Bill Overview
Title: CARE Act of 2022
Description: 22 This bill revises labor provisions for protecting child workers, including those employed in agriculture, and increases the civil penalties for violations of such provisions and imposes new criminal penalties for violations resulting in the death or serious injury or illness of a child worker. Specifically, the bill revises the definition of oppressive child labor to prohibit the employment of children under 14 years of age and imposes new employer reporting requirements for work-related injuries or deaths of agricultural employees under the age of 18. The Department of Labor must analyze, collect, and report on data concerning children under the age of 18 who are employed in agriculture and each work-related injury, illness, or death of any such child. Labor must also revise regulations to prohibit the employment of a child under the age of 18 as a pesticide handler.
Sponsors: Rep. Roybal-Allard, Lucille [D-CA-40]
Target Audience
Population: Child workers under 18, especially in agriculture
Estimated Size: 500000
- The CARE Act of 2022 is focused on child laborers under the age of 18, particularly those in the agricultural sector. The act seeks to provide more protection and ensure safety standards for these individuals.
- According to the United Nations, there are an estimated 152 million children in child labor globally, with approximately 71% involved in agriculture. This provides a rough global figure for the number of children who could potentially be affected by such legislation.
- This act will affect agricultural sectors by setting new legal standards and penalties, impacting employers in these industries, thus indirectly affecting a wider socio-economic group reliant on child labor.
Reasoning
- The CARE Act is aimed at improving the safety and wellbeing of child workers in agriculture, which is a significant issue given the hazardous nature of farm work and the relatively lower age restrictions compared to other sectors.
- The policy's budget and long-term focus allow for thorough implementation, including data collection, which could provide valuable insights into the prevalence and nature of child labor in agriculture.
- The wellbeing of children impacted by the policy should improve over time as unsafe working conditions are mitigated. However, families dependent on income from children's labor might experience financial strain, influencing their wellbeing differently.
- A mix of individuals and profiles impacted by the policy includes children currently working in agriculture, their families, and those indirectly affected including employers and adult co-workers.
- The direct impact on the American population of child agricultural workers is estimated at 500,000 individuals. Including families and communities raises this impact number indirectly, with regional variations where agricultural employment is more prevalent.
- Consideration is given to possible resistance or logistical challenges in policy implementation, affecting the speed and effectiveness of impact.
Simulated Interviews
Student, seasonal farm worker (California)
Age: 16 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad there are steps to make farm work safer, but I'm worried about how this might affect my family's income.
- We rely on the money I earn during the season, even if it's just for a short time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Farm worker - berries (Texas)
Age: 14 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's important to be safe, but I also want to keep working to help my family out.
- The new rules about handling pesticides probably mean I'll do less work which could be a good thing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Part-time farmhand (Florida)
Age: 13 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safety is important but making it illegal for me to help might hurt the farm's overall productivity.
- I'm not sure what this means for my future if I can't learn the business hands-on.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
High school student, summer farmworker (Iowa)
Age: 17 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act sounds like it would help us by making the work safer.
- My family doesn't get much from my work, so the financial hit is not too bad.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
N/A (Colorado)
Age: 10 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to hear that people my age can't be made to work too early.
- I hope my parents have enough help at work so they don't have to worry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Farmworker (Georgia)
Age: 15 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see some of my friends getting hurt sometimes, so it's good that safety is being highlighted.
- But I also don't want to stop helping out.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Student (Nebraska)
Age: 12 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am relieved because going to work in the fields scared me a bit with the stories I've heard.
- I hope policies like these mean my family can manage without me working.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Agricultural worker, part-time (Oregon)
Age: 16 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We knew the risks, but we didn't have many choices.
- The act seems like a step in the right direction, but it might make it hard for me to get jobs in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
N/A (Kansas)
Age: 11 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to know that kids won't be forced to work too early.
- My community thinks it will help kids focus more on school.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
High school student, volunteer farmhand (Washington)
Age: 17 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act seems helpful for those who have no choice, but my situation is different.
- I'm here more for the experience, and safety measures feel beneficial for all.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $140000000)
Year 2: $125000000 (Low: $105000000, High: $145000000)
Year 3: $130000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $150000000)
Year 5: $140000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $160000000)
Year 10: $160000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $180000000)
Year 100: $185000000 (Low: $165000000, High: $205000000)
Key Considerations
- Compliance costs for agricultural employers may lead to operational changes, potentially affecting agricultural productivity.
- Public perception of the agricultural sector may improve due to enhanced child labor standards.
- Future legal challenges relating to the implications of employment reclassifications could arise.