Child labour in the developing countries should be banned

I once again thank Con for instigating the debate and making it an enjoyable one. I italicized my phrases on Microsoft Word, and then copied and pasted.In the final round, I would like to point out some discrepancies in my opponent’s rebuttals.My opponent does not think that the establishment and development of trade unions is a viable solution.First, he claims ‘that the majority of child involved in labour are orphans.’ This is blatantly untrue. Kathryn Whetten’s research found that 17.8% of orphaned children engage in work that meets the UNICEF definition for child labour. [1] Considering that there are about 150 million orphans living in developing countries, we can conclude that around 26.7 million orphans work in child labour. [2] However, this is a measly 16% compared to the amount of child labourers world-wide (168 million).This is less than 3 times than the amount needed to demonstrate a majority!Con also claims that strikes are needed in order to improve the workplace conditions, meaning that the families get no money. But, this is almost irrelevant, as the human body can function to a reasonable level for 3 days without food. [3] Furthermore, the loss of income for a short time would be negligible compared to its gains.Con then claims that trade unions, by not allowing children to work, is a violation of rights. But this is simply untrue. It is protecting children from being exploited by transnational companies, and from having to work in undesirable conditions, such as artisanal mines and prostitution. [4] Article 23 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: ‘’Everyone has the right to work, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.’’ [5] But are the conditions that child labourers work in ‘favourable’? Are the conditions in sweatshops favourable? Are the conditions children have to face in artisanal mines, child prostitution and armed conflict favourable? Of course not! Con questions whether there is suitable evidence for children to move to an isolated workplace. Of course there is! I provided several examples of this in my second round in artisanal mining and child combat. Herath and Sharma also write in their book ‘Child Labour in South Asia that: “A significant number children work as bonded labour, away from home, which is like slavery. Many children, particularly girls are kidnapped or enticed and sold for sexual purposes.” [6] Con asks me for clarifications over the definition of ‘child work.’ The minimum age to work, according to the International Labour Organization is 14 years old.’ [7] A fair pay should reflect the work a child has to perform. This concept is called ‘equal pay for equal work.’ Con also claims that in developing countries, there are no instances of ‘child work’ in developing countries. This is untrue. The International Labour Organization writes: “Participation in some agricultural activities is not always child labour. Age- appropriate tasks that are of lower risk and do not interfere with a child’s schooling and leisure time can be a normal part of growing up in a rural environment. Especially in the context of family farming, small-scale fisheries and livestock husbandry, some participation of children in non-hazardous activities can be positive as it contributes to the inter-generational transfer of technical and social skills and children’s food security. Improved self-confidence, self-esteem and work skills are attributes often detected in young people engaged in some aspects of farm work. “[8] Con also claims that ‘education may worsen the present condition greatly.’ This would be true, if no actions were taken to improve the family’s conditions in the short run. It is ironic that Con says this and provides a mechanism for improving the present condition that is achieved through education (The Food for Education Programme). I also have suggested the establishment and development of trade unions as a mechanism to improve a family’s current conditions. Con has not provided a satisfactory response to this. I also note that Con has provided virtually no response to two arguments that I have put forward. The first is that child labour is heavily detrimental towards the child’s health. I cited multiple studies to demonstrate that this is true. Con has barely provided a response to this argument. Secondly, allowing child labour impedes on technological progress and long term growth. From what I gather, Con seems to concede both arguments. I believe that alone, provides a strong case for the banning of child labour in developing countries. In conclusion, I have provided multiple arguments why legalizing child labour in developing countries would be on balance, detrimental as a whole. Con, on the other hand, has not provided one argument that has been satisfactory. He also has provided no response to some of my arguments. Vote Pro. http://www.ilo.org... [1] http://www.biomedcentral.com... [2] http://mojuproject.com... [3] http://io9.com... [4] http://www.smh.com.au... [5] http://www.un.org... [6] http://v.gd... [7] http://www.ilo.org... [8] http://www.ilo.org...