American History

Child labor has long been a heavily debated topic in various societies across the globe. Since the age of the Industrial Revolution, how long a person should work, what conditions they should be required to work under and what age and gender was appropriate for workers in factories and labor jobs has been an important area of discussion. Over time, as the world changed and mankind developed new technology and forms of industry, the work day of both the adult and the child laborer has changed and evolved to adapt to changes in culture and industry. Initially, only the work environment of the adult laborer was considered important, because children either didnt work or werent considered important enough to the work force to command equal rights and responsibilities in the workplace. Many politicians and social commentators lobbied to have the work day for the adult laborer limited. Where laborers were once permitted to work as long as they wanted or their employer considered it necessary, workers were limited to a 10-hour workday. As society and culture changed, this limitation on work began to change what the laboring class did with their free time. Changing the work day for adults also changed the way that society viewed child labor, and many historians, politicians and labor union representatives expressed very different viewpoints on the topic of child labor and the impact that child and adult labor laws would have on industry and society as a whole.

    Terence V Powderly distinguished the workday length for manual laborers from that of the more skilled or intellectual working class. He felt that it was inappropriate to require bankers or accountants to work 10 hour days because this would be too intellectually taxing, but that the same principle didnt apply to manual laborers because they did not use their intellect or logic and reasoning skills as much. Powderly felt that the body could withstand a longer work day than the mind. Powderly also felt that the work world would become increasingly intellectual and require the function of the brain even more so than the hand, and that work day lengths should be adjusted in anticipation of this future change. He felt that the shorter workday would allow workers to become more educated and self-sufficient financially, lessening the likelihood of industry strikes. Many advocates for limitation of child laborer workdays also felt that the shorter workday would allow the children to maintain a regulated level of education, ensuring them a brighter future and more possibility for job advancement.

    Peter Roberts also cited the need for regulated working conditions for child laborers to ensure that the children also had an equal opportunity to receive education. In his examination of child workers in the coal mining industry in 1905, Roberts discovered thousands of school-age workers who were being worked for long days and given no opportunity to go to school and be educated. Roberts pointed out that in many cases these boys were forced to take on the role of adult laborers because they came from families of widowed or abandoned mothers and therefore had to assume the role of the man of the house and the main breadwinner, sacrificing their childhood and education in the process. If child laborers were being given the opportunity to earn money and gamble it away like adult workers, they should be given the same protection and regulated work day. It was also argued that child laborer work days should be regulated in order to give children the opportunity to attend school and further their education, allowing them the chance to eventually move out of manual labor jobs and earn more money if they chose.

    In 1916 the United States Congress passed the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act. This act regulated all aspects of child labor practice, establishing regulations for regular inspections of factories and mines that employed underage workers and calling for limits on hours per day and days per week that children were able to work. Child workers between the ages of 14 and 16 were limited to 8 hour work days, were only permitted to work after 6 am and until 7 pm daily, and could work no more than 6 days a week. Fines and jail time were assessed to any companies found to be making or shipping goods through interstate commerce within 30 days of child labor manufacturing.

    After the passage of the act, the US Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional. The Supreme Court felt that Congresss place was to regulate commerce only, not the laborers involved in the manufacturing of the goods being bought and sold. Congress had the right and responsibility to protect the consumer. By prohibiting the interstate sale of goods specifically manufactured by companies that employed child laborers under the sanctioned age or outside of the time limits in the act Congress had overstepped its rights. The act was policing the companies, not the commerce, and attempted to protect the laborers, not the consumer. Congress could regulate interstate commerce, but did not have the right to police local business, companies and trade. This regulation was deemed an invasion of the 10th Amendment and ruled as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

    Congress appealed the overturning of the act, stating that it did not violate any tenets of the constitution and that, while acknowledging that the Congress had no policing power of its own, that it should be allowed to regulate methods of commerce that would affect interstate commerce and also the workers that produced the goods being bought and sold. Members of Congress stated that the Child Labor Act was protecting the rights of children as citizens, which was the primary responsibility of Congress, and therefore the Act itself was not unconstitutional. Congress argued that, since all states had individual laws governing child labor and work days that it would benefit all citizens for there to be federal statutes governing all child labor practices and making equal laws to apply nationally. The Supreme Court refuted this argument, saying that Congress was attempting to establish national control over matters that should be handled by the individual states, therefore overstepping its constitutional boundaries.