What about hospitals, dr. offices, clinics? The linens and anything that comes into contact with children will need to be replaced. Does this mean healthcare goes up even more?
I wonder how this will affect libraries? Most of the books are "used" and being distributed on a daily basis. Does this law, as it stands, mean that can no longer happen?
What about the sweet little ladies who create those items donated to less fortunate children and babies? There is no money earned in this, yet it will still eliminate it for the children.
My late great-aunt used to participate in a quilting group that would make quilts for children who had lost their homes to fire. Those quilts meant SO much to those children. This law would make programs like that impossible.
My understanding is that folks can still make things for their own children with untested materials, they just could not sell or donate goods for children under age 12 unless it was tested by a 3rd party first. Also schools,daycares and libraries wouldn't have to test current products but they couldn't dispose of them in a used book or garage sale----unless their use would be considered "selling or donating". The law sure needs clarification.
- There will be fewer lawsuits on businesses for trivial crap like "My kid got a rash from your clothes, pay us $2MM in pain and suffering." and "I carelessly left my child with this toy unsupervised and he hurt himself, permanently, losing both of his legs, an eye, and four teeth. Your business now owes me $15MM in pain and suffering." and "150 people who bought your product suffered horribly when the product backlashed and poked a hole in all of our children's noses. We're demanding $150MM in damages."
- Fewer injuries.
- Fewer imports from countries that don't share our hyper-anal view of children's products.
- More jobs for Americans.
- Higher product costs for people buying children's products.
I agree that the law may indeed make many children more safe, and I am 100% in favor of that. But there will also be a lot of children who will suffer as a result. If a needy child has no coat and no way of getting a new one, he she could suffer serious injuries from exposure to the cold. Families who cannot afford new life jackets for their children but insist upon taking them around the water anyway may lose children to drowning. A used life jacket would have saved the child. I could go on and on....
sugarplumbtree sugarplumbtree says: This is the saddest thing to me:
"All children's books and educational materials will have to be destroyed because they is no way to issue a certificate of compliance on most of them." ________________
Short, it has nothing to do with whether or not I'm affected by it.
It has more to do with the fact that people are dwelling on how it impacts them personally instead of looking at the big picture.
It has more to do with the fact that if any given complainer's child was injured in any way by any product without these regulations, they likely wouldn't hesitate to sue the vendor for an unreasonable sum of money for the elusive and imaginary "pain and suffering".
Pickle, if you own a boat, you're required to have a life jacket for anyone on it. Odds are, they'll keep the old ones.
I think most of us ARE looking at the big picture. I am not saying this law is terrible and awful and should be overturned. I see the reasoning behind it. It would protect many children from potential harm. BUT...in looking at the big picture, I can also see that it would harm many children. So, it's a tough situation for lawmakers, small-time crafters, and many more. By the way, I wasn't even talking about boating. Many families take their children to the lake and never get on a boat.
Nope, less safe, as factories overseas will get tested in overseas factories, and MAY have forged certificates.
also with the presumption "it must be safe it's certified" more kids will be given toys and left without appropriate supervision with that toy.
- There will be fewer lawsuits on businesses for trivial crap like "My kid got a rash from your clothes, pay us $2MM in pain and suffering." and "I carelessly left my child with this toy unsupervised and he hurt himself, permanently, losing both of his legs, an eye, and four teeth. Your business now owes me $15MM in pain and suffering." and "150 people who bought your product suffered horribly when the product backlashed and poked a hole in all of our children's noses. We're demanding $150MM in damages."
AND IT WAS CERTIFIED safe! so it must be their fault...
- Fewer injuries. see response to 1 & 2
- Fewer imports from countries that don't share our hyper-anal view of children's products.
More the other way, except now with falsified certification.
- More jobs for Americans. what? what jobs? as inspectors and lab workers?
- Higher product costs for people buying children's products.
Neatthings, how will this law make more jobs for Americans?
If anything, Americans who make and sell these products will be OUT of work. Local boutiques. Consignment stores, especially those who sell kids' products. eBayers. Maybe people who are qualified to work in 3rd-party labs?
I'm not sure it's clear to the people of Etsy that a) this bill has little or nothing to do with crafters, b) the government likely doesn't care about a handful of crafters out there, and c) neither does big business.
Trin, they will not be any less safe. Overseas factories have almost no restrictions now, so your theory is terribly flawed. If we can develop a money system that all but obliterates forgeries, I'm pretty sure we can pull it off for this.
Your second point makes even less sense. Sure. If it's certified safe and some kid gets a REAL injury (not "pain and suffering"), that means the party at fault is much more clear. Therefore, business will strive to minimize such incidents. It protects business from lawsuits and parents from injury.
Your worry over "falsified certification" isn't logical. Period.
Yes. As inspectors, creating the certification system, verifying that overseas exporters maintain these standards, ongoing monitoring, etc. etc.
