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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.


