is definitely true.

As an aside, while I am not happy with the large number of illegal aliens in America, I certainly believe that all children, regardless of immigration status, should be in school.  My grandmother was old enough to have grown up in NYC at the beginning of the 20th century and had clear memories of "street urchin" kids roaming the streets, not going to school and having nothing to do. 

I also don't want small children performing stoop labor in agricultural settings as migrant workers.  We ought to ensure that migrant children in America DO receive an education, as much as they are able to.  Kids need to go to school, and they need to become functionally literate and literate at basic arithmetic.  I don't take that for granted; that happened because there was a national will to do so.

[MarkD]

Hammer v. Dagenhart was decided in 1918, shortly before the 1920s, but it was divided by 5 to 4, with the conservative Justices in the majority and the liberal Justices in dissent.

[dead0man]

Child labor laws have never really effected kids working for a family business or a farm so long as they go to school. I know kids who grew up on farms and they did plenty of work and many immigrant families that start a business have their children "work" often times because their English is better. The greatest thing about child labor laws was that it insured most kids would be educated to at least the high school level and as JA stated it gave America the skilled workforce it needed especially post WWII.

I remember a Thai restaurant I used to go to where their 10 year old son would disinterestedly hand me a menu and then go back to doing his math homework at the cash register.

I've had the exact same experience at a Thai restaurant in Panama City FL.  It was a real hole in the wall, but it had great food.  HOT!

[brucejoel99]

Well, the laws restricting child labor were passed as part of the progressive reform movement, & it was conservatives who ensured the failure of the proposed constitutional amendment authorizing federal child labor legislation, soooo...