It ought to be illegal to require students to work past 10:00 (pm) on a school night.

My least favorite place in the existence of all lively hood without a doubt is the scum that is Kmart... You see, this is where I work on a weekly basis, and I HATE IT! There are several reasons for this, and one of those reasons is their clever system of scheduling. For example, next Tuesday I work from 6:00 p.m. - 12:15 a.m. This would be the week of semester tests by the way. Speaking of which, I work from 7:00 p.m. - 12:15 a.m. the night before semester tests. I think that this is ridiculous, that the night before one of the most important school days of the year and I am required to stay up way too late or lose my job. Therefore, I propose that we ought to be illegal to require students to work past 10:00 p.m. on school nights.

By doing this, we will:

A) Give equal opportunity to everyone.
-You see, most of my friends don't have jobs. They will be able to get plenty of sleep that night and therefore gain an advantage over me. But by voting pro, you recognize equal opportunity for all.

B) Push students to the point of suicide less often.
-Do we really want suicide rates like Japan?!?! The reason so many students kill themselves there is because of their amount of workload. But if we give students more time to do their homework AND prepare for tests, then fewer suicides will inevitably happen, and no child will be left behind in a way that doesn't tick everyone off.

C) Concentration on what is important will be achieved.
-SCHOOL COMES FIRST! This is not words that just exist, there is MEANING to them. You see, now that they have done this, I feel I have no choice but to quit Kmart, and will thus make it harder for me to save money for college. An all around bad deal for me.

Because of this, I urge you to see the importance of school, and therefore vote PRO!

Thanks and good luck to my opponent!

I am a student and I have many bills to pay. To afford transportation, shelter, food, books, school, and etcetera, I would have to keep my full-time job. However, my classes go late into the day and end around 5'oclock. If I want to work enough it becomes absolutely necessary for me to work past 10:00 PM.

Contentions:

1. Students ought to be responsible enough to procure a job that best fits their circumstances. Disallowing students the opportunity to work past 10:00 is not a protection of freedom, but a hindrance of. If a student is unable to work out a sensible schedule with his/her employer the student has all the right and freedom in the world to pack-up and find a job elsewhere.

2. Many people have longstanding, well-paying jobs before they decide to become students. Legislating against their ability to work past 10:00 PM may endanger their employability or prevent them from continuing in their studies. Consider all the mothers and fathers, even grandmas and grandpas who go back to school. If such a wanton criminalization is not in the best interests of the student, who benefits?

Responses:

A. Equal Opportunity to all
Balderdash. Do students have the opportunity, if needed, to work past 10:00 PM? If not, then arguing on the grounds of equality is self-refuting.

B. Less Suicides
If we mandated all students wear straight-jackets when they are alone, we could virtually eliminate suicide among the student population – does that mean we should? Among other things, Japanese student suicide rates have more to do with school itself then it does with things outside it. (1)

C. Concentration on what is important will be achieved.
A mother back in school – what is more important, her B.A. or providing for her children What about the people who find it more difficult to save for college because there is now a ridiculous ban barring them from working late?

1. http://search.japantimes.co.jp...

Thanks and good luck...

CLARIFICATION

1) You can still work late on school nights.
-If you look to the topic, you will see that it says they can't do it on school nights. In other words, on Friday and Saturday you can be required to work all you want.

2) You can over-come the requirement.
-Again, the resolution says that you ought not be required to work. (Like I am at Kmart). So if you take the option to work that, you would still be able to do that.

Point by point:

1. Students can now be even more responsible. Now THEY get to decide when they work, not their employer (unless it is before 10 of course). I am not allowed to be responsible the day before semester tests, I am required. Therefore, I am forced to be irresponsible on the CON side. Also, there is a 2 week notice requirement, so I can't simply pack up and leave (for at least 2 weeks).

2. Again, I contended that not requiring them does NOT restrict them from working past 10. I simply want the option to go into Kmart and say no thank you... I'm leaving at 10.

(My points)

A. If you vote Pro, you simply can't require students to work past 10 on school nights, but you can request them.

B. It turns out that studies actually blame the high suicide rate to "workplace stress"… You will see that any time you are doing work (be it homework or stocking shelves), it is still work. Requiring work past 10 p.m. simply increases the work load.
-http://www.bio-medicine.org...

C. I would say that BOTH of those things are important. Therefore, the request can still be put in to work that long. But requiring it only increases the stress. Not to mention that working past 10 is probably not good for your kids. This depends on the ages, but you need to be there to ensure they go to bed. But each situation is different so it would be ridiculous to require ONE thing. Give the choice to them.

Vote PRO!

1. Mandating businesses to avoid scheduling student's after ten (those who are unwilling, that is) is needless legislation. Employers will avoid hiring those students who cannot fulfill the position adequately. Moreover, such legislation would be damaging because it would result in less job availability for students. This is why many employers do not hire employees who are still thoroughly restricted by child labor laws. (1)

2. It still stands that it ought to be the student's resposiblity to find a job that best fits his/her circumstances. An employer will not hire a person who cannot work past ten if that is a requirement of the position. Like said above, the law is unnecessary.

3. It is a highly manipulatable law. A person wanting a little extra sleep at night need only to enroll in some cheap online course and thus reap the bed-time benefits of a student.

Responses:

1. "Now THEY get to decide when they work, not their employer… I am forced to be irresponsible on the CON side."
Ridicules. Students already have plenty of freedom to choose when they work – it comes with the freedom of choosing WHERE to work. Also, the position to be irresponsible cannot be forced. If it is more responsible for you to quit your job and find employment elsewhere, so be it. But do not blame irresponsibility on your employer. South Dakota is an "at will" state. You are not bound by any contract.

B. My source in Round 1 is student specific and finds fault with the schools – not work.

C. Student mothers may find themselves hindered in obtaining and/or obtaining a job if such requirements are instituted.

www.esf-globaleuronet.org/content/download/698/3121/file/puerta%20paper.pdf

1. You will see that employers still need to have people that are students. Students are generally teenagers and as a study found, that 8 million teenagers are currently employed (Bureau of Labor Statistics) and that "Employers rely on teen workers to help their businesses." Therefore, the argument that employers will stop hiring them is not true because they can not afford to. Not to mention that most places that do hire them are not open past 10, and if they ARE, it is unlikely that these students are working that late. But if they are being scheduled that late, they ought to have the power to over the working establishment.

http://parentingteens.suite101.com...

2. Sometimes it's out of the students hands of where he works. EG: 2 week notice wouldn't get me my sleep before semester tests. EG: Parents won't let the child quit or parent forces student to work at a specific place. EG: Job availability for more appropriate jobs non-existent (either small town or high population).

3. I don't see how there could actually be a great enough incentive for someone to go out and enroll in online classes (AT LEAST in a overwhelming force). Not to mention that this resolution is more to protect high school students.

1. AGAIN, may not have much power of where they work. Not to mention that 2 week notice is required so thus I don't have time to quit before my semester test grades are effected.

B. But MY evidence showed that it has to do with stress levels. And scheduling people past 10 o' clock while they are going to school is a HUGE stress increasing factor. Going to school AND work creates a LOT of stress.

C. Again, it is not a resolution to make employers have a requirement, it is eliminating the requirement of students working past 10. In other words, I can still choose to work past 10, but I do not want to be forced to work past 10 for the reasons stated in the first paragraph and because I don't want stress.

1. You grossly overestimate the need of student workers and misunderstand my central point. Unemployment rates are at a major high (1). Teenagers currently have the highest unemployment rates. Instituting the proposed law would only serve to increase the unemployment rates of teens (and perhaps subsequently increase employment rates of adults). Moreover, my point was that the law is unnecessary. If employers have a position that works past ten, they will not hire a student who is unwilling to do so (especially with the given law). It is more damaging to students then it is beneficial. Child labor laws are a proven factor in why many businesses will not hire teens. The proposed law may also discourage employers from hiring students all together.

2. That is an issue that should be worked out with parents and not employers. Neither parents nor employers can "force" anything. If a student possesses the power to say "I quit," then no such conundrum exists. Two week's notice is a courtesy and not a requirement.

3. Why not. All one needs to do is sign up for ONE cheap online class and therefore be a student and reap the given benefits. Moreover, a student is in no way limited to high school and no such distinctions were made in the resolution.

B. Your source was not student specific. Student suicide rates are tied explicitly to scholastic factors. Nor did you give any evidence for such "HUGE" increasing factor.

C. The point was that student mothers would be hindered when it comes to obtaining a job, because employers could become leery about employing students because of the proposed law.

(1) http://articles.latimes.com...

Thank you,
IquireTruth