I agree. There's totally a difference between now and then. Unions today are meant to help teenagers with minimum wages and benefits. Unions don't just help protect children since they help with the conditions of adults in work. Factories and laborers have a lot restrictions and rules concerning the conditions for workers.

My topic is going to be the Progressive Movement. The progressive movement was very important since it helped steralize food and bring a lot of heath-protecting laws into the US. The progressive era help defend children who were being used for child labor. "Progressives sought to suppress red-light districts, expand high schools, construct playgrounds, and replace corrupt urban political machines with more efficient system of municipal government." This qoute explains some of the benefits that were started because of this era.

I think there should be Collective Bargaining for employees without any restrictions. So, I believe that Scott Walker's bill shouldn't be passed. It should be an employee's choice whether they want to put more of their paycheck into heath care and such. There shouldn't be a bill passed to make workers put more in. That's just less money in their paycheck to help them get through the week.

As a successful business owner, I believe the use of Pinkerton is necessary. If workers feel like they're being mistreated then they should quit and find another job. There are plenty of more people who would like to take their jobs without complaining. When workers go on strike, it just causes mayhem and a distraction for the employees who are still working. Pinkertons are necessary to stop the distraction.

I beleive Unions are still needed. I don't think they're needed for working conditions and/or minimum wage. But, I think they're still needed to prevent business owners from trying to cheat their workers. If there were no unions, then what would be stopping an owner from firing an employee who'd been working for them for 15 years for someone new to do the same job for less money? The employee would have to find another job and start from scratch.

I disagree. If you don't want your child working until they're 14 then that's you choice. But, there are other families who are in a tough situation. They would need their children to go to work to provide for the family. With this Keating-Owen Bill, they would lose most of their income, and it will be more difficult for families to feed their children.

I disagree with you. The immigrants being hired would be hired to do work that American citizens like yourself wouldn't be willing do to. If immgrants did all the work for cheaper money than you would've then the products we'd make would become cheaper, too. America shouldn't stop immgrants from coming here to make an income of their own.

I'm a successful business owner, and I am against the Keating-Owen Bill. Employing children can benefit everyone. The families of the children working get more income to feed and take care of the familiy. But, if this Keating-Owen Bill passed then those families would lose a lot of their income, so they would have to struggle to feed their family. It would make sense to hire children to help out families.

I am a successful business owner, and I'm for the Immigration Reform. Immigrants would be willing to work more hours and do more work while they get paid less. They need to work for money, too, and I see nothing against keeping immigrants from coming to America. If people have to compete for the jobs, so what? As long as the work gets done fast and right, there shouldn't be a problem.

I disagree. The amount of minimum wage is enough to provide for a family. And, if we didn't have minimum wage that would allow for other families to be hired and get paid. It would just be selfish if workers had a minimum wage while other people didn't even have a job.

I'm against the minimum wage of 7.25. In the past, companies have had a minimum wage of less then 1 dollar, and they (the companies) were able to hire more workers who they could pay. In the present, I feel as if the minimum wage is restricting company owners from employing more workers.

I disagree. If a company had a 60 hour work week then workers could have the oppurtunity to earn more money for their family. They wouldn't have to be in poverty if they produced enough products that could raise the amount of their paycheck. It help female workers in the long run.

I disagree. If a person wants more time with their family then they should quit their job. If companies had 60 hour work weeks then imagine how much more products they can make. The goal wouldn't be to make enough to keep running. We want to try and prosper as a company and earn more than enough.

Back then as a business owner, I believe that 40 hours a week is not a good idea. It's not a good idea because so much more work could be done with 60 hours. That's 20 more hours in the week. If we had more hours, workers would be able to make more products that will eventually earn the company more profit. Eventually, if the company earns enough money then the owners can raise the workers paycheck to more money.