Teacher Resources: Lesson Plan

Working for a Living: Child Labor Laws

Overview

As many students either work or plan to work part-time during high school, child labor laws are of high interest. After reading The Court and Young People Essay, students will explore the Supreme Court's upholding of child labor laws in Hammer v. Dagenhart and the child labor laws that affect them today.

National Curriculum Standards met by this lesson

For a list of standards that this unit addresses, click here.

Time Required

2 50-minute class period plus research time

Materials

Photos of early working conditions in textile mills or other places:
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/

Class Set of the case summaries (below)

Copies of the federal child labor laws and your state's laws

The Lesson

Anticipatory Set

  1. Ask students: "Should students have restrictions on their ability to work? Why or why not?"
  2. Listen to some volunteers give their opinions.

Procedures

  1. Ask if anyone knows the origin of today's child labor laws.
  2. Once you have heard students' answers, show photos of early child labor. Point out the working conditions in these early factories, focusing on the children and teenagers. Point out that most children worked to help support the family (food, clothing, shelter, etc.), not to buy personal "wants".
  3. Students should be assigned The Court and Young People Essay, especially the section on "Economic and Property Issues", either for in class reading or for homework. Following the reading, conduct a class discussion of what they learned from the reading.
  4. Students will examine the case, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 1918, which ruled on child labor laws. Pass out the case summary (link to below) and read it together.
  5. Have students work alone or with a partner to answer the reading comprehension questions.
  6. When students are finished, collect and grade the responses (if desired). Go over the answers with the class.
  7. After students finish the case law lesson, begin a lesson on child labor laws.
  8. Ask if anyone remembers the restrictions on child labor in the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act.
  9. Ask students:
    1. Who has the power to pass labor laws today?
    2. How do those restrictions compare to today's laws?
  10. Pass out copies of the labor laws. A brochure comparing Minnesota and the Federal Government can be found at this link: http://www.doli.state.mn.us/childlbr.html
  11. Have a brief discussion on the similarities and differences between the state and federal laws. Ask how many students have jobs or plan to get a job in the near future. Do students feel restricted by the labor laws?
  12. Explain the original purpose of the labor laws was to protect the children from exploitation. Some of the typical condition in the textile mills of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth century were:
    1. Children often worked 14-hour days.
    2. Small children (as young as 5 --6 years old) were often given the dangerous job of fixing broken machinery, since they could fit inside the small spaces.
    3. Workers often had no breaks for hours--fatigue was a major problem and cause of injuries
    4. There was often no ventilation and sometimes few windows for light.
    5. Workers often had to go to the factory sick or lose their job--no sick days.

Assessment

  1. How do students feel about today's federal and state child labor laws? In an essay students will address the following points:
    1. Summarize the case and decision in Hammer v. Dagenhart
    2. Compare the federal child labor laws from the early Twentieth century to those of today
    3. Give their opinion: Given the culture in the modern United States, are child labor laws still necessary or do they unnecessarily restrict commerce? Support your answer with specific details.
Rubric for Child Labor Laws

 

Poor

Fair

Okay

Good

Excellent

Summary of Hammer v. Dagenhart

5

10

15

20

25

Comparison of Labor Laws

5

10

15

20

25

Opinion and Supporting Information

5

10

15

20

25

Grammar & Mechanics

3

6

9

12

15

Spelling

2

4

6

8

10

Related Works

History Place--this links to online photos of early child labor.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/

Tour of Law--this site has a history of case and the Court opinions and dissenting opinions.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Hammer/

Minnesota State Government--this links to the labor laws. There is a nice brochure that can be downloaded, which compares the Minnesota and federal child labor laws.

http://www.doli.state.mn.us/childlbr.html

Oyez Project--this website is a very complete reference for the Supreme Court, including the latest cases and information. It also has the text for many Supreme Court cases.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/frontpage

Interdisciplinary Works

Language Arts: Student could write an editorial or persuasive essay on their opinion of the child labor laws.

Language Arts: Students could create an advertisement for or against child labor laws.

Art: Students could create a mural of early textile mills, focusing on the labor conditions.

(Linked from above)

Hammer v. Dagenhart, 1918

Background

The federal government passed a law, the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act, which prohibited goods produced by child labor from being shipped between states. Under the federal law, factories could not employ children under 14 years of age and children 14-16 years old had the following restrictions on their employment: no more than eight hours per day, no more than six days a week, and no work before 6 AM or after 7 PM.

Mr. Dagenhart sued on behalf of his son, Reuben, who wanted to work in a textile mill. As Reuben Dagenhart was 14 years old, his ability to work was limited by the federal law.

Excerpts from the opinion of the court, written by Mr. Justice Day:

The thing intended to be accomplished by this statute is the denial of the facilities of interstate commerce to those manufacturers in the States who employ children within the prohibited ages. The act in its effect does not regulate transportation among the States, but aims to standardize the ages at which children may be employed in mining and manufacturing within the States. The goods shipped are of themselves harmless. The act permits them to be freely shipped after thirty days from the time of their removal from the factory. When offered for shipment, and before transportation begins, the labor of their production is over, and the mere fact that they were intended for interstate commerce transportation does not make their production subject to federal control under the commerce power.

Commerce "consists of intercourse and traffic ... and includes the transportation of persons and property, as well as the purchase, sale and exchange of commodities." The making of goods and the mining of coal are not commerce, nor does the fact that these things are to be afterwards shipped or used in interstate commerce, make their production a part thereof. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R.R. Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 U.S. 439.

Over interstate transportation, or its incidents, the regulatory power of Congress is ample, but the production of articles, intended for interstate commerce, is a matter of local regulation.

When the commerce begins is determined, not by the character of the commodity, nor by the intention of the owner to transfer it to another state for sale, nor by his preparation of it for transportation, but by its actual delivery to a common carrier for transportation, or the actual commencement of its transfer to another state.

--

There is no power vested in Congress to require the States to exercise their police power so as to prevent possible unfair competition. Many causes may cooperate to give one State, by reason of local laws or conditions, an economic advantage over others. The Commerce Clause was not intended to give to Congress a general authority to equalize such conditions. In some of the States laws have been passed fixing minimum wages for women, in others the local law regulates the hours of labor of women in various employments. Business done in such States may be at an economic disadvantage when compared with States which have no such regulations; surely, this fact does not give Congress the power to deny transportation in interstate commerce to those who carry on business where the hours of labor and the rate of compensation for women have not been fixed by a standard in use in other States and approved by Congress.

The grant of power to Congress over the subject of interstate commerce was to enable it to regulate such commerce, and not to give it authority to control the States in their exercise of the police power over local trade and manufacture.

The grant of authority over a purely federal matter was not intended to destroy the local power always existing and carefully reserved to the States in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

--

That there should be limitations upon the right to employ children in mines and factories in the interest of their own and the public welfare, all will admit. That such employment is generally deemed to require regulation is shown by the fact that the brief of counsel states that every State in the Union has a law upon the subject, limiting the right to thus employ children. In North Carolina, the State wherein is located the factory in which the employment was had in the present case, no child under twelve years of age is permitted to work.

It may be desirable that such laws be uniform, but our Federal Government is one of enumerated powers

--

In interpreting the Constitution it must never be forgotten that the Nation is made up of States to which are entrusted the powers of local government. And to them and to the people the powers not expressly delegated to the National Government are reserved.

--

In our view the necessary effect of this act is, by means of a prohibition against the movement in interstate commerce of ordinary commercial commodities, to regulate the hours of labor of children in factories and mines within the States, a purely state authority. Thus the act in a twofold sense is repugnant to the Constitution. It not only transcends the authority delegated to Congress over commerce but also exerts a power as to a purely local matter to which the federal authority does not extend. The far reaching result of upholding the act cannot be more plainly indicated than by pointing out that if Congress can thus regulate matters entrusted to local authority by prohibition of the movement of commodities in interstate commerce, all freedom of commerce will be at an end, and the power of the States over local matters may be eliminated, and thus our system of government be practically destroyed.

For these reasons we hold that this law exceeds the constitutional authority of Congress. It follows that the decree of the District Court must be Affirmed.

Questions

  1. Did the Supreme Court agree with the lower court's opinion?
  2. Why did Mr. Justice Day not consider production as part of commerce?
  3. Which parts of the Constitution did Mr. Justice Day state the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act broke?
  4. Does the opinion support federalism or anti-federalism?
  5. According to the ruling, are all child labor laws illegal? If not, who can pass child labor laws?