EVALUACIÓN

Parents in this study had different opinions about the disadvantages of child work, and those mainly pointed to hazards and the risks of work. According to the ILO (2014b: 20), “while a hazard is something that could cause harm, a risk is the likelihood that harm will actually occur”. Of the 14 parents who clearly had an opinion about the disadvantages of child work, interestingly, only three stated that there were disadvantages in employing children. Eleven parents, on the contrary, felt that there were no disadvantages to the involvement of children in family work. As shown in Table 6.5, the following analysis will describe the various reasons given by parents on the hazards and risks of child work.

Defining the risks of work

There were four issues raised by three parents about the disadvantages of child work; the first two refer to hazards caused by working conditions and the other two refer to the health and injury risks. First, a parent in this study believed that child work might cause physical environment-related accidental-injuries, such as falling while carrying agricultural equipment, fertilizer or seeds to the farm using a vehicle. As explained by Gigih’s mother, one of the disadvantages of involving children in work was a risk of falling down when carrying heavy loads, as

experienced by Gigih when he brought fertilizer from home to the farm. This type of hazard was found in the East Java region as many children had to carry agricultural equipment from their home to the farm and vice versa, by cart, bike, or motor bike on poor road conditions.

Another feature in relation to the hazard of child work, as mentioned by a mother in East Java, was animal bites. Surya’s mother said that the field where the children usually herded their goats was dry land, regarded as a comfortable place for snakes. Therefore, she always advised her son to stay far enough from the field and to wear sandals when herding. Snake bites were perceived as only happening in East Java. The third feature was related to injury risk. One parent thought that child work might cause injury because of agricultural tools. As explained by Wawan’s father, one of the dangers in the work of a child was getting cut by sharp agricultural tools; that is, getting cut when collecting grasses for cattle, as experienced by Wawan.

This risk was particularly the case in the Central Java region where collecting grasses was a common activity for children, given the abundant availability of them. Finally, the disadvantage of child work was also related to health risks; child work was perceived as a possible cause of pain for children. As explained by Gigih’s mother, Gigih suffered pain due to spreading fertilizer. When asked about the disadvantages of work, she replied: “He [Gigih] told me that he didn’t want to apply fertilizer because he got burnt on his hand… ‘Phonska’ and ‘urea’ [types of

fertilizer] made his hand burn”.

Ignoring risks of work

There were 11 parents who perceived that there was no danger in child work. Among these parents, nine had five different reasons for ignoring the risks of work, while two held the opinion without providing any reason. Among the nine parents, their reasons were based on their perceptions of the socio-cultural value of work, type of work, working conditions, children’s competence in work, and children’s voice regarding their work.

First, a grandfather in this study refused the idea of hazard and risks of work based on the socio-cultural value of work; that is, child work was rationalised as a cultural tradition. According to Iyan’s grandfather, a grandfather in Central Java in his 70s, child work was not harmful for children because any job they performed had been long standing practices in the community. Child work was accepted by Iyan’s

grandfather because it included ‘culturally-accepted work for children’. He said that child work had been performed from generation to generation, long before him until now. His cultural reason was possibly influenced by his age, as the older generation is usually more strongly bound to traditional values and practices. Another reason raised by a few parents in this study as to why child work did not endanger children was closely related to type of work as children typically

undertook light work. Light work means that the jobs did not cause the children to become very exhausted. One of these parents stated that the fundamental element of child work was that children were not required to work very hard. When

children were tired, they should take a rest, and then continue to work after feeling refreshed. If they were tired again then they should go home to rest. Light work was

also explained by Yayah’s father as work where children were only required to do jobs which were of almost no risk, while dangerous equipment, such as a sickle or hoe, were handled only by parents. Yayah’s father explained: “All dangerous tools should be carried by parents, like a sickle or hoe. Children are to do the light work; they should focus on light work.”

Third, three parents believed that there was no harm in child work because

children's working conditions were safe for them. A safe place for children to work was understood by parents in different ways. A mother in Central Hill said that children’s working conditions were safe because they were free from wild animals, such as snakes. It was associated with dry soil conditions in the mountainside, in contrast to the condition of the soil in lower areas. Meanwhile a father, also in Central Hill, said that a safe working condition was related to the topography of the area where the children perform their work. His son was only allowed to collect grasses on the flat areas; collecting grasses on the cliff area was forbidden, so there was no concern for his activities. Another explanation was given by a mother in East River that child work would not cause harm because, in her experience, she always asked her son to help her on the farm in the afternoon when the sun was not blazing hot. For this reason she felt that there was no negative side of child work; all were positive.

Fourth, a further reason given by parents was that children were able to cope with the risks of their work. The notion of children’s competence to work was expressed by four parents in East River. According to them, three children in this study had to work in the river, carrying sand and colleting freshwater mussels, and another had to cross the river to herd goats. These parents were aware that carrying sand, looking for freshwater mussels, fishing, and crossing the river by canoe might result in risk for their children, such as drowning in the river. However, they assumed that it would not be a concern since their children had been taught and were able to swim. The river was a part of daily life for people in the community, not seen as a threat; Putra’s mother explained that all children in Central River were able to swim in the river.

Finally, by considering the voice of the child, one parent, Putra’s mother, thought that there was no danger in the work of the child. When asked about the various

types of hazards and risks in child work she replied that her son never complained about his work. For her, apparently her son was just fine with his working

activities; there was nothing to be concerned about, although her son had to cross the river by traditional canoe to herd goats. In the interview, Putra’s mother

explained: “He [Putra] never told me that kind of thing [the danger of child work]. If we talk about drowning in the river, he can swim. It’s his hobby, swimming in the river.”

To sum up, it seems that parents attempt to relay messages to their children about harm in their working activities and at the same time they also maintain children’s need to be trained. Parents produce and reproduce messages that some spaces are possibly dangerous for work while others are safe. On the one hand, a few parents did not allow their children to do certain types of job, such as collecting grasses on steep hills or herd sheep due to the risk of snakebites. On the other hand, a few parents allowed their sons to work on farms, as they are perceived to be free from wild animals, and also allowed their sons to work in the river as they were able to cope with the risks associated. In this case, the first group of parents prohibited their children from work by considering that their work space threatened the safety of their children, while the second group of parents allowed the children to work in the fields or in the river because both were regarded as safe places.

Table 6.5 Parents’ perceptions of the disadvantages of child work Disadvantages of child work Informants “Disadvantages in child work”

 Hazardous working condition

1. Falling down when carrying agricultural equipment

Gigih’s mother

2. Snake bites Surya’s mother

 Health and injury risks

3. Pain because of fertilizer Gigih’s mother 4. Injured at work because of agricultural

tools

Wawan’s father

“No disadvantages in child work”

1. Child work is long standing practice in the community

(community-value of work)

Antok’s grandfather

2. Children’s activities at work are focused

on light work (type of work) Antok’s grandfather,Yayah’s father 3. Children’s working conditions are safe

to work (working condition) Hari’s mother, Udin’s father,Aan’s mother 4. Children are capable to handle possible

risks (children’s competence)

Dhani’s father, Septa’s mother, Putra’s mother, Rio’s mother

5. Children never complain about their

work (children’s voice) Putra’s mother

6. Without any reason. Endang’s father, Suti’s father Source: Author’s summary of interview transcripts with parents