WV House passes bill exempting 14- and 15-year olds from work permit requirement
West Virginia 14- and 15-year-olds seeking employment would no longer be required to have a work permit under a bill approved by the House of Delegates Friday morning.
Delegates passed Senate Bill 427 with a 91 to 9 vote. The House's nine Democrats voted against the bill. There was no discussion on the bill prior to Friday's vote.
The minimum legal age to work in West Virginia is 14. Current state law requires 14- and 15-year-olds who want to work to get a permit from their school superintendent. The permit includes age certification, a commitment by the employer to employ the child legally, a description of the work the child is applying to do, a signature by the child's principal saying that they're attending school and parental consent.
Under Senate Bill 427, employers seeking to hire the teenagers would be required to obtain an age certificate verifying the child's age from the state Division of Labor and the written consent of the child's parent or guardian. The age certificate would include the child's age, name and date of birth, as well as information about the job they're seeking, among other things.
Sen. Rollan Roberts, R-Raleigh, chairman of the Senate Workforce Committee said the legislation is meant to simplify kids' ability to work.
'We're going into vocational training more and more in our public schools, and this provides a way that we're not tasking the local county superintendents with having to approve the work permits instead going with the age permits,' Roberts said. 'Fourteen and 15-year-olds can already work, but this will now allow the parents to make that decision.'
Opponents of the legislation say that eliminating work permits may lead to children being exploited.
Kelly Allen, executive director of the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy, said in a statement that work permits are vital protection for children and families to help ensure compliance with child labor laws. Research shows that child labor violations are lower in states that require them, she said.
'While Senate and House committees certainly improved the legislation via amendments from the extremely dangerous introduced version, the final product is unnecessary at best and harmful at worst,' Allen said. 'We will closely follow the implementation and impacts of this legislation to ensure youth workers are protected.'
Roberts disagreed with concerns, saying that federal child labor laws still have to be followed.
'So no, they won't be working in coal mines and with heavy machinery and all these kinds of things,' Roberts said. 'Basically, what I envision is that we're helping the kids at entry level to get into the workforce.'
He added that the 18 to 24 age group is the lowest performing age group for workforce participation.
The bill will next go back to the Senate to approve any changes in the bill the House made. After that, it will go to Gov. Patrick Morrisey's desk for approval.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The rich already know how private equity mints money — and it's not from a 401(k)
The ultrawealthy are envied for many reasons. For instance, we wish we could access the same private-market investments that they favor. Now, after the White House issued an executive order on Aug. 7, you may be able to invest like the billionaires do. Homeowners rush to refinance as mortgage-rate plunge opens window of opportunity My wife and I are in our 50s and have $11 million. We're not leaving it to our kids. Is that wrong? You could receive up to $7,500 from the AT&T settlement. Here's how class-action suits work. But would you want to? The executive order allows ordinary retirement savers to invest in private assets and cryptocurrency. This will expand investment options for anyone with a 401(k) or similar tax-advantaged retirement plan. It is a big deal — opening part of America's $12.4 trillion defined-contribution market to private-asset managers. The largest private-equity firms and other asset managers are salivating at the opportunity to pitch this untapped market of retirement savers. Private assets encompass a range of investments that do not trade on a public exchange. Examples include hedge funds, private equity, private credit and infrastructure. The case for private assets is they can provide a buffer against inflation — plus steady returns. The downsides include high fees, illiquidity and complexity. The nation's biggest asset managers welcome the executive order. They want to develop funds that make private assets easier for people to buy, and argue that the added diversification serves savers' best interests. Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock BLK, says retirement savers should replace the traditional 60% stocks/40% bonds asset-allocation model with a 50/30/20 split: 50% stocks, 30% bonds and 20% private assets. Read: Larry Fink proposes an alternative to the 60/40 portfolio. It means more fees. Should you be excited about this widening menu of investment choices? It depends on whom you ask. Some investment professionals like the idea of making private assets more available to more people. 'Historically, a number of private-market strategies have produced higher performance and additional diversification in defined-benefit pensions,' says Peter von Lehe, head of investment solutions and strategy at Neuberger Berman. 'It's appropriate that a broader range of investors have access to private assets in their defined-contribution plans because of the potential for return and diversification that these long-term investments can provide.' However, von Lehe cautions that these investments are illiquid and 'have a higher degree of complexity.' He says his 'most appropriate use case' for private-market investments is through professionally managed target-date funds or other funds that allocate a percentage of defined-contribution money to these complex but potentially more lucrative alternatives. Read: Here's something the rich know about managing investment risk that can help you, too Financial advisers have differing views on the role of private assets in client portfolios. Steven Roge, a certified financial planner in Bohemia, N.Y., says private markets are not for everyone. 'It's for people in the wealth-accumulation phase, say 40 to 50 years old, who have a long time horizon and a high risk tolerance,' Roge says. 'And they have to be sophisticated enough to understand it. We know if they don't understand it, they may not stick with it.' Of the firm's 300 clients, he says that 'only about a dozen' fit the bill for adding private-market assets to their retirement accounts. Even with the expanded investment options that may result from the White House's action, Roge remains a fan of passive strategies for most investors. 'Indexing is how they will win over the long run,' he says. 'But some clients want something that's special and different' as they seek market-beating returns. Given the illiquidity of private assets, Roge anticipates setting expectations for those clients who tend to monitor their portfolio daily — and who engage in frequent trading. 'These private investments may only price four times a year,' Roge says. 'That's not enough action for certain clients who track their portfolio like a hawk.' In his personal portfolio, Roge uses private markets — especially private equity — to diversify his holdings. He says he allocates about 25% to alternative assets. 'It helps me sleep at night knowing my portfolio isn't being pushed around by the volatility of public markets,' he says. Roge adds that he is not concerned about the current high valuations of private-equity funds. 'The valuations [of private-equity funds] are more realistic than the erratic valuations we see in public markets on a daily basis,' he says. Other advisers are more skeptical of the White House executive order. 'It's less being done out of interest for the general public and more for private industry lobbying the [Trump] administration,' says Alex Ruda, an adviser in Silver Spring, Md. The executive order undoubtedly pleases asset managers and private-equity firms. For years, they've wanted to attract retirement savers' money. These savers bear primary responsibility for managing their 401(k) compared with today's older retirees, many of whom receive employer-funded defined-benefit pensions. While some younger savers enjoy picking their investments, others dread it. 'The average American worker isn't equipped to navigate these complex [private-market] investments,' Ruda says. 'And they may fall prey to a little performance chasing given where we are in the market cycle' — as private markets have outperformed publicly traded stocks since 2000. Ruda feels so strongly about not incorporating private assets into client portfolios that he's willing to forgo newcomers who express such interest. 'If I wanted to broaden my client base, I'd have to play to what they want,' he says. 'But I don't have to do that. So I'd say to them, 'I'm not the best fit.'' Read next: Here's what it's like to invest in private equity — and why you don't want it in your 401(k) More: As private equity enters retirement plans, is it too dangerous for average investors to jump in? I'm a senior who barely survives on $1,300 a month. No way could I live on $1,000. 'I am a senior citizen': My car needs $3,500 for repairs, but only has a trade-in value of $6,000. Do I bother fixing it?
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Notice a theme to Trump's planned takeovers of cities? These Black mayors do.
President Trump has warned he might send the National Guard to other cities. The Black mayors of those cities vow to push back. OAKLAND, California ‒ Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee and other officials in this California city are treating President Donald Trump's warning that he might send the National Guard there as more than just an offhand comment. They're bracing for a fight. Lee and other Black mayors, along with civil rights activists and lawmakers across the country are increasingly concerned about Trump singling out cities like Oakland, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Baltimore and Washington, DC. All of them are led by Black mayors and all of those leaders are Democrats. 'We just can't help but feel in some kind of way that we're being specifically profiled," said Van R. Johnson, president of the African American Mayors Association and mayor of Savannah, Georgia. 'That's not right. That's not fair. We want our federal government to work with us. We're just a phone call away.' New York Rep. Yvette Clarke, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, called Trump's takeover of DC's policing a 'blatantly racist and despicable power grab.' 'It won't stop in Washington, DC," she said in a statement. 'The stakes are high not just for Washington, DC, but for the future of democracy in every corner of this country.' Trump used his presidential powers in early August to take over policing in Washington, DC, complaining crime is rampant and officials haven't done enough to address it ‒ despite statistics showing crime in the district is at a 30-year-low. Trump also threatened to deploy the National Guard to help fight crime in other communities. "We're going to take back our capital," Trump said Aug. 11. "And then we'll look at other cities also." He called it a "historic action to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse." Different visions for tackling urban problems White House officials argue the nation's capital is filthy and that Trump has seen that firsthand. In March, Trump signed an executive order titled "Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful," which sets up a task force of federal officials to clean up the city. 'If Democrats had any common sense, they would follow President Trump's lead to crack down on violent crime that has plagued our nation's capital – and Democrat-run cities across the country," Taylor Rogers, White House assistant press secretary, said in an email to USA TODAY. "Instead of criticizing President Trump's popular, tough-on crime policies, they should focus on cleaning up their own cities which are some of the most dangerous places in America." Many big cities are run by Democrats, but both violent and property crimes have fallen nationwide in recent years, federal data shows. Civil rights leaders criticized Trump for portraying cities, especially those led by Black mayors, as crime ridden. "Painting a false picture of the city's largest Black-majority cities, led by Black mayors, is part of the Trump administration's ongoing strategy to exploit racial distrust for political gain,'' Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, and George Lambert, president of the Greater Washington Urban League President, said in a statement. If Trump really wanted to help cities, several mayors argued, he wouldn't be cutting funding for anti-poverty programs and community policing efforts. 'We need to have this federal government invest in cities like Oakland instead of disinvesting in us,' said Lee, who spent 27 years in Congress, including during Trump's first term. 'It doesn't make any sense what this government is doing if they want to see cities not just survive but thrive.' More: 'DC has a right to govern itself': Civil rights leaders denounce Trump's takeover move 'Reasonable people can look at the optics' Trump has yet to publicly bring up race in his criticisms of those cities, but experts point to his history of racially disparaging remarks, including during his first term when he questioned why the United States would let in people from countries like Haiti and parts of Africa, which he referred to using an expletive. Trump also called Baltimore, a predominately Black city, a 'disgusting, rat and rodent-infested mess.' While the president didn't specifically mention race then or in his recent references, it's clearly implied, said Jason Williams, a professor of Justice Studies at Montclair State University in New Jersey. Williams said urban centers historically have been code for talking about Black people or communities of color. 'He doesn't necessarily have to say it in order for his base to know what the implications are,' said Williams, adding that most people know DC has a significant Black population. 'It does give him some plausible deniability. Not that I think this president would care." Oakland's Lee told USA TODAY she finds Trump's actions "fearmongering and diversionary." "A lot of what he does is to provoke unrest and that gives him an excuse, so we have to be prepared and ready to fight," she said. Oakland has a contingency plan if Trump tries to send in National Guard, Lee added. When asked if she could provide any details, the mayor replied, 'I'm not at liberty to do that right now. That would be inappropriate at this point.' In DC, Trump justified his actions by citing a recent overnight assault of a former federal official and in Los Angeles, he called in the National Guard to quell civil protests spurred by the aggressive immigration crackdown. He might take advantage of other isolated incidents to target other big cities, said Insha Rahman, vice president of advocacy at the Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit organization focused on criminal justice. "It's the red meat that Trump uses to rile up the MAGA base and it is effective as bait only when it's left unchecked," Rahman said. 'We've been here before' Federal officials have sometimes used their powers to undermine Black urban leadership and portray them as chaotic and incompetent or crime prone, Williams said. He pointed to examples such as the urban renewal of the 1960s and 1970s when federal officials displaced Black neighborhoods with highways and a century earlier, after Reconstruction, when governments dismantled post-Civil War gains. 'We've been here before with federal overreach and an attempt to try to roll back hard-won wins," Williams said. The nation's capital has long been in the crosshairs of Trump and GOP congressional leaders. Earlier this year, Republican lawmakers threatened to withhold funds if Bowser didn't remove a Black Lives Matter mural from a street near the White House. 'DC has always been this sort of political football for the Republicans,' Williams said. While some Black mayors are concerned about their cities becoming a Trump target, they're continuing their work to combat crime, Johnson, the Savannah mayor, said. 'We're worried about fighting our federal government as well as fighting crime," he said. 'It's a continuous 'what if, what next,' which we think are distractions from what the American people are really talking about.' Johnson said the ideologies and approaches of some Black mayors may be different than Trump's, but that doesn't mean they can't be partners on issues, including crime. 'We understand elections. We're politicians ourselves," he said. 'We're charged with playing with whoever is on the field. When Donald Trump became president, he became president of our cities too.' Contributing: Phillip Bailey
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
BROADCAST BIAS: It ought to be a crime for media to cover DC takeover this poorly
Knees jerk at the broadcast networks every time President Donald Trump makes a dramatic move. They're going to denounce his verbiage as too reckless. They're going to suggest he's mangling all the facts. They'll suggest his motives are racist and extremist. We heard all this on ABC, CBS and NBC after the president announced he was going to take command for a month of the D.C. police and call on the National Guard to combat crime in the nation's capital. It started right away on Monday, August 11. On ABC's "World News Tonight," anchorman David Muir began by insisting it was the Democrats who owned the facts: "Tonight, President Trump ordering the National Guard to take over policing of the nation's capital. Tonight, the mayor of Washington pushing back with the crime stats, and what they actually show." White House reporter Mary Bruce, one of Joe Biden's most agreeable stenographers, offered smug opposition in ABC's clipped style: "President Trump declaring a public safety emergency in D.C., painting an apocalyptic picture, adamant crime is spiraling out of control. But his depiction stands in stark contrast to the official figures, which show crime in the capital is actually in decline. Violent crime recently hitting a 30-year low, down 26% since last year. Burglary down 19%. Murder down 12%." ABC and CBS didn't acknowledge that these "official figures" are rigged – that an officer was suspended for manipulating the crime statistics to show improvement – those "historic lows" the media touted. ABC also failed to mention their own colleagues were telling a different tale on their streaming channel, ABC News Live. Anchor Kyra Phillips described the scene near ABC studios in DC, just blocks north of the White House: "I can tell you firsthand here in downtown DC where we work, right here around our bureau, just in the past six months, there were two people shot, one person died, literally two blocks down here from the bureau. We can talk about the numbers going down, but crime is happening every single day because we're all experiencing it firsthand, working and living down here." This underlines how the statistics don't match people's experience. In May, a Washington Post poll found that 91% of DC residents see crime as a problem, with 51% saying it is an extremely serious problem. Moreover, it is in particular Black and low-income residents who are most concerned about it. They live in the neighborhoods with the worst crime. Over on "CBS Evening News," co-anchor Maurice DuBois offered a fractured fact check: "The president said, despite evidence to the contrary, that crime of the nation's capital is out of control. It has actually been declining since the pandemic." That's wrong. Violent crime spiked in 2023, which allows all the talking points about it coming down since then. The locals are not impressed if the annual number of murders comes down from 274 to 187. They don't want to become a crime statistic. On Monday, "NBC Nightly News" anchor Tom Llamas began: "The president's D.C. takeover, declaring a crime emergency and taking control of the city's police department, and sending in the National Guard. Washington's mayor calling it 'unsettling and unprecedented' as protesters take to the streets." White House reporter Gabe Gutierrez used the official stats against Trump, but added skeptics: "The head of the police union tells NBC News the crime stats have been manipulated. And any talk of a recent drop in crime is 'preposterous.' Still, the D.C. City Council calls the federal police takeover 'a manufactured intrusion on local authority' and the mayor says it caught her off-guard." It's fascinating that none of the networks pointed out Mayor Muriel Bowser is a Democrat. The city council has 11 Democrats and two independents. The elected DC Attorney General, Brian Schwalb, is a Democrat. These networks don't want you to think that Trump's "targets" here are partisan adversaries. They're somehow nonpartisan public servants. On ABC's "Good Morning America" on Tuesday, co-host Michael Strahan pushed claims from House Democrats (in this case Maryland Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin) that any focus on DC crime is a distraction from the Jeffrey Epstein case. In May, a Washington Post poll found that 91% of DC residents see crime as a problem, with 51% saying it is an extremely serious problem. On Tuesday's "CBS Evening News," reporter Scott MacFarlane was pushing leftist fears of Trump power lust with local liberal activist Ron Moten, who said "my only caution is, one thing can lead to the next thing. You can take the police department today and we wake up and they take over our city." MacFarlane replied: "They might not give it back." Moten repeated: "They might not give it back." While pundits like MSNBC host Joe Scarborough worried Democrats were falling into a trap by being aggressive crime denialists, the networks stuck to the liberal frame. "PBS News Hour" Amna Nawaz proclaimed on Thursday: "It's all part of a federal crackdown in the nation's capital launched by President Trump, citing a crime emergency that the data doesn't fully support." This approach signals that these leftist networks think "the data" always reliably lands on the liberal point of view, on "the right side of history" and the storyline of America's problems with racism. This arrogance is especially audacious when the statistics they're using are literally "fake news."
