b is hard or tedious usually for very little money, as employers pay as little as possible, it can be a bad experience for later life. The kid can get the attitude that work, for so little pay, sucks. Then there are the unscrupulous employers who can and sometimes do get away with paying incorrect wages, knowing that a kid can be easily confused and not confident about asserting their rights. Some kids might be forced into working if there was a law saying that they could, because their parents might be unemployed and force their children to work for a variety of reasons, large families, poor families. People learned a valuable lesson in the past after kids were being put to work in coalmines, or as chimney sweeps. The hours of the job could dramatically affect their school marks, and also they might be missing out on a social life altogether. The law could be used against kids in these ways, because they might be scared, or just do not know how to assert the rights that they have. Parents might stop supporting kids because they think their kids are looking after themselves, when in actual fact they could be pushing them out onto the street making them homeless. However on the other hand these can easily be seen as rather extreme cases that are not likely to happen, just because some people might abuse the law, or a handful of kids might be immature, does it mean that others should miss out on such great opportunities in life? Of course I am not talking about young children here, the people this discussion is focusing on is kids bordering on being teenagers, and young teenagers. Certain jobs must necessarily not be open to kids because of such problems of safety; since they might not be that mature, they could get themselves into danger, but this still leaves a plethora of jobs open to them. In conclusion I can say that I am neither for or against the proposition that “children under the age of 14 should be legally employ...
