Ads


Russell E. Saltzman

view all featured authors »

Down on the Farm

The U.S. Department of Labor has proposed new regulations that will address child labor on farms. Among the proposed rules, paid child workers (these could be kids employed by their own families) under the age of fifteen would not be allowed to operate tractors, combines, ATVs, or most other power-driven equipment without special certification. No one under eighteen could work around grain elevators, feed lots, or livestock auctions. And no texting while tractoring; no iPod or walkie-talkie use, either.

The critics, of whom there are many, say this is just another instance of Washington being out of touch with real Americans and their economic realities, poking its nose in places it shouldn’t, especially for those still down on the farm. Farm state legislators from Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and probably other states are complaining.

The regulations provide an exemption for family farms, but the definition of “family farm” is very narrow, which means everything else that is not a “family farm” is very broad. Among those not exempted: Families with partial ownership of a farm incorporated as an LLC, as well as grandparents or uncles and aunts employing their grandchildren or nieces and nephews.

Family farming, critics argue, may now be big business, but it is also still a generational exchange, fathers passing land and skills to sons and daughters, stretching back to the days of the Homestead Act or earlier.

I can understand the critics. Among farm families, the desire and passion for and the work of farming is almost a genetic trait. Concerns about disruption of a way of life—one that is considered quintessentially American—are understandable.

But what occurs to me when considering the new regulations is that it could mean no more kids getting killed while riding on the back of tractors. Kids die in farm accidents. An under-eighteen farm worker faces a fatality rate about four times greater than his or her counterpart at, say, Taco Bell.

My first child funeral in my first parish was for a farm kid. Mark was eleven. He wanted to be a farmer, like his dad, like his dad’s dad. Mark’s father had been killed two years previous, before I came to the parish. A high-loader his father was working tipped forward and crushed him against a fence post. That was in 1978 before they came equipped with safety cages and roll bars (another government regulation). It was some while before his body was discovered. It must have been horrific. His death left a young widow with two sons, and now four years later another farm death left her with just one.

Mark was killed while riding on the back of a tractor driven by his grandfather, hauling a grain wagon across an ancient field bridge. It was a very small ravine, really, and the bridge was there to smooth the crossing and shorten the trip to a waiting grain truck. It had been used for years but one trip too many over the years, too much weight, and it cracked in the middle and dropped the tractor and wagon to the center, tossing Mark backward under a load of corn. He suffocated. His grandfather was thrown clear. The timbers showed interior rotting. It should have been replaced years before. It is haste and negligence and dumb stupid luck that kills farmers, and their children.

Mark’s death rolled over that small farm community like acid rain. I got out to the farm as soon as I heard. Mark’s grandfather was storming around the yard, cursing God. “Goddamn you, God; goddamn you.”

I was at a loss. I didn’t know what to say to him; I didn’t know if anything should be said to him. Let the rage subside; fix his theology; tell him God has a plan for everything? About that same moment a parishioner arrived, walked up to him and put both her hands on his shoulders and sort of gave him a little shake. “You can’t blame God for the devil’s work,” she said. Remarkably he calmed down, almost immediately.

Yes, her remark was simple, almost simplistic. But it turned out to be most of my sermon at the funeral. Maybe I’ll go into that another day.

For today, thirty-two years after Mark’s funeral, perhaps the greater lesson to draw is even simpler. Not all regulation is bad. Safety cages, roll bars, and other rules designed for worker safety, things that might have saved Mark’s life or his father’s, tells me a lot of good can come from what really on the whole amounts to a little inconvenience, compared to the life of a child.

Russell E. Saltzman is an online homilist for Christian Leadership Center at the University of Mary, and author of The Pastor’s Page and Other Small Essays. His previous On the Square articles can be found here.

RESOURCES

Farm Productivity

Farm Fatalities

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.

Comments:

1.5.2012 | 2:48am
Rick says:
In this particular forum, I would expect a person to have to duck quickly after attempting to paint the long arm of federal regulation snaking out of Washington as a benevolent force. However, the most potent points are made when they come out of a person's personal experiences, and that is exactly how you have done it in this essay. Well done! I come from a family of farmers, mechanics, and naval aviators. I suppose it has largely been "dumb stupid luck" to thank for the fact that there has never been a death or disabling injury in my family from either farm accidents or military combat. On the other hand, careful planning and intelligent regulations may have helped, too.
1.5.2012 | 7:37am
Mick Leahy says:
Russell, I started reading this article, critical of more statist interference in peoples' business, complicated by my own background of having grown up on a farm, but by the time I came to the end of the article, found my views deviating to the polar opposite. Well said.
1.5.2012 | 9:46am
I am of two minds about this piece. The point that not all regulation is bad is entirely legitimate. And farm work is dangerous, sometimes unnecessarily so.

On the other hand, I more or less grew up on a tractor. By age 14 I could competently manage the heaviest equipment. I could plow, bale hay, and operate a combine. I could grease a corn-picker, milk and manage cows, and load and unload hay bales and hundred pound sacks of wheat. Meeting such challenges is invaluable for the development of young men, and many parents wisely entrusted their teenage boys to my father's tutelage. After my father's funeral a cousin (a retired Army colonel) said to me that I had failed to note one thing about him: "Every boy should have an Uncle Roy."

Many farm families will see in such regulations a foolish attack upon the intergenerational nature of farm life and its benefits. They have a very good point. And doing work that can lead to death or injury not only focuses the mind; it is a pretty good way to size up the world. The background has served me well in the sacred ministry.
1.5.2012 | 10:22am
Alex says:
Creating a safe work environment by imposing machine modification requirements is not the same as barring someone from working until a overarching administration bestows a "certificate" of qualification. It is no great secrete that these certifications are, for the most part, a complete joke. I worked in a dry-wall loading and shipping factory as a teenager, and despite the "certification" process, I can't keep count of the number of times Gherry the fork-truck driver almost ran me over or crushed me under the payload (which I had to crawl under to place wooden landing blocks).

Accidence happen. And when they do, negligence is typically the cause. Certificates can't do anything about negligence, but every once in a while a tragedy can.

My heart goes out to those who suffered loss. But I refuse to let tragedy be the fuel for a federal agency's taking the responsibility of informing me when my grand-kids can and cannot work the tractor.
1.5.2012 | 10:24am
Kari S says:
Certainly regulations save lives, and more regulations would save more lives. However, regulations also cost lives because of different choices made. For example, increased regulation of airlines after 9/11 has caused more people to drive because of the increased cost (both time and money) of flying. That has actually increased the overall death rate because driving has always been much more dangerous than flying. (See, for example, this article: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/5822) But those automobile deaths are "invisible"(except to the families), while an airplane crashing is headline news.

Again, if farm kids are prevented from working for their family farms because the farm is too big, they may end up working in town and driving there. The increased fatality rate for them will not be attributed to the passage of these regulations - those deaths will be "ïnvisible," unlike Mark's.

Some of these regulations, especially the "no texting" rule, though basically unenforceable (are sheriffs really going to drive around looking for tractor operators with phones??), are good ideas. But the age-related restrictions are wrong-headed. Some 14- to 17-year-olds are perfectly capable of handling feedlot, livestock and other dangerous environments, while many 25- to 30-year-olds should never be allowed near an animal. One-size-fits-all government regulations demean the dignity of humans - even if they save the life of a child.
1.5.2012 | 10:25am
harry says:
Hello, Mr. Saltzman,

Considering the number of children who die in automobile accidents, maybe the government should restrict the use of automobiles. This would save the lives of thousands of children. Maybe drivers healthy enough to do so, who live close enough to work, could be required to take a bicycle to work instead of driving their cars when weather permitted. This would have an added health benefit. Others could be required to use public transportation to get to work and back.

Much vehicle use is not job-related – but still kills children. Surely most people could get by with only using their vehicle six days per week for non-work related transportation.

Unless one had an exemption, electronics would be installed in cars that would transmit usage statistics to the government so they could tell if a vehicle was being used according to the regulations, and notice of fines could be generated and mailed to the offender, using email, of course, when possible. Or better yet, the government could arrange for the amount of the fine to be automatically deducted from one's bank account, and the notice would merely be to inform the offender that this had taken place. This would be only a minor inconvenience considering the lives that would be saved.

And then there are all the child deaths related to kids getting to school and back. Wouldn't it be better if they just stayed at school except for weekends? Of course, getting home on weekends and getting back to school on Monday would be risky, too. Maybe it would be better if the parents were allowed to visit the children on weekends, instead of the children going home for the weekend.

If you doubt the reasonableness of these proposals, which would no doubt reduce child fatalities immensely, you must have a very cold heart indeed. Just consider one of the many heart breaking stories about a toddler's death in an automobile accident, or of children being abducted while getting back and forth from school. Who can argue with that? Nobody can who cares about children.

And who could doubt the sincerity and genuine concern for children on the part of the government? Well, for *born* children anyway. And who could doubt that the very purpose of the government established by the founders was social engineering with our safety in mind? Of course it was. That was uppermost in their minds, and if it wasn't we will just teach the kids it was while we have them detained at school.

It is time we faced up to the fact that the concept of liberty is an anachronism. Government is all about our safety whether we like it or not. Those who disagree with this hate children.
1.5.2012 | 10:42am
Roger says:
A bridge collapses on a farm. A teenager working on the farm is killed as the bridge collapses. Therefore, Big Government issues rules. Children cannot work on farms.

Big Government becomes "All Encompassing Government." Accidents and deaths still happen on farms. Therefore "All Encompassing Government" again issues new rules. Tractors, grain wagons and bridges are placed under government supervision and control. And on it goes.

Saltzman's thinking on this matter seems more an emotional reaction similar to the "ban guns" argument. than a thoughtful response. The net result is a further diminishment of liberty and the exercise of personal responsibility.
1.5.2012 | 11:49am
Ben Embry says:
These kinds of regulations create new markets. For example, the farmer who tries to obey te regulation might prefer to
Contract out the bulk of the tractor work rather than certify his children (especially if they are too young to be certified.) so a market opens for contract tractor work. Now there is a black market that also develops in this new market, because the farmer can choose to outsource the work to a certified tractor operator or to a lower-priced operator who is flying under the bureaucratic radar by tractoring without certification. So now a new law needs to be passed to ensure that the employers do not hire uncertified contractors (just as happens when employers are penalized for hiring illegal immigrants). So one regulation creates the need for a dozen more regulations.
Farming is hard. The startup and overhead is tremendous. Maintenance usually is not kept up te way it should be because it sucks all the monetary incentive out to the point that the business is not viable. By regulating more and more aspects of farming, the eventual outcome will be more farm subsidies, which usually keep the farmer on the lean side financially, and again it takes the incentive away, both the dollar incentive and, usually more importantly, the incentive of working with your own children.
But I entirely lament the numerous farm tragedies out there. My bro-in-law had a tractor bucket land on his collarbone (near his head, see) due to malfunction of the hydraulic hoses. He was 16. The tractor was not running at the time. How can we red tape that one?
1.5.2012 | 12:37pm
AKO says:
I've never been to one but child funerals must be the one of the hardest, most saddening things ever. Although all funerals are hard, the potential of a child's is probably the hardest. Your story is saddening, and I agree that we tend to be more reactive than proactive when dealing with safety.
1.5.2012 | 2:08pm
TXW says:
I suspect ( I could be wrong, and the libertarians statisticians can argue) the CDC and OSHA saw a trend, a blip in the deaths and disabling accidents of kids on farms. This will not end kids working on the farms, there is plenty of work to do without sticking your hand in a PTO or suffocating in the top of a grain elevator (you have to wear a harness, its the regulation, no matter if grandpa says he didn't wear it, his son didn't, and now you don't need to, kid). Of course, if you do not want regulations, do not take your bleeding kid to the heavily regulated ER, where the doctors and nurses have state-issued licenses to try to stop the bleeding after studying for years in state regulated universities, start government regulated medications, in a room hopefully inspected recently by a government agency for sterility and efficiency. Or go to the black market hospital (Mexico?) which doesn't have to put up with Big government intrusions.
1.5.2012 | 2:55pm
Rick says:
Russell--I told you you should duck! Actually, some of the rebuttals here are also well done, especially if they come from people with real farm experience. My wife and I live in a tobacco, corn, and soybean farming region here in Kentucky. Many of the kids in our university are from farm families. Over the past 20 years, I don't recall hearing of any farm deaths among people we know, but several families have lost children to traffic accidents on the public roads.
1.5.2012 | 3:02pm
Randy says:
I believe that farm kids have also saved many lives. When Grandpa, who's getting extremely "absent-minded," heads out with the chainsaw to take out some dead trees, Dad can say, "let Danny do it...he knows what to do...he likes to do that stuff...and he goes fast." That's whether Danny likes to do it or not. Then Grandpa can just "supervise," and be safer.
1.5.2012 | 5:48pm
@Rick. I bucked bales summers and knew how to drive a tractor before I knew how to drive a car, and I "walked beans" (a lost art, happily), as well as tending cattle. I had what I regard as one close call, a particularly unhappy young bull that didn't seem to like me crossing in front of him.

I've spent a little better than a third of my pastoral life in rural communities. (Oh, and here's bragging rights: I know the guy who grows perhaps 90% of Frito-Lay's purple corn for their fiesta chips.) So, I know a bit of farming, and farm families. Mark's was not the only funeral I've conducted due to a farm accident, though he was the only child. Visceral reaction against regulations just as regulations isn't tenable, not really. Some of the proposals I did not discuss here are stupid, and will no doubt undergo modification. But others might be regarded as crucial. Farm safety by the labor department hasn't really been visited since the 1970s.
1.5.2012 | 11:38pm
RJ says:
Russell - this is a great piece and thanks for sharing. I agree with the regulation point. I'm confused about the theology bit though - I really would love for you to explain that. Specifically: If regulation can prevent these kinds of deaths, and these kinds of deaths are the devil's work, then the devil's work doesn't seem to be very important. That seems like a rather naturalist take on the situation, and I don't mean that in a bad way - I just have a really hard time understanding a spiritual perspective that involves God or the Devil on situations like there where it really all doesn't seem to be spiritual in any way at all. My theology is obviously bad, and I'd really love to hear your take on how that works.
1.6.2012 | 1:07am
Rick says:
@ Russell
You are much more of a farm boy than I had realized! I grew up on Navy bases, and my farm experience was limited to summers and Christmases at my grandfather's farm in Oklahoma. He was a classic, austere prairie farmer, right out of "American Gothic", and he belonged to the Church of the Brethren, whose members literally washed each others' feet, just as Jesus had instructed. At family reunions, the adults would wait until he went upstairs to bed before starting a game of pitch around the kitchen table. My grandfather would never have allowed a deck of cards in the house if he had known about it.

It can be hard to realize, in this modern age, just how independent those folk could be. My grandfather carried it to a bizarre extreme, though, when he was in his eighties and his mind was slipping. He was diagnosed with a particular form of cancer and decided to handle it in his own way. One day when my grandmother was out visiting neighbors, he got the rusty old clamps from the barn that he used on the sheep and went to work on himself at the kitchen table. When the bleeding went out of control, my grandmother got the desperate call from him on the old crank telephone at the neighbors. "Stella, honey, you've got to help me..." He lived on for months after that before finally slipping away. The doctors called him a "man of iron." Yes, I can easily understand the independent spirit of our rural citizens.

I can't exactly romanticize the old days, though, and that's one reason I believe in the value of reasonable and intelligent regulations, despite our famous heritage of rugged independence. There one form of "regulation", though, that I've never heard a farmer criticize: the federal subsidies and price supports for agricultural commodities!
1.6.2012 | 8:52am
@RJ: There is a lot of "will of God" theology in life. God becomes the responsible agent for everything. Pointing out there are events, activities that may be regarded as "anti-God," against God (our sin, for starters) seemed like the thing to do. And pointing out that resurrection through Christ is God's final will for us also seemed the thing to say.
1.6.2012 | 12:45pm
Ben Embry says:
@ Rick, let me tell you about farmers who have opinions about price supports and federal subsidies. Many conservative mennonites and amish (who are not too much unlike your Grandfather's church of the brethren) would consider the act of accepting federal subsidies a test of membership (and reason for exclusion from communion and feet-washing). They reject the subsidies. Nevermind that the price controls on commodities are established with these subsidies figured into the equation, which means that the farmers who reject the handout wind up making an income that is much lower than what the gov expected. that is, these farmers are working in a system that does not accomodate their convictions very well, but they continue to choose this method of employment because the work itself is something nearly sacred, and a large part of that is the family aspect of the farm.
This combination of price controls and subsidies eventually dooms the farmer who doesnt choose to receive subsidies, unless he can break free from the price controls and find a market that isn't regulated thusly. Again, my wife's family did this as a last-ditch gamble to save the farm. They canceled their contract with the milk plant who bought their milk at government controlled prices, and they began to make farmstead cheese, as well as raising free range, whey-supplemented chickens, pork, and producing various other health food products (like kiefer and kombucha and lacto-fermented cabbage!). Today, if you want to try some of their chicken or cheese, all you have to do is find your way to the high-end restaurants in Dallas where they serve this food or visit the upscale grocery stores.
The upside for my home is that Grampa feels obligated to give us this food as a belated compensation for all the hours my wife put in at the milk barn as a teenager when she received no monetary compensation, when milk prices were controlled by regulation.
1.7.2012 | 1:02pm
Teejay Beam says:
As a person who worked, and then supervised a dairy farm in my teens, and has heard the call of the pastorate later in life, I view this issue with heavy heart. It seems a "damned if we do, and damned if we don't" situtation. As sinners we must face that our finitude falls short of protecting that which we should rightly love.., our faith, our families, and our freedom. In this pursuit we must acknowledge that in this sinful world there are no "Right Answers". But we must embrace that it is time for decisions to be made. I believe farm safety is the province of combined efforts that must fall soon to the attentive efforts of operator, hired help, equipment manufacturers, and governmentally empowered regulators. But we must sin boldy and work in concert. And when all, does not, however, prevent accident to persons of any age, then I fear we must realize that we indeed fall short. We thus finally must say... mea culpa, mea culpa, etc. etc. and etc. In my ministry I remember a senior named Melford, who in his late 90s in age, drove a field so muddy that his tractor dug its rear wheels down so deeply that he fell off. Do we say that he should not farm any longer? His family did. But he refused to quit and died at the wheel of that same tractor some months later, having driven into the woods after his demise from heart attack. Of such is the stubborn spirit of the farmer, the protective struggle of their families, and the will of those who wish to help them in a very dangerous trade. May the Spirit of God help us all.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact