Connecticut Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Daniel Schwartz : Stamford, Hartford New Haven, CT

With just a few days to go, the list of pending bills in both the state Senate and House continues to grow. 

But it is worth updating readers on one uncontroversial employment law bill that passed the Senate over a month ago that remains pending. 

Specifically, Senate Bill 216 would renew a labor law that permitted 15-year-olds to work in grocery stores as baggers, shelf stockers and cashiers.  As readers will recall, this law expired last fall "apparently because lawmakers forgot to renew it."

The law has been on the books for 20 years, but had an automatic sunset provision in it that lawmakers overlooked when the session ended last year.

The new bill, which would also grant amnesty to those employers who have continued to employ 15-year-olds during the last six months or so, passed the Senate last month on the consent calendar and looked to have swift passage in the House. 

And perhaps it will pass in the closing days. But given the full agenda of the House, it would be a shame if the General Assembly overlooked this important law again.  House members would be wise to make sure this bill is put on the consent calendar again in the closing days.  It's passage will ensure valuable jobs for teenagers are open for years to come.

UPDATE 12 p.m.: The bill appears on the "Go List" for today, which is available here.  There are two amendments that may potentially be raised today regarding home-schooled teens and apprenticeships. While both topics are interesting, the bill ought to be passed in its original form; otherwise, it will need to be returned to the Senate for further consideration.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Associated Press is reporting this morning that the labor law that permitted 15-year-olds to work in grocery stores as baggers,  shelf stockers and cashiers, is no longer in effect, "apparently because lawmakers forgot to renew it."

According to the AP:

The 20-year-old law had to be renewed every five years, and lawmakers didn't do that last session, allowing it to expire on Oct. 1.

"New 15-year-olds will have to wait until we convene for the next session," said state Sen. Edith G. Prague, D-Columbia, the co-chair of the legislature's labor committee.

Those 15-year-olds who had working papers from their school guidance offices prior to Sept. 30, may still continue working in grocery stores, she said.

The idea that the government could simply "forget" to renew statutes, particularly where the legislature has set a sunset provision is astonishing and troubling. While the expiration of this statute won't effect a great majority of teens, it is still will hurt some smaller grocery stores who rely on these teenagers to fill gaps in their employment ranks and will hurt some teens looking for an early first job.

So what does the expired law actually state? It can be found at Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-23(b)(1). 

(b) (1) [A] minor who has reached the age of fifteen may be employed or permitted to work in any mercantile establishment, from September 30, 2002, to September 30, 2007, inclusive, as a bagger, cashier or stock clerk, provided such employment shall be:

(A) limited to periods of school vacation during which school is not in session for five consecutive days or more except that such minor employed in a retail food store may work on any Saturday during the year;
(B) for not more than forty hours in any week;
(C) for not more than eight hours in any day; and,
(D) between the hours of seven o'clock in the morning and seven o'clock in the evening, except that from July first to the first Monday in September in any year, any such minor may be employed until nine o'clock in the evening.

The article does not explain why the statute had a sunset provision to begin with, but here's hoping the legislature takes immediate steps to rectify their oversight.  In the future, one who hope that the legislature will task someone with keeping track of these sunset provisions.   Otherwise, just take out the sunset provisions and leave it to future legislatures to remove the rule if they don't like it.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (2)