babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
child labour laws and child-actors
November 18, 2010 - 8:42pm
Has anyone ever wondered about this? There are labour laws that forbid children working in Canada, U.S., Europe etc. yet somehow these labour laws don't seem to apply to children who work as actors?
Does anyone know how Hollywood, TV etc. get around labour laws that forbid children from working?
Every provincial jurisdiction (and federal) has different laws about child labour. Some specifically allow child actors, but provide restrictions as to duration of time, the time of the day, meals, etc. None of them are bold enough to ban children from plays, films, orchestras etc. altogether. It's actually a big topic, but if you like, you can look at particular jurisdictions. Which province would you like to start with?
This will give you a pretty good idea of "child performers" guidelines in Ontario, for example.
This is one of my favourites:
How's a kid supposed to make a living, anyways?
Actually, in the U.S., those laws do apply, at least in the sense that limits are placed on the amount of time child actors are allowed to work each day, some minimum safety standards are imposed(this was made stricter in response to the helicopter accident on the "Twilight Zone: The Movie" set in which child actors were killed) and on-set tutors are required to make sure that child actors do, in fact, receive a relatively normal education.
It's why you see twins playing a single role. Such as the Olsen twins
For that reason, it's likely that Hollywood will be at the forefront of the cloning revolution as the century progresses.
The thing I find interesting is how 'we' come to view certain types of child-labour as really offensive (e.g. doing manual labour in sweatshops) and other types of child-labour as perfectly acceptable (forms of mental labour like acting of course within limits/regulations)....
I"m not advocating that children should work in sweatshops....I just don't understand the normative distinction between different forms of child-labour...
(We could perhaps extend this further, why is preparing children to 'work' (schooling) somehow better than sending them to 'work')
ACTRA has rigorous conditions to having child performers on set, the amount of time they put in, tutors, etc. It's probably on the website, look for something entitled IPA (agreement between CFTPA [Canadian Film and Television Producers Assoc.] and ACTRA) - it will be outlined in that document.
There's nothing inherently wrong with child labour. The problem is wage labour.
That's why we fight for laws such as the 8-hour day. No one would dream of applying that to other than wage labour. Likewise, no one would legislate restrictions on asking the kids to clean their rooms, do dishes, etc.
In the case of wage labour, what is harmful to the body and spirit of human beings is positively toxic to children - hence our fight to protect them.
By work I tend to treat it as identical to wage-labour. Cleaning one's room I don't consider to be a form of 'work'. But I think my argument still applies. i.e. child acting is still a form of wage-labour...I still think we make a sharp distinction between manual labour and mental labour to define whether or not wage-labour is acceptable for children.
And they can wiggle their way under the cotton looms so much more easily than the average adult.
In BC child labour is allowed. Like many things in our brave new world this 19th century idea has come back again. What I find interesting is that child actors seem to be the only children protected in this province. Any child over 12 can work with only their parents permission.
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_9611...
http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/chldflm/welcome.htm
It all depends on whether it is an abusive or exploitative situation or not.
I think it's a good idea for kids to understand what work and responsibility are from a fairly young age. And many kids are eager to mimic their parents and work.
I remember being put to work grading papers (the multiple choice kind) when I was in my early teens. And there are situations where, like it or not, kids have to work - particularly on a farm or other household that depends on labour.
Of course, a situation where a child model or actor is pulling in bags of money is another situation entirely.
You wouldn't have FILM as a medium anywhere if there was an absolute ban on children being emplyed as actors.
You can't make films if it's impossible to believably depict families.
And you can't believably depict families if you can't employ anyone under, say, 16 as an actor in film.
And being a film actor is not the same as working in a sweatshop or harvesting fruit for twelve hours a day in the blazing sun.
As long as decent wages and safe working conditions are guaranteed, and as long as the child's education is unterrupted, what harm does it do to employ children as actors?
Sarah Polley had an interesting take on the issue. Her first role was when when she was 6 and she was in "Baron Munchausen" at 9.
She said it was easy to get children to act (you mean I get to play make believe? With grownups?!!!!). She was definitely in the camp of needing special protection for child actors just because they are so easy to exploit.
Special protection, yes. A ban on the use of child actors(which is what the OP appeared to advocate)no.
Sometimes, those actors also need protection from their own parents or guardians, ranging from Gary Coleman(whose parents essentially stole every penny he earned as a child actor)to Patty Duke(whose adoptive parents both stole her money and emotionally abused her).
You've obviously never seen my room.
Well, I disagree. Child labour for an employer is about exploitation for profit, safety, education, nurturing, abuse. It's not merely about little kids being weaker or still growing or whatever. It's about drawing lines beyond which people should not live off others' labour. It's like the minimum wage - not really enough to live on, but that's not the aim - it's about setting a lower limit to exploitation.
In this case, society says (or should be saying): Wait until this human being is x years of age before parents and employers make deals at the child's expense.
Whether mental or manual, children (with very very limited exceptions) should not be allowed to be rented out to employers for their profit. Our society recognizes that, as do many others. That doesn't mean there aren't unacceptable exceptions and abuses. It does mean that the best interests of children cannot be left to parents alone.
Never mind child actors. Somebody should talk to schools, preschools, and sports teams about all that cookie dough, lily bulbs and magazine subscriptions.
i just read an interesting article about sarah polley in the most recent issue of naked eye. She says she really hated working on avonlea, it was a bad experience and she wouldn't recommend it.
I was also pleased she noted that the show was a "whitewash of canadian history" which portrayed canada as a "white country" and ignored the plight of immigrants and first nations.
gives me much more respect for her, and kudos to naked eye for printing that...
Actually Ken, they emotionally abused her, not physically. My only wish was that she could have sued the pants off of those two (John & Helen Ross) and put them in the poorhouse but good.
Then where the frack would they get any money for school trips, new uniforms for the team, etc?
@ Sky Captain
Indeed. How would we get the money to buy coal if little Martha didn't go to the mill every day?
You should check out some fundraising websites and do the math on both their suggeted retail as compared to what you would ordinarily pay for some of these items in a store, and what the return commission is to the school, then work in shipping and the number of sales you need to make any money. Very often you will find that it is a racket.
Sometimes it comes down to a group just not having enough students, and sometimes it is a case of an organization being involved in lots of competitions, trips, and other big-ticket items (I was warned away from one group just this weekend because they are currently on their sixth fundraiser since September).
Whatever the case, when it gets to the point of having elementary school kids showing up on my doorstep after dark on a school night to hawk overpriced chocolate almonds I begin to wonder how much of this is for the welfare of the child, and how much is just to keep the mill running.
I stand corrected about what Patty Duke's guardians did to her, Sky Captain.
I stand corrected.
@ Sky Captain
No big deal. Believe me, I had no idea myself until it was too late.
...as in too late to get out of the fundraising scheme, not too late to reconsider having kids. Figured I should clarify that.
I myself don't buy from these kids when they do this; all I say is, 'Sorry, I don't have any extra money to afford that' and I'm on my way.