>

I think its quite telling that the owners declined to discuss how these violations were found. Most likely someone called the DOL because they were being told to work more than they wanted. They got off really light after demonstrating a pattern of illegal behavior. Not sure why.
For those of you who didn't read the article, the actual fine was $172,750 with 90% of it being suspended for the restaurant to "adhere to a settlement agreement and commit no additional violations."  The issues cited in the article involve teenagers below the age of 18.  Some of the violations related to the employment of a single teen, including "62 of the violations attributed to one worker" over the course of a year. >

“Commit no additional violations.” What, if they kept violating the law the state would just be like “well I already fined them a lot so I don’t care.” >

If they get caught with more violations, then the punishment would cost an extra $155,475 and the restaurant owners would actually be on the hook for all that money. >

Why defer it? Why wait? They broke the law hundreds of times. >

This allows them to more easily prevent future violations, oddly enough. The fact of the matter is, that $172,000 fine may have been seen as alright. Each time they violate the law they're only risking $250, which could easily be offset by the labor.
Now, a single future violation is risking 150 grand. >


Each time they violate the law they're only risking $250, which could easily be offset by the labor.

I think you misinterpret what they are being fined for. According to the article, it was for allowing or scheduling under-age workers too many hours. It's not that they weren't paying them.
You could argue that the labor cost of a younger worker is less. But it's not $250 less. >

It's worth $250 to get a teenager to fill a shift versus shutting down for the day when they can't find anyone else. 
This removes that incentive. >

We must not have read the same article because the one I read didn't suggest this was what was happening at all. You're making a lot of assumptions based off extremely limited information.
There are lots of business with lots more egregious labor violations that you could be or should be getting mad about. This one got caught and fined and they even have to create PSAs about it. Would your preference be to see the owners drug out into the street and shot? >

Not the person you responded to, but my take is that after 691 violations, even if its all from one individual, you shouldn't be operating a business at all. I will admit, over scheduling a teen is not as bad as the headline seems to imply, but the general feeling is that business owners get off light for their crimes. If I was caught with 691 charges for basically anything I doubt I'd get a break of any kind. >

That depends what they are and the circumstances, not all crimes are equal weirdly enough, sure 691 counts of murder wouldn't look good on you, but 691 counts of littering due to a hole in your bin, they might cut you some slack >

So $25 per violation? That seems low... >

Saw, headline, opened calculator, came here, and found my comment >

We could probably find some highschoolers to do these calculations for a lesser cost. >

Middle schoolers would probably do it for less, just sayin. >

Ah, so I wasn't the only one who had to start working right after finishing elementary school!
Can confirm about the cheapness of getting kids to do the work! I spent summers doing heavy labor at the horse racing track, started at $50 per week, but repairing those lottery machines at the gas station I had to do for free and year round too.
Dad realized it was easier to teach me to do the work for him than do it himself. >

I thought your story was gonna end by saying you learned how to skim money off the lottery machines and now you're comfortably retired >

Actually, dad did figure out how to print winning lottery tickets and cash them without getting caught, and explained to me in detail how to do it, but then explained that we weren't going to do that because we'd need an accomplice and the only buddy he had was sure to get greedy, demand too much too often, and get us all caught.  
Naw, I escaped with a combination of deception and a McJob. Convinced my dad it was his own idea to send me away to live with a cousin so I could start college early. Cousin demanded $2000 up front to take me in, dad said I could leave when I came up with that on my own, so I got a real job as soon as I legally could and saved every penny of my $4.95 an hour.  
Starved a lot to do it though, because I was only allowed to eat food from the kitchen at home when I was actually at home. By the next year I had scurvy. Buddy noticed and forced me to eat an entire bag of oranges to cure it.  
Ya know, sometimes I don't realize how neglected I was growing up until I get into telling one of these stories. >

Holy shit. Are you okay? >

Better than dad!  
Many years later, after his third wife left him, he demanded I come home and take care of him in his old age. For free, obviously. Insisted I abandon my stepsons, who very much needed me at the time.  
I laughed. I had the fun of quoting all his worst lines back at him, like "That sounds like a personal problem" or "Gee, you should really hire someone to take care of that for you."  
He doesn't even get a shitty nursing home unless he arranges for one on his own. I've disowned him, only associate with other "black sheep" family members.  
Turns out nobody in the family had any idea what had been going on at the time, but they sure know now!  
And sometimes, for Christmas, dad gets hung up on. But only if someone is stupid enough to loan him their phone, because I'm good at using that Block button! On Facebook, on email, blocked dad on everything!  
According to family reports, he's been going absolutely bananas obsessing over my refusal to speak to him. Reached out to everyone in the family who might remotely be willing to let him watch their kids open presents Christmas morning like the good old days.   
Entire family, black sheep and overly religious sides together, are conspiring to prevent him from contact with any kids, as obviously he can't be trusted to treat them decently, so no happy Christmases for him ever again! 
Something about revenge being a dish best served cold. :) >

I am very proud of you. Surviving all that is a gauntlet and to thrive on the other side takes just as much work. I hope you and your family continue to flourish. >

How will the Belchers ever recover? >

Luckily for them there are practically no limits (for non-hazardous industries) on how old your own kids have to be to work, or how much they work as long as they still go to school. >

Checks out. Started working full time for my parents when I was 12 in NJ. Hey, I made manager at 14, though >

Who were you managing? >

Myself. For several years, I've basically been in complete charge of pretty much everything in my life. >

I'm a school counselor and am in charge of making permits for the high school I work at. Let me tell you, this shit happens a lot. Like, almost every single student I work with I already know is a child labor violation. When I get a permit request, I tell the students the hours they can work and in what days, I list them for the employer to see before they sign their part of the permit, and then I go over grades and school attendance requirements. Here's the thing though, these aren't violations of them hiring 11 year olds or making kids work til midnight on a school night, this is stuff like kids working 5 hours vs 3 on a school night (3 is the limit for 15 year olds in CA). This happens to every kid because truth be told, what employer needs a 3 hour shift and what student wants to go in for 40 bucks?
I tell the students very clearly: if you are being denied breaks or ever working longer than you want to, come back and see me and I'll take care of it. Even if it's within the legal hours, schools in CA reserve the right to make the limits more stringent than the CA law so if something doesn't work for you, or your grades drop, I'd like request a talk. I imagine that's way more helpful than a random hour amount. >

Dude, good on you, and an important lesson on rules.
Understanding the difference between taking advantage of rules vs. being taken advantage of by rules + the ways you can react to each...that can't be learned from theory, it's gotta be real world. You are teaching them something truly useful. >

Aww, I appreciate you saying that. That's very kind of you. >

Reading that it honestly looks like the system is working, and working as intended. No abuse going on, just labor violations, and not particularly egregious ones. A fine that the owners are unlikely to forget, but small enough that the business will just barely be able to afford it. Plus the kids get to keep earning some extra money (save it for college/trade school kiddos) for themselves. Public awareness is also raised to other businesses to not make the same mistakes. >

People are freaking out, but honestly this is spot on. They're not using 8 year olds in the mines here. They did break rules, but I don't think they should be out of business because a 16 year old worked too many hours.
Edit: I should say that I do think they should be punished and I'm not saying the amount they were fined is perfect, but I also don't think they should be crucified if the violations are what the actual body of the article suggests. >

Ironically the restaurant is called "The Quarry" >

Should have been "over 600 labor violations at "The Quarry"." >

"Maine Business 'The Quarry.'" Now we're click baiting like pros. >

This is the main reason why it was a policy at every restaurant I ever worked at/ ran that you don't hire anyone under 18, ever.  It's is laughably easy to violate labor laws when minors are involved. >

It was $172k but they suspended $155k of it as long as they don't do it again >

I think each shift counts as a violation. 62 violation were attributed to one worker in one year, so probably a 15 year old bussing tables on the weekend and during vacation weeks. The headline sounds more scandalous than it is imo. >

So? They made more money that that each shift. If the punishment is a fine that’s less than the profit of the crime, it’s just the government getting a cut >

Child labor laws exist for a reason and a 15 year old bussing tables for 2 months are not that reason.
They should be fined for it, but let's not act like they're forcing preteens to slave away for no pay. >


but let's not act like they're forcing preteens to slave away for no pay.

Yeah, I gotta get outa this comments section. Soon as I got big enough to be anything like useful, my childhood nickname got changed to Free Labor.  
By the time I escaped from my dad at 16yo, I had acquired many useful skills so I could cover for him at various jobs, and was ridiculously strong from years of heavy farm labor.   
Also terribly maladjusted. First time a fast food manager scolded me for making a mistake, I flinched and "jokingly" begged her not to hit me. Was honest to goodness surprised when she didn't even punish me, much less hit me. She was just bringing the mistake to my attention so I could learn from it. >

Okay? Sorry you got exploited >

Yeah debating the contents of it aside,that comment reeks of “I was assaulted as a form of discipline as a child so children today should also get the belt” >

Curious about underage and alcohol .. did they overlook other possible transgressions? >

Maine and West Virginia have the lowest minimum ages to be allowed to work in bars and serve alcohol; Maine is 17, West Virginia is 16.
In most states, the common minimum seems to be 18. >


... The state DOL found 78 violations involved five employees who were younger than 16 and working without a permit, with 62 of the violations attributed to one worker between Aug. 30, 2020, and July 20, 2021.

I guess you Missed that part >

I was just saying that underage can legally serve in Maine, NOT that THIS bar in particular wasn't violating said law. >

Actually, they can even bus and stock bars but not serve at 15. There does need to be someone over 21 in charge. Source - work in seasonal Maine restaurant management and hire a ton of minors. Yes, I pay attention to the laws anf get work permits as needed. >

To all the folks complaining about the amount of the fine: Read. The. Article. >

To anyone still too lazy to read it:

The bar and restaurant was cited in July for a total of 691 child labor law violations involving about a dozen workers, with the total penalty being $172,750. The state DOL, however, agreed to suspend $155,475 of the penalty if the owners of The Quarry Tap Room adhere to a settlement agreement and commit no additional violations. >

It’s also relevant to note these violations were for letting minors work a hour or even a few extra minutes of over time more than legally allowed, or outside the legally allowed hours. It’s probably not what comes into your head when you think child labor violations. They weren’t exactly abusing the kids, they were just unaware of all the exact requirements for high school kids. I’m sure they are well aware now and it’ll never happen again, which should be the goal of fines, not just to cause as damage as possible. >

Lol. I’m from Maine and this didn’t even make local headlines for the most part. Here and there, but here Reddit is “Maine’s doing this!”  
No we’re not. It’s one place and no one ever goes to that small town. Sad thing, but let’s stay in the headlines for good stuff >

Also from Maine. That number is insane to me personally. Where the hell do pwople live with that many children in one area? Maybe Near Bangor or Southern Maine but that is a huge number… >

It was dozens of violations per child, not hundreds of kids. Just kids clocking in a bit late every day a lot. >

In this case, the “child labor violations” is letting kids work extra hours. For example, a 15-yo working a 4 hour shift on a school day is a violation.
They weren’t abusing or exploiting anyone, and the kids were paid for their time, that’s why the “fine” is a mere slap on the wrist. >

All of you are acting like they murdered someone, with the punishment you think they deserve. The article doesn't give specific details. A 17 year old working a little too long one day or a 15 year old sweeping floors during summer break would be considered violations. I don't know the exact situation, but sometimes these underage workers are relatives and the business owner is trying to help them earn a little and develop work ethics.
Obviously a child should not be put into any dangerous situations or have to do anything that might interfere with their education. If a 15 year old wants to work over summer break (heck, I'd argue even as low as 13 years old) they're not going to suffer tremendously by being allowed to do light work. We're not talking about a factory with dangerous heavy machinery -- we're talking about wiping tables with a cloth.
Edit to clarify: I'm not advocating breaking the law, it just seems that the law might be more strict than necessary. Laws are made by people, so they can be reevaluated and changed. >

I admit I'm quite surprised at some of these labor laws. I'm all for worker protections. But how does a teenager even hold a job in Maine? Can't work past 7pm when school is in session or more than 3 hours a day? How many businesses are closed up and cleaned before 7pm? Even 9pm (for summer) is a stretch for many retail businesses and restaurants. I bet such a significant portion of their fine was dropped because the violation was a 16 year old working 18.05 hours in a week or a 17 year old clocking out at 7:02pm. >

4 to 7:00 p.m. is a pretty good time for kids to work at a grocery store for example. Help deal with the after school and pre-dinner rush, and then head home for dinner. They could walk there after school also, or go in after they have gone home for a snack. >

Everyone here acting like they didn’t have jobs at 16 and 17. Jesus frickin’ Christ. >

Yeah, but mine was smart enough to only schedule me the legal amount of hours rather than acting like it's so hard to follow basic rules >

Willing to bet manager scheduled 3 hour shifts but a kid clocked in early or clocked out late. The window these kids have to work is way too narrow >

It’s really not — they want students to concentrate on school and academics not working. Working is supposed to be the side task not the main one. Sadly, a lot of homes need their kids earning as they can’t support them (clothes, food, a car, gas, etc). If the teen wants these things, they have to pay themselves. 
Kids who don’t plan on going to college can get more leeway on permits - and take on more hours, but only in grades 11 and 12 and depending on the state. >

"And we'll do it again" - the owners >

The children yearns for the coal mine. >

$25 per violation. The system is broken >

This is why Reddit scares me. 
Y’all read a headline and immediately bandwagon into bolstering support for a harsher punishment. 
Read the fucking article. The system is working. Stop looking for a reason to make your cause. We get it, you want to feel important but please just stop. >

Seems pretty divided to me. Half or more folks saying 'It's just some kids staying late a few times for extra money' and the other half saying 'The biggest labor violation prosecuted in 2 years was discounted 90%!'. >

I've worked with this Bar/Restaurant installing and maintaining thier POS systems and Security cameras. The employees were always happy and everyone was treated well. Yes, the violations were numerous but the severity of the offences are very light compared to family locations that can run their kids until they drop. Yes, they worked longer hours than allowed but I never witnessed anyone overworked or abused. >

People see that child labor laws were violated and they see toddlers chained to tables assembling knickknacks in a cold warehouse. The article doesn’t say the kids were being underpaid or forced to do something they didn’t want to do. As long as the kids were getting the same wages as adults, including overtime then I don’t see the crime of the century here. Some kids would rather work and make their own money or help out their family than play sports or video games or whatever. I’m not saying that the owner doesn’t need to follow the laws but in this day and economy maybe the laws need a closer examination. >

As someone whos been to this place: Its actually really fun >

Gen X’er here. I loved working at a restaurant when I was 14-16. It gave me an opportunity to meet and befriend people older than me that translated to knowing more people in High School. Most importantly I was able to save money to buy and restore a pick up truck. As high schoolers we made sure to clock out, but then stayed and worked for tips. Popular restaurant meant great tips. Once I had my truck running I made a killing selling firewood. Believe me cording wood was far more difficult than busing tables or washing dishes, but having my own wheels and independence was worth every minute. >

Yeah I agree with you. I started working at 16 (millennial and youngest age anyone would hire). I was the only person in my friend group from school working and I always had money and they were all broke constantly.... Minus the ones with parents who just gave them whatever they wanted. I made tons of friends from other schools and got my first gf from my job too. If I had kids they'd be working even if it was just part time for extra cash to enjoy. >

I never really learned the value of money before I had to work to earn my own. After helping customers all weekend and in my free evening after school, and seeing that first check for basically a big nothing-burger, I learned the value of a dollar. 
My kids will have high school jobs whatever our financial situation is at that point; it’s part of their education. >

It seems like the violations are all from going over max hours. The owners claim it was only by a few minutes but the labor board doesn't clarify. If the owners are telling the truth then it sure seems like they're nitpicking, if they aren't telling the truth and they made them work way longer then I feel like that falls more on the parents for not putting their foot down. >

There was at least one employee under 16 who did not have a permit for an entire year. >

This seems like a nothing burger really. Managers got sloppy with  scheduling and booked teens for too many hours during the pandemic. Fine them, make them conform and move on. No one is saying preteens were forced to work, these are kids making money in their first jobs for a local business.. but rules are rules, so yeah >

Where are the violations for all of the illegal aliens working in the US?
I'd bet there are thousands working for less than minimum wage, not getting overtime, and not reporting income to the IRS.  Agriculture, construction, and the service industry seem to get a pass on labor laws for these folks. >

They got fined $250 per violation and then got most of it dropped to $25 per violation >

I know this is being reported on more and more, but when I was 13/14 I worked under the table as a dishwasher at a local high end restaurant. They paid me in cash at the end of the night, $7 an hour. I think this has always been a thing and we're just hearing about it more tbh, but maybe I'm wrong. >

Dang that's pretty cheap.
The adoption costs to get child workers would be a pretty steep starting charge but after that the fines really pay for themselves >

Now do Blue Bayou in Baton Rouge, LA >

“Maine restaurant cited for 691 child lobster law violations, fined $17,275” 🦞 >

I lost more than this in 2 days trading crypto. Guess the play all along was exploiting children /s >

That is not pocket change for a small restaurant. It’s certainly more than the money they saved. >

Out of the 1000 replies in this thread, guaranteed >90% didn't read the article. >

Eh it doesn't take much for a violation. If teenagers want to work more, let them. >

In my state, any kid who told a teacher they missed homework because they were working triggered a report to the administration.  If the admin suspected the student was working too much, Child Services was contacted to investigate why this was happening. It was no joke in my area (very rural, poor place). >

Reddit is legitimately sick and warped. The fine wasn’t enough for 90% of the people commenting. Redditors are righteous!!! The fine isn’t enough because they aren’t bankrupt and they aren’t in prison either. 
This comment section is a trap for the little fascists that lurk on Reddit.
Imagine being so hateful you want to see a small town restaurant in Maine bankrupt and shut down. Imagine being so hateful you think a small town restaurant in Maine has money.
Edit: Look at all the heroes that are now review bombing this small town restaurant on Google! 
Great job Reddit, this isn’t even on the news in Maine. You took something small, put it on the front page of Reddit. Now all the crazies are ruining this restaurants google page and analytics. This never would have happened, this was a non issue until this post.
Good job, are you happy? You are ruining the life’s of one middle class family trying to run a restaurant. When you ruin them with the google reviews and they shut down, I just want you to know that small towns going to loose that place to eat. It’s probably not going to reopen. Small towns don’t have good restaurant investment opportunities. These families that run these types of businesses make enough to get by and feed the community. >

I get what you're saying, and I do agree that most of these comments are blown out of proportion (none of these violations sound as serious as people are acting, there are just a lot of them).
But as some who frequents this restaurant, it is actually a really popular place in a busy town, and the owners are fairly wealthy. It won't get shut down because of some bad reviews, and even if it did, the owners would still have their real estate business to fall back on, and it wouldn't take long for another bar to fill that spot. I appreciate what you're saying, just want to clarify that Hallowell may be small, but it's not the boonies. >

The chinese restaurant down the road from me is awkward monkey eyes on this right now… with the owner’s 9 year old son manning the cash register for multiple hours a day at least. 
You know what, I sure as shit would have loved to be able to pull down $20-50 a day on weekends or throughout the summer as a 9 year old. My Lego collection would have been so sick. >

Family businesses are usually exempt from some rules. >

I’m glad they put a stop to this, but the outrage is way overblown. If a restaurant owner allows a friend of the family to work 3.5 hour days at the request of their parents they will get hundreds of violations per year. >

Imagine if the job was developing apps and the city was like NO go back to your HS and learn about reproduction from a right wing spinster. >

Reddit hates the lower and middle class. First of all, they have been fined and punished. Second, do you believe a small town restaurant in MAINE has millions of dollars to throw around? No, they in fact are so goddamn poor they employee local teenagers under the table. I’m glad the government worked out a deal that DOESNT BANKRUPT THEM. They made a mistake, they are trying to feed their families. It’s disgusting how most of the commenters here want to see this business shut down and it’s owners bankrupt. Did you even read the article?
What the hell is wrong with Reddit? They literally got fined, it’s going to hurt them enough. I’m so disgusted, you people are attacking poor small town business owners now…..
Stop, stop this right now. How can you wish this small town middle class business into pain and suffering. 
God help us all, we are in fighting and hating now. >

Okay even so.. there are plenty of 14-15 year olds that want to work and have utter shit options in that regard.  Rules were broken but that does not mean anyone was exploited. edit: K-12 is the hellscape we should concern ourselves with for these kids, and give them decent options for employment if that is what the fuck they want to do. >

Is was a hefty fine, but the toddler does make a mean lobster bisque >


“These laws are in place to protect the youth,” Lachance (restaurant co-owner) said. “We’re certainly not above the law, and we admit we did fall short of meeting some of these expectations.”

Sometimes it's worthwhile to read the article before drawing conclusions. Yup the owners violated important child labor laws. But there are reasons for the leniency of the fine and other punishments. The article brings those to light. 
I was raised close enough to actual poverty to have started earning a paycheck at 14 (farm work) and a regular job at 16. Working is not harmful for teens, but there must be some real work/life/school balance. That's why we have the laws. But if I were a parent in that locale, I would have no problem with my teenager still working at that restaurant. >

There isn't much industry in Maine anymore,  mills are shut down.   These employees were prob stoked to make all the cash they could. >

You use child labor 691 times and everyone loses their minds >

$25 per violation. What a joke. I was trying to think of any comparisons for costs and I can’t remember when any traffic violation for instance was just $25. >

To be fair... if you owned a business, and your 16 year old employee accidentally worked 5 minutes past what they're allowed, what should the punishment be? What would you expect to get fined? Personally, I'd treat it as overtime, so the fine would be their wage times time and a half. And for five minutes, that only comes to like, a few bucks at best (though with the number of violations, that can add up really quick).
OTOH, that many violations in just a few years says this was no accident. And if the owners were purposefully scheduling too many shifts or too long shifts, then that would be a bigger problem than a teenager simply having poor time management skills. >

They hired kids below 16 without work permits.  This wasn't accidental in any way. >

Did the kids want to work or were they forced to. A 16/17 year old kid who wants to make some extra money so they get a job washing dishes that pays under the table- seems like a pretty good deal to me. 
Someone must have complained though otherwise they wouldn't have gotten caught. I think there's much more to the story here >

If the fine costs less than the profits, human slavery and child labor are being encouraged. >

Today I learned you can afford child labor. >

If you don't pay a parking meter, the fine is 20x to 50x the cost of what the meter would have been.
Why do businesses always get to profit off their crimes? >

I'm shocked by how apologetic these comments are.
These aren't only teenagers under the age of 18, there are also teens under the age of 16.
They're in a vulnerable position where it's difficult to advocate for themselves if they are dealing with illegal scheduling. The possibilities for said scheduling could have an adverse impact on their lives.
The article cites these as reasons for a potential citation
"The restaurant had 520 violations related to employing minors who were younger than 16. These violations could be related working minors more than 40 hours a week or eight hours a day when school is not in session; more than 18 hours a week or three hours a day when school is in session; more than six consecutive days; or between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., except during summer vacation, during which the law prohibits work between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m., according to the state Department of Labor."
Don't let anybody get away with trying to pass it off as if every violation was just a matter of clocking out a few minutes too late. I'm not saying that didn't happen, but there are far worse possibilities. Could you imagine a child working over 40 hours or over an 8 hour shift? Having an entire work week with only one day off? When you're given a schedule, the expectation is that you follow it to the letter. If you speak up, managers are going to enforce discipline and tell you that you do it or you get fired. They aren't going to be the ones bringing up the law. These kids are vulnerable because they can easily be pressured to comply, far more than an adult who knows their rights and how to assert themselves.
Anybody trying to say it was a matter of scheduling a few minutes after is naive. You don't schedule by just a few minutes, you do it in units of hours and half hours. If they were clocking out a few minutes later than their shift was officially supposed to end, then it's up to the owners and management to make sure that those clockouts are on the dot. That's the law! If there's a risk of that, then having short shifts to serve as a buffer zone would be a solution.
These laws are in place for a reason. These kind of jobs aren't easy as is and can lead to tremendous burnout. Putting a literal child in that position could be toxic to their psychological wellbeing.
It's up to a business to know and implement the law. When they did their scheduling, they saw to their own needs, not that of the children. They put plenty of effort into hiring children but didn't think to read about how one, legally, must go about that? 
Fuck that. They straight up exploited children. I've seen bad enough shit at former workplaces where they willfully violated scheduling laws and thought they could get away with it because people were either ignorant of their rights or scared to speak up.
Why was the paper so keen on getting the restaurant owner's side of the story and not that of the children working there and their parents? Obviously the owners are going to make excuses and play contrite. I imagine the reality was far uglier than the way they may have spun it.