Pennsylvania teens may be allowed to work longer
As many companies know, child labor violations can be very messy. But one state is taking steps to relax some of the stricter rules.
August 05, 2011 at 12:35 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
As many companies know, child labor violations can be very messy. But one state is taking steps to relax some of the stricter rules.
The Labor and Industry Committee in Pennsylvania held a hearing this week regarding a bill that has been proposed to rewrite Pennsylvania's child labor laws. The House legislation proposes to bring the state's laws closer in line with federal child labor laws.
The bill proposed to allow individuals ages 16 and 17 to work up to 48 hours a week and up to 10 hours a day on weekend days during vacation periods. The law currently only allows these teens to work 44 hours a week and 8 hours a day during vacation times. This bill does not address teens work thresholds during school, which stands at 28 hours a week.
Advocates for the bill believe an update is long overdue, saying the current law is based on child labor practices dating back to 1915. Opponents of the bill, such as the AFL-CIO, believe creating longer work hours for teens will hurt the job market, giving employers fewer reasons to hire workers.
As many companies know, child labor violations can be very messy. But one state is taking steps to relax some of the stricter rules.
The Labor and Industry Committee in Pennsylvania held a hearing this week regarding a bill that has been proposed to rewrite Pennsylvania's child labor laws. The House legislation proposes to bring the state's laws closer in line with federal child labor laws.
The bill proposed to allow individuals ages 16 and 17 to work up to 48 hours a week and up to 10 hours a day on weekend days during vacation periods. The law currently only allows these teens to work 44 hours a week and 8 hours a day during vacation times. This bill does not address teens work thresholds during school, which stands at 28 hours a week.
Advocates for the bill believe an update is long overdue, saying the current law is based on child labor practices dating back to 1915. Opponents of the bill, such as the AFL-CIO, believe creating longer work hours for teens will hurt the job market, giving employers fewer reasons to hire workers.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Internal Whistleblowing Surged Globally in 2024, So Why Were US Numbers Flat?
6 minute read
Inside Track: AI Is Sure to Fray Big Law's Devotion to Billable Hour
Trending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
