Newt Gingrich Stands By Plan To Have Poor Students Work As Janitors

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich defended on Thursday his controversial plan to have schoolchildren from poor neighborhoods serve as janitors.

"A very poor neighborhood. You have kids that who are under law required to go to school. They have no money. They have no habit of work. What if you paid them part-time in the afternoon to sit in the clerical office, and greet people when they came in?" he said. "What if you paid them to work as an assistant librarian?"

He then discussed his proposal for having poor students serve as janitors. "Let me get down to the janitor thing, and these letters are written that janitorial work is really hard and really dangerous and this and that," he said. "Fine. So what if they became assistant janitors and their job was to mop the floor and clean the bathroom. And you pay them."

Gingrich went on to compare his plan to a project paying children to read books in Georgia.

(Video above via ThinkProgress.)

Last month, at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Gingrich called child labor laws "stupid." "Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school," he said. He repeated the idea on the campaign trail, saying it would be "dramatically less expensive."'

Gingrich said Thursday that his previous comments were "spun out of control" by "the left."

Janitorial work is hardly easy -- the Labor Department notes that janitors may "spend most of their time on their feet, sometimes lifting or pushing heavy furniture or equipment. Many tasks, such as dusting or sweeping, require constant bending, stooping, and stretching."

 

 

Comments

[mrmoonlite5]

06:08 PM on 01/20/2012

you just lost

[doonhuff]

02:02 AM on 01/19/2012

Newt has it backwards...many of the jobs that traditionally have been held by teenagers are now being worked by adults who cannot find any other real work...so the teenage unemployment rate has now skyrocketed, adults are now working the part-time mcdonalds and summer employment type jobs...maybe Newt should, I don't know, maybe focus on creating more real jobs so parents can have real work to support thier kids, not part-time teenage jobs with no benefits...but in the Newt world everything is upside down and confused...

[Allan Nichols]

08:14 AM on 01/17/2012

Things sure have changed!

As a HS soph, I was asked if I'd wipe tables and mop the cafeteria, helping a friend whose mother was a cafeteria lady in exchange for "free lunch". I gladly accepted; it seemed like a good idea. But I'd been working since 10. Paper boy, lawn mowing, selling vegetables from the garden.

Today, its racism to suggest that students working is a bad idea. Why?

[Molly D]

04:21 PM on 01/18/2012

When I was in high school, a few kids already had apprentice work like this with school custodians, after school. It didn't take 30. It was one per school. They got minimum wage.

It's racism because it is for the exclusive purpose of evoking mass black servitude, in front of a "conservative" SC audience. You couldn't attach 30 or even 5 kids to a custodian trying to do his job in an empty school building. They'd be running around with equipment, they'd all have to be insured, which would be prohibitively expensive. Newt's routine is cheap but skillful political manipulation. Absolutely nothing more.

[Aerosol]

02:35 AM on 12/31/2011

The poor kids should be forced to read Platos dialogue "Meno.". In this dialogues Socrates manages to get a child servant to solve a complex mathematical problem. It is Socrates belief that much knowledge is innate and can come from anyone no matter how disadvantaged an environment they come from. Our democracy was created by this basic ideal that all men are created equal. This is just an ideal and will probably never work out perfectly, but I don't think that Gingrich knows what he's talking about here. Anyway, good to go back to the source sometimes when we get this far off track. There is also discussion about how an honorable person acts. I think that all of us need a refresher course on that at this point.

[starlight34]

01:57 PM on 12/13/2011

I have an idea: Fire all the janitors who clean up the Congressional offices and let the House members and senators clean their own friggin' offices and toilets.

When they get done cleaning their own offices, they can clean the corridors and public toilets.

Think of the money we'll save.

And then House members and senators will learn (by doing) what it is like to do manual work for a living.

[Molly D]

04:25 PM on 01/18/2012

Starlight, this notion is proving to have a groundswell of support in the comments.

[Mandi 007]

02:07 PM on 12/10/2011

Why stop there? I'm sure some factories need more workers and hey, city schoolchildren can sit outside and shine shoes just like the old days. If they're poor, we can feed them with a bowl of rice! It's a win-win for everybody! Gingrich is the new Mugato, apparently.

[tjamman]

11:07 AM on 12/10/2011

Why not put "poor children" on the front lines of all these wars we fight while we're at it?

And we can have the female "poor children" working in the 'sex for sale' trade?

Why, there's simply no end to the things we can do with these "poor children"...

[infinitivesplit]

08:45 PM on 12/09/2011

How many Janitors does Newt think a school has? He's out today using NYC as an example - Manhattan school Janitors make an average of around $36K per year. That's a lot - until you consider living expenses in NYC. Now - take those jobs away from low skilled 'parents' in poor neighborhoods? So that you can pay kids less? And the one janitor who is left is supposed to do all the 'heavy and dangerous' work? So one guy at a huge school with say 5000 kids is supposed to cover all the heavy and dangerous work - ever worked a buffing machine?

[Molly D]

04:28 PM on 01/18/2012

Ever worked a buffing machine while supervising 30 teenagers doing make-work in an empty high school with access to all the classrooms?

[myviews]

09:54 AM on 12/08/2011

All the unionized janitors? What schools is he talking about. All the schools I know have one janitor, two if it is a high school. These people are poorly paid. They are not driving up in a Lexus. Newt is out to lunch. Why don't they put his kids on the front line to clean the local school for a month and after he gets their feedback, he can go from there. Oh, and be careful, mixing Lysol with Ajax and inhaling it in small spaces while breathing heavily (such as happens during hard work) can kill them.

[elaynej24]

02:22 PM on 12/07/2011

This is the best republicans have???

[infinitivesplit]

09:04 PM on 12/09/2011

Pretty much - yep. Bust the unions, Lower taxes on the "wealth creators" (code for the uber-rich), "Broaden the tax base" (code for raise taxes on those making the least), and "strengthen medicare and social security" (code for privatize SS so that Wall Street & corporations get more money & if they screw up again we will for sure bail them out because you social security money will be at risk and privatize medicare so that your insurance will immediately have 20% more in overhead costs -if you can get it).

In other words - those middle-class people who are working should work for less, those who are already working for less should pay more in taxes, those who fight for higher wages and safe working conditions can't, and the rich can get a whole lot richer and put that money toward lobbying to insure that all legislation works in their favor.

[judew777]

09:21 AM on 12/07/2011

Newt is so very wrong,this would not only be going back in time, before child labor laws,but bring
ridicule to the children from the other more well do do children.Young people can be cruel. they would taunt ,and tease those working.it would bring out the class difference. There is no place in schools for this.I just think what a jerk. this guy is so out of touch with the average person.how could we even have a person of such lack of chacter . running for the office of president of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

[wildshaddowwolf]

04:05 AM on 12/07/2011

I think the concept behind what he said is a good ideal. It's the way he worded is kind of wrong. (putting the poor part). There is nothing wrong with teaching children at a young age good work habits. That not only helps them with school but also helps them in their future so that when they do get a job. It's a lot better then giving them classes on how to get on the welfare system!!! In which only teaches them how to get stuck in the rut and stay there. And before any body blows up on that, welfare was meant to be a temporary thing to help people through hard times not a way of life.. As for people who constantly put race into things when nothing racist was said, go go smack your own head against the wall. It's old, pathetic and out dated!!!!

[EliseV]

04:14 PM on 12/07/2011

Beyond the fact that school-age children should not be required to work - the fact is that even his proposal of assistant janitorial jobs can be dangerous for children. I would not want any child of mine to mop floors and clean bathrooms - even the mildest cleaning chemical can be harmful to the youngest of our population, never mind using them five days a week.

As for being an assistant librarian, he clearly has no idea that assistant librarian positions require a GED, if not a BA - with the increasing transition of school libraries into school media centers, the youngest children are not equipped with the skills or knowledge yet for such a position. Even some teachers have trouble with newest technology. Nor will children know or understand anything about policies or bibliographic control or any facet of basic library practice. Gingrich has an obsolete and ill-informed idea of librarianship.

Moreover, this type of policy would cut into time that should be spent focusing on their studies, putting these disadvantaged children at any even greater disadvantage among their more affluent peers.

[wildshaddowwolf]

04:49 PM on 12/07/2011

One I guess you never clean at home. Two you underestimate children. Most know the newest technology better then grown ups. Three, I guess all the children that have helped in libraries through the years are complete idiots by you. If the teachers have problems with the newest technology then get rid of them and get ones in who can teach the children right! Oh, that's right!!!! Their protected by the unions..... The biggest disadvantage any child in school is bad teachers teaching them and the union protecting those bad teachers so they can't be replaced with good teachers...... Your the one who is obsolete, out dated and ill-informed....

[infinitivesplit]

09:14 PM on 12/09/2011

1) Young people are already allowed to work in work/study programs
2) Child Labor laws apply to public enterprises and businesses making more than $500 K gross receipts
3) this is an effort to bust unions
4) Adults (single moms, parents) are currently working as janitors - and most of them DO heavy labor. The ones who CAN'T get the easier tasks. So - you're going to TAKE AWAY JOBS from hardworking PARENTS in low income neighborhoods and give them 13 year olds and PAY THEM LESS?

What classes do people take on how to get into the welfare system?
Since when is SCHOOL about training people to be Janitors?

[wildshaddowwolf]

10:36 AM on 12/10/2011

Well if you would watch the news and stay up on the news. you would know there is school starting at the high school level teaching students how to get on welfare and other public assistant programs.

[knowright]

12:13 AM on 12/07/2011

This guy is more clueless than I had imagined. What a ridiculous idea and completely lacking in compassion and understanding of the big picture. What makes 'poor kids?' - Poor parents. Why not focus on the real problem, which is a growing upper class and a growing lower class, which means a shrinking middle class. Focus on a progressive tax policy to restore economic equity to this nation and raise the standard of living for everyone. Poverty = crime = prison = your money going down the drain for no good reason. Pay for education now or prisons later.

[wildshaddowwolf]

04:18 AM on 12/07/2011

OK, but does that mean a flat tax??? Which is a good idea. Then everybody pay the same percent of their income. Key word being percent. So if you make more you pay more. Now that's a good and stable ideal. Then business owners now where they stand and can start hiring again.

[judew777]

09:31 AM on 12/07/2011

maybe if you start at a wage of over 25,000 aperson or family that makes less can't afford to pay a dime.
one sad note in the past few days I delivered food to 2 elderly ladies ,bot had their husband pass within the past year,the were getting by one couple got S.S. of he 1200 a month she half or 600 a month after he passed all she has is the 600 a month S.S. His of course had stopped ,there are many in their 70s and 80s in this same boat.very poor widows ,and older citizens . sad.
no one can live on that ,his stopped when he died.

[infinitivesplit]

09:27 PM on 12/09/2011

NO! Understand something. Money grows exponentially faster once you reach the point of having disposable income. Meaning once you earn about $200K a year, you can earn a LOT more very easily.
The way taxes work is like this (the amount are made up):
Everybody pays 5% on their first 10K in income
Everybody pays 10% on the amount between 10K and 30K
Everybody pays 20% on the amount between 30K and 60K
Everybody pays 25% on the amount between 60K and 120K
ETC.
That is called a 'progressive' tax. It is EXACTLY what Thomas Jefferson proposed:
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

(we have a 'personal exemption of about 5K)
BUT - our tax code has - since 1970 become much LESS progressive (it's become 'flatter'). The reason is because capital gains - which are almost ALL made by the wealthy, are only taxed at 15%. Moreover the person making 600K is taxed at the same top rate as a person making 600 million.

If you imposed a 'flat tax' - EVERYBODY making less than $250 K a year would pay MORE in taxes to achieve the same revenue. Minimally (to get the same revenue) you would have to tax people 27% of their TOTAL income.

[wildshaddowwolf]

04:31 AM on 12/07/2011

But knowright you must also look at the tax exempt unions and their contribution payed off politicians. Why do people pay for unions when there is government agencies that do the the same thing? Unions have companies stop opening non union plants that could have created thousands of jobs. Union greed cause products to cost more. Thus hence cost of living goes up. (making harder on the poor and old). Union greed causes companies to shut down and move over seas to other countries so they can compete with the rest of the world. Why pay taxes for union when one person working 12 are standing around drinking coffee and talking? The DMV and department of transportation in every state is a good example there. Unions where good when they first started now they are part of the problem.

[judew777]

09:37 AM on 12/07/2011

Unions also have retirement funds for their workers ,and healthcare, this saves the government a lot of money they pay a living wage. so people that work don't have to go on government programs for help. many companies don't pay a fair and living wage in this creats the gap between the rich and the poor , cuts out the middle class ,you should read up on this subject.

[infinitivesplit]

09:40 PM on 12/09/2011

You need to do some reading. In states with unions (even the low number of unions that we currently have), wages for EVERYBODY are higher. And union wages are only slightly higher than non-union wages. Unions aren't perfect - they too can become more powerful - but unions are not the root cause of what is happening here. We just had a HUGE recession - brought on by bankers who made HUGE profits. We have 400 Americans who own 50% of the TOTAL wealth of this country. Imagine that 400 people OWN HALF of our country! Do you think those 400 people can POSSIBLY be doing HALF of the 'work' of this country? Or 'creating' HALF of the wealth of the country?
How could that be possible? They are not even inventors or geniuses. They don't really 'create' anything.
Newt likes to make claims that union Janitors make enormous salaries. The top paid school janitors live in NYC - their average pay is $36 thousand a year - not bad until you consider that the average RENT in NYC is $33 thousand a year. And, no - they do NOT stand around drinking coffee. Do you see a whole lot of people begging for janitor's positions? Or to be teacher's? Not really - 'cause in reality those positions do not pay that well.

[MikeW CA]

10:12 AM on 12/06/2011

The proposal is truly brilliant as Conservative politics.
First, notice how Newt proposes to give poor kids some "work ethic" but makes sure it's class-appropriate. No after school programs in math or science. Those might teach kids to love work that would put them in competition for jobs that are rich kids' birthright.
Then check the clever two-fer: Once we've kicked out the "illegal aliens" who might otherwise put pressure on the wages of those greedy "union" janitors, we can use school children to keep that pressure on.

[dirtydog1776]

01:47 AM on 12/05/2011

When I was growing up, I worked from age 8, at paper routes, cutting lawns, and yes, cleaning bathrooms in my father's business. I was paid for my work, and learned job and people skills, plus helped my family out. As a business owner, I still found many times that I still ended up cleaning bathrooms after finding out that life is full of people who have no job skills but would not consider taking any job I offered in which they had to get their hands "dirty" at such work.' They often wondered why they did not succeed in life.

[seth e]

06:11 PM on 12/05/2011

There's definitely an argument that learning a work ethic is good for you. So why isn't Newt calling for rich kids to be required to work for school? Surely it's just as good for everybody.

I've met plenty of poor kids who already have afterschool jobs. Requiring them to work even more for their education, and not ON their education, is just too much of a good thing. It's the rich kids who are missing out. Won't somebody take pity on them and make them clean the toilets?

[judew777]

09:40 AM on 12/07/2011

perhaps you didn't pay a fair wage.