'Made in USA' ... but By Convicts
'Made in USA' ... but By Convicts
Date: Monday, September 23, 2002 7:24 PM
************ H-1B NEWSLETTER *************
* Get the Facts on H-1B at *
* www.ZaZona.com *
Labor Secretary Elaine Chao refers to "the incredible shrinking workforce,"
which only will be exacerbated by increased post-9/11 restrictions on
immigration. Her solution - prison slave labor. Major corporations and even
the US Army agrees with her.
Some experts are even saying that prison labor "can help stanch the flow of
US jobs to Mexico, the Caribbean, and other cheap labor markets overseas".
They advocate using the "country's 1.2 million inmates as potential national
assets, rather than liabilities." Broward Correctional Institution even
claims that they pay "prevailing wages."
This really got me to thinking about the solution to the H-1B problem. All
we have to do is to arrest every American citizen that's jobless and put
them in a slave labor camp. In no time at all the H-1Bs will start screaming
"I can't compete with American slave labor".
Prison slave labor can even discourage outsourcing. "When GEONEX, a computer
mapping company based in St. Petersburg, Fla., was competing for a major
project for an international telephone company recently, executives
considered hiring workers in Pakistan or India to input computer data. But
they went instead to Liberty Correctional Institution near Tallahassee,
where today American prisoners are performing the work."
Prison labor might even give companies a second option in case India and
Pakistan decide to blow each other up in a nuclear exchange. US companies
are moving their back-office business to these two countries and that
creates concern: "Below the surface of this fear was another concern many
business executives felt: a concern for their back-office production
facilities" in these two countries. If they could use American prison labor
for all of this work there would be no reason to move their facilities out
of our country. Then even greedy CEOs can laugh when the nuclear bombs begin
to fly.
http://www.insightmag.com/news/273196.html
Insight on the News - Symposium
Issue: 10/01/02
Q: Should companies be allowed to employ inmates at federal and state
prisons?
By Tom Adkins
NO: It's unfair for working people to have to compete for jobs with prison
labor.
You live in a typical working-class village. It could use some paved roads,
and maybe a new schoolhouse. But money is scarce because jobs are scarce.
You are luckier than most. You work hard, making desks in the town factory.
Your boss wants to sell those desks to that new government office on the
other side of town. After all, in your country, the government is by far the
largest consumer. And a nice government contract would mean jobs for your
neighbors.
But all government contracts are controlled by a giant government
organization that has iron-fisted rule over all government contracts —
price, quality, style, delivery … even what product to make or buy. And it
has an imprisoned workforce, paying it as little as 25 cents an hour. Yet it
"sells" their products to the government at predetermined — and usually
higher — prices than charged by your employer. Your company makes better
furniture for far less money. But the concept of "bidding for a contract" is
not permitted by your government. Deserving jobs never will arrive at your
factory.
A refugee's tale from some frozen province in old Russia? North Korea? A
story shared between Cuban defectors at a sidewalk cafe in Miami?
No. It's America in 2002.
The organization is Federal Prison Industries (FPI) — aka UNICOR, FPI's
official trade name. Born in FDR's era of social meddling, FPI nobly was
intended to rehabilitate inmates by teaching them trades. Not comfortable
using prisoners to compete with free labor, FPI could sell only to the
government. But the government could buy only from FPI, creating a totally
closed market.
As the government bureaucracy bloated, FPI grew from banging out a few
license plates into a $580 million monster, with 106 prison factories and
22,000 inmate "employees" churning out gloves, clothing, coffee mugs,
circuit boards, office furniture, safety goggles, printing, boots,
pillowcases and plumbing fixtures — more than 300 items in the UNICOR
catalogue (see www.unicor.com), effectively shutting out vast portions of
the free market. In fact, FPI is the 39th-largest government supplier, just
ahead of communications giant Motorola. Almost every U.S. bureaucracy is
required to buy exclusively from FPI. And every dollar sent to FPI is a
dollar less to an American worker.
To make a long story short, FPI takes jobs away from working Americans and
gives them to almost-free prison labor, then forces its own government — via
the American taxpayer — to buy their goods, often inferior and usually
higher priced. Is your blood boiling? You'll steam when you hear
multimillion-dollar horror stories of this perverted arrangement from
companies like Herman Miller, Steelcase or HON Industries. Or Mike Rau,
owner of much smaller Ponderosa Office Supply, who tirelessly tries to sell
office furniture to his local Ventura County, Calif., naval base. "It's
really been difficult to go out there and continually hear, 'We can't talk
to you because we have to deal with FPI first.' How can you compete?"
Indeed.
Lost are about 10,000 furniture-industry jobs alone. It's even more
infuriating to hear workers — with jobs disappearing before their eyes —
tell their stories. Leroy Webbs, a welder with Steelcase Inc., has nothing
against inmates trying to better themselves, but lamented, "We used to have
a three-man group [on his line]; now it's a two-man group. All of us wonder
if our friend would be working next to us today if it weren't for the
prisoners." It's a double shot to the working man: a stiff jab when the
crook robs him, then a roundhouse to the jaw as the convict takes his job
from behind the prison wall.
Dan Hennefeld, uniform coordinator for apparel workers union UNITE,
estimates that 100,000 jobs have been lost during the last decade. Companies
such as Alabama's American Apparel (specializing in battle fatigues), New
York's Glamour Glove and Maine's Hathaway Shirt are "hanging on by a
thread." Hennefeld wryly notes, "Many of these garment workers are single
mothers. They can't all go to beauticians' school and do each other's hair."
Even inmates who work diligently toward a fresh start often discover their
new skills are thwarted by the very same rehabilitation system. Inmate Steve
Moore committed himself to rehabilitation, becoming a model FPI grad. After
his 1988 release, he started Moore Superior Services, specializing in
solving UNICOR's unending installation problems. Over 10 years his business
boomed until, suddenly, UNICOR began ignoring invoices, eventually taking
over Moore's contracts. "UNICOR could have used me to show other inmates
that working for them is worthwhile and that you can prosper from it," says
Moore. "Instead, UNICOR took the business I developed … and destroyed it."
FPI's misdeeds are legendary. It commandeered computers destined for
inner-city schools and resold them on a Website. It hired inmates for
telemarketing, complete with credit-card access. ("Now, Mrs. Jones, what's
that Visa number?") Some of FPI's faulty products also have raised consumer
ire. As Stefanie Starkey, U.S. Chamber of Commerce manager of privatization
policy bluntly points out: "Screws fall out, things don't work, things fall
apart."
But the insanity doesn't end with FPI. State prisons, under Prison Industry
Enhancement, are permitted to sell almost anything to anyone in-state,
provided they follow easy-to-skirt rules. And skirt them, they do. Prison
Blues, located at one of Oregon's prison facilities, makes blue jeans, sold
right on their Website. They even export to France, Germany and Japan,
raising anger worldwide. Their catchy slogan? "Made on the inside to be worn
on the outside."
Unfortunately, every job created on the inside is taken away on the outside.
And every business prison labor attacks inevitably suffers one of three
fates: they close, suffer or commit the dirtiest deed of all — switch to
prison labor. When workers voted 90 percent to unionize Florida's Point
Blank Body Armor, the company threatened, fired and laid off a slew of
workers, then simply switched much of the work to prison inmates. Even
worse, the company's body armor seems to be failing. A Point Blank vest
recently failed a very public, New York Police Department test, and Defense
Weekly cited major sizing problems, suspected in the death of at least one
U.S. soldier. What would happen if all companies could outsource their labor
to prisons?
Like almost every government bureaucracy in history, the prison-industry
system lost its vision, morphing into a self-perpetuating money-making
scheme, a simultaneous assault on U.S. business and the American workingman.
And it's all based upon the concept of giving jobs to prisoners at the
expense of honest, hardworking Americans. Can it get worse? Sure!
In the face of withering criticism, FPI advocates are scrambling to
"reform." Former attorney general Ed Meese, chairman of the Prison
Enterprise Institute, suggests a quasi-compromise: allowing free-market
companies to "hire" prison labor by proving workers are otherwise
unavailable. Stop shaking your head in amazement. Let's count the fatal
flaws.
First, imagine the new bureaucratic mess. Layers of pencil-pushing boobs
arbitrarily will demand endless studies, testimonies, affidavits, paperwork,
etc.
Second, free-market labor cannot defend itself against under-priced prison
labor.
Third, prisoners will take entry-level jobs that provide that first rung out
of poverty from welfare moms, among others. In fact, a father could abandon
his wife and kids, commit murder, then steal that mother's job from inside
prison walls.
Fourth, workers who haven't so much as jaywalked will lose their jobs to
criminals who have broken every law imaginable.
Fifth, America would leap into a human-rights quagmire by obliterating our
long-time principled stance on prison labor. Today, the difference between
U.S. prison labor and Chinese prison labor is merely 25 cents an hour. Our
human-rights crusade would be a laughingstock.
The other excuses quickly tumble. Supporters claim FPI pays for itself. But
at what price? How many jobs are sacrificed? AFL-CIO's Greg Woodhead
commented, "If you want to incarcerate people, pay for it. Either make a
commitment to law and order, or don't." As a final refuge, prison labor
proponents claim FPI's recidivism rate is 24 percent or lower. But prisoners
who mop floors and wash dishes have a 33 percent or lower rate. Clearly,
structure is the key.
Fortunately, politics makes strange bedfellows. In this case, law-and-order
and free-market conservatives find themselves snuggling up with workingman
liberals. And so, supported by the AFL-CIO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, UNITE
and the National Federation of Independent Business, Reps. Barney Frank
(D-Mass.), Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and others formed such a coalition,
offering HR 1577, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting
Act, designed to open government contracts to free-market bidding. That's a
nice first step. But exactly who still should surrender his job to convicted
prisoners? For even the dullest thinkers in Washington, isn't it hard to
swallow Ken Lay taking a job from a working stiff by running a drill press
in cell-block D?
Despite vast policy differences, support for prison rehabilitation is nearly
universal. But as Hennefeld observed: "FPI is training prisoners for jobs
that won't exist when they get out — because prisoners have them." Then how
best to offer something that prepares prisoners to be productive citizens?
Try charity. Charity takes on assignments the free market doesn't want.
Think soup kitchens, park cleanups or projects such as Habitat for Humanity,
which rebuilds homes in low-income neighborhoods the free market won't
touch.
Imagine if prison programs spent 70 years perfecting charity instead of
honing a 70-year attack on American business and labor. Plumbers,
carpenters, electricians, roofers, painters, even designers and architects
would graduate, ready for real jobs. That's better than putting a screw in a
wood block 500 times a day.
The bottom line is this: No matter how you slice it or dice it, prisoner
rehabilitation never, ever should come at the expense of an American job.
Ever. The practice is indefensible, and there are better alternatives. It
boils down to a simple question: What honest Americans should sacrifice
their jobs to inmates who should be doing time, not overtime?
Adkins is the publisher of CommonConservative.com and writes commentary from
King of Prussia, Pa. He is a contributor to the Philadelphia Inquirer and
Insight, and has been a commentator on Fox News, CN8 and several political
talk shows.
http://www.insightmag.com/news/273180.html
Insight on the News - Symposium
Issue: 10/01/02
Q: Should companies be allowed to employ inmates at federal and state
prisons?
By Knut A. Rostad
YES: The benefits of prison labor to public safety and our economy are
overwhelming.
We are on the verge of a new business crisis — not about corporate
governance or pension reform, but a crisis of skilled-worker shortages.
Labor Secretary Elaine Chao refers to "the incredible shrinking workforce,"
which only will be exacerbated by increased post-9/11 restrictions on
immigration. For many companies, training and employing prison inmates can
make the difference between growing their businesses or standing still,
between expanding into new markets and providing more opportunities for all
employees, or falling behind the curve.
HR 1577, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act, a
bill addressing the decades-old prison-labor battle in Congress, has passed
out of committee, and its supporters are steering it toward the Defense
Authorization Bill. It sharply would restrict inmate training and employment
in federal and state prisons, and thus put jobs for inmates at risk — the
single most powerful weapon prison administrators have to make prisons safe,
rehabilitate inmates and reduce recidivism.
No one questions the need for training and employment programs. Every day
some 1,600 inmates are released from prison. Are they ready to come home and
be good neighbors? Hardly. In June, the Department of Justice published data
on recidivism rates. Following 272,111 state inmates released in 1994,
researchers found over three years that 67.5 percent were rearrested.
How is letting prisoners work and get paid for it a win-win situation? It
reduces inmate recidivism, helps reduce the costs of incarceration and makes
prisons safer and more productive.
Training and work programs let inmates "escape" from the prison regimen and
earn wages. These jobs are highly sought after by many inmates, and
prisoners compete for them. The competition is based on inmates' general
conduct and academic or treatment-program achievements. Consequently,
training and work programs tend to have a strong ripple effect throughout
the institution, boosting progress in learning and rehabilitation.
Witness the good results of inmate work programs in Florida: Only 11 percent
of the inmates who participated in prison-industry work returned to prison
after their release, as opposed to 27 percent of the general prison
population. Similar results were observed in New York state (25 percent
versus 55 percent) and Texas (21 percent to 40 percent).
Although inmates may earn as much as $8 to $10 an hour for participating in
training and work programs, as much as 80 percent of these wages are
deducted for taxes, room and board, victims' funds, family financial
support, savings and court costs. These deductions reduce taxpayer burdens
for prisons. From 1979 through June 30, 2001, $107,051,665 has been deducted
from inmate wages. Furthermore, the financial benefit to state agencies from
individual programs also can be significant. For example, a southwestern
state-service bureau that contracts with several state agencies reports that
these agencies save taxpayers approximately $1 million a year.
Training and work programs are proven in reducing bad inmate behavior and
improving institutional security. Testifying on the Prison Industries Reform
Act of 1999 before Congress the same year, Reginald A. Wilkinson, director
of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, stated that,
"Prison jobs are a management tool. ... When prisoners are idle, tension and
violence increase, especially in light of prison crowding."
For more than 60 years, federal prison inmates have received training and
earned wages as employees of Federal Prison Industries (FPI), a nonprofit
corporation wholly owned and operated by the federal prison system. While
reducing recidivism and improving safety for the public and the 370,000
corrections' staff employees are important public benefits, critics have
raised concerns about inmate "exploitation" and whether prison labor
displaces civilian workers and businesses.
Is the charge of inmate exploitation warranted? Antiprison-labor activist
Gordon Lafer writes that the spread of businesses employing inmates is
simply "slave labor" and an "antilabor agenda" fueled by corporate America
because "it's vastly cheaper than free labor." Likewise, for those believing
employment is exploitation, David Smith of the AFL-CIO expressed it clearly
in a recent Wall Street Journal article: "This is coerced, incarcerated
labor competing in the commercial marketplace against free workers." The
reporter concludes: "To [Smith], using prison labor in America is no
different from using prison labor in China."
"Slave labor" and "Chinese labor" are harsh words indeed, but they are
refuted by a group that knows something about prisons and inmate
"exploitation" — the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Kara Gotsch from
the ACLU's Prison Project is supportive of businesses employing inmates and
points out that, "By providing an opportunity for prisoners to learn
invaluable job skills and receive vocational training, regulated
prison-industry programs play an important role in rehabilitation."
Business and labor groups coalesce around complaints of displacement of jobs
and business contracts by FPI, and the agency's resistance to congressional
oversight. Their unifying theme is that FPI's products put small businesses
out of business. Even defenders of FPI, such as former attorney general Ed
Meese and former deputy attorney general Eric Holder, concede that the
organization is too insulated from the marketplace but urge reforming it and
maintaining training and work opportunities for inmates.
The fundamental question remains: What is a model for prison job-training
and work in the 21st century that would gain support from the private
sector? Two models have dominated discussions in Congress thus far. The
model implicit in HR 1577 rejects a role for inmate training and employment
by the private sector, and instead relies on a future that is one-part
increased vocational education and one-part community service. The other
model, as championed by staunch defenders of FPI, provides FPI with direct
access to the commercial market. Neither model represents the best future
for taxpayers, working families, correctional officers or inmates.
There is an alternative. The solution is a model that reforms the agency but
does not prohibit businesses from training and employing inmates. It accepts
that mistakes have been made, that change is needed and that the current FPI
model, formed in the 1930s, is outdated. It accepts that practices and
assumptions built on FPI's position as a mandatory government supplier must
change. Notably, it accepts that "best practices" in private-sector
partnerships in states such as Iowa, Mississippi, Nevada and South Carolina
can provide FPI with important lessons.
In this alternative model, new inmate training and employment is not created
from a government agency but rather from expanding businesses in the world's
most dynamic economy, whose total employment increased by 429,000 in August
to reach 134.5 million. With inmate training and employment, total
employment can grow even higher, without displacing any jobs in the United
States. This is the basis for the "middle-ground" approach to FPI reform
advocated by the Enterprise Prison Institute (EPI).
With the world's most dynamic and innovative economy, a firm commitment to
global trade and national employment above 130 million, the United States
can reach this goal. Three reasons this approach is needed stand out:
First, employers need skilled employees. Labor Secretary Chao suggests a
solution: "Open doors of opportunity even wider [for] those who have been
left out of the workforce up to now."
A National Association of Manufacturer's (NAM) report reveals that even
during last year's economic downturn, manufacturers still couldn't find
enough production workers with "basic employability skills." The findings
and conclusions drawn by NAM President Jerry Jasinowski could not be
clearer: There is a skilled-production-worker shortage. Its chief feature,
according to Jasinowski, are extraordinary deficiencies in "basic
employability skills — meaning timeliness, work ethic and other" basic
skills. The immediate upshot: 60 percent of companies linked workforce
deficiencies to not meeting customer demand. This shortage will get worse.
The Employment Policy Foundation projects growing shortages to reach 12.4
million job openings by 2021.
Second, using prison labor will stem the loss of jobs being shipped
offshore. In June, the world held its breath as India and Pakistan were
facing off in what was feared could become a nuclear exchange. Below the
surface of this fear was another concern many business executives felt: a
concern for their back-office production facilities. India is becoming a
global leader for outsourcing the back-office tasks, and its potential for
growth is significant. The late Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
professor Michael Dertouzous, who led its Laboratory for Computer Science,
saw the capacity for India to create 50 million such back-office jobs by
2010 — jobs that would "displace" Europeans and North Americans.
Third, Americans believe in the work ethic and strongly support inmate
training and employment. From the research of Frank Luntz, as well as
research at the EPI, what business leaders report to us is that there is
strong business support for employing inmates when companies cannot find
enough qualified workers in their communities.
In this favorable environment Congress has a unique opportunity to institute
industry reform through an amended HR 1577. It should:
Embrace the reform provisions of HR 1577 along with provisions that allow
businesses to train and employ inmates when they cannot find enough workers
in their own communities.
Acknowledge the impressive record of many prison-labor state programs — the
laboratories of innovation — in cooperating with business and labor, and
seek their input in constructing a new FPI.
Delete from the bill provisions that seek to further regulate the business
services inmates may perform in the state prisons.
Improving training and job skills are at the heart of success for
individuals and success in the new economy. By choosing a reform based on
the middle ground and an employment model responsive to business needs,
Congress can grow the economy both inside and outside prison walls.
Knut A. Rostad is president of the Enterprise Prison Institute in Bethesda,
Md., a research and consulting group specializing in developing
inmate-training and work programs. Rostad is a nationally recognized
authority on inmate-work programs.
http://www.hqda.army.mil/acsim/ops/inmatebg.htm
Civilian Inmate Labor
The Army has established civilian inmate labor programs on twelve
installations since FY 89. Four resident programs (prison camps) are at Fort
Bliss, Fort Dix, and Camp Atterbury. Eight non-resident (off-post) programs
are at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Red River Army Depot, Fort Lee,
Fort McClellan, Fort Stewart, Fort McPherson, Fort Indian Town Gap, and
Anniston Army Depot. Fort Dix has two resident programs (prison camps) using
civilian inmates from both federal and state penal systems. Camp Atterbury's
resident program uses state civilian inmates. These ten programs average an
annual net cost avoidance ranging from $263,000 to $3,500,000.
Inmate labor does not interfere with the installation's operation and
mission. Civilian inmates provide a source of labor to Army installations to
accomplish needed tasks that would not otherwise be possible under current
manning and funding constraints. Inmate labor is intended to augment the
Army's civilian and military work force and contractor effort. Inmate labor
does not displace an existing in-house or contractor work force. The Army
does not pay direct labor costs for inmate labor but does incur equipment,
materials, supplies, transportation, and program administration costs to use
inmate labor.
Services provided by inmates are defined by 18 USC 4125(a) and include
preservation and maintenance of grounds and facilities; construction, repair
and demolition of buildings; road repair; custodial services; and
transportation of debris to recycling centers. Only minimum security inmates
are available under the Army's civilian inmate labor program. Army personnel
do not provide security supervision of inmate work details, but do monitor
and account for inmate presence or absence in an assigned work area.
Installation inmate labor programs are established via a memorandum of
agreement (MOA) between the installation and the local correctional
facility. The installation also develops an inmate labor plan governing
operation of inmate labor details on the installation. The MOA and inmate
labor plan are forwarded through command channels to HQDA for approval.
OACSIM manages the civilian inmate labor program and is finishing a
regulation covering policy and procedures for civilian inmate labor.
Army's use of inmate labor is now limited to federal civilian inmates. No
federal statute allows military installations to accept inmate labor from
off-post state and local correctional facilities. Numerous installations
wish to use civilian inmates from state or local correctional facilities
off-post. A DOD Services working is drafting a legislative proposal to gain
support from labor unions, the Department of Labor and the State Department
before presenting the revised proposal to Congressional staffers.
Section 1065 of the FY 95 Defense Authorization Act allows the Army to
conduct a demonstration project until October 1996. This demonstration
project tests the feasibility of using Army facilities to provide employment
training to nonviolent offenders in a State penal system before their
release from incarceration. The Army has selected Forts Bragg, Hood, and
Campbell as test sites. Functions performed by state civilian inmates will
be similar to those performed by federal civilian inmates. State civilian
inmate use will be governed by the same policy applied to federal civilian
inmates. Such policy covers supervision, non-DOD employee interference in
inmate labor details, type of inmates allowed on inmate labor details, and
use of facilities and land. Each test site is negotiating an MOA and inmate
labor plan with their respective correctional facility.
Overall, commanders with civilian inmate labor programs have been pleased
with civilian inmate labor results. The Federal Bureau of Prisons in
particular is a cooperative partner and active participant in the
commander's base operations support mission.
For more information, contact Ms. Yvonne Wildanger, Plans & Operations
Division, OACSIM.
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/01/14/us/us.4.html
'Made in USA' ... but By Convicts
Warren Richey, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
PEMBROKE PINES, FLA. -- From the outside, Broward Correctional Institution
doesn't look anything like a flourishing island of capitalistic enterprise.
Located beside the county dump at the edge of Florida's Everglades, the
women's prison is ringed by 20-foot-high chain-link fences and coils of
razor wire. Here, the state confines its worst female criminal convicts.
Some folks look at these inmates and see a collection of dangerous and
uneducated misfits. Ron Gudehus sees something entirely different -
potential.
TRANSLATORS: Inmates at a state prison in Nebraska work on products for
Braille customers across the US. A growing movement is afoot to expand
prison industries.
(DENNIS GRUNDMAN /AP/FILE)
For the past decade, Mr. Gudehus has transformed convicts into skilled
employees who work at a full-service optical laboratory in the very heart of
this maximum-security prison.
It is not make-work to keep prisoners occupied between meals. Broward
Optical is a profitable business with real customers, real deadlines, real
quality controls, and a bottom line.
Although controversial, the business activity here can help stanch the flow
of US jobs to Mexico, the Caribbean, and other cheap labor markets overseas,
say some .economists and officials. They advocate doing on a national level
what Gudehus is doing at Broward Correctional - seeing the country's 1.2
million inmates as potential national assets, rather than liabilities.
Currently, only 1 in 10 prisoners in the US works for pay. But they receive
low wages - what prisons are willing to pay. That's usually well below the
minimum wage.
But for the 2,400 inmates who work for the private sector - like those at
Broward - pay is much better. They get the prevailing wage for products they
produce. In Connecticut, that means the baseball caps used every year in the
Little League World Series. In South Carolina, it's graduation gowns,
cables, and furniture. And in Arizona, women prisoners are hired to take
hotel reservations.
"There is just an awful lot of untapped human potential there," says Morgan
Reynolds, an economist at Texas A&M and a fellow at the National Center for
Policy Analysis in Dallas.
With the prison population reaching record highs and US unemployment at
record lows, Mr. Reynolds and other analysts are asking whether a large
concentration of available workers in prisons might help keep US
manufacturing and other jobs in the US.
When GEONEX, a computer mapping company based in St. Petersburg, Fla., was
competing for a major project for an international telephone company
recently, executives considered hiring workers in Pakistan or India to input
computer data.
But they went instead to Liberty Correctional Institution near Tallahassee,
where today American prisoners are performing the work. In addition to
training and a regular paycheck, some 80 inmates on the project can expect
at least a $25,000-a-year job doing similar work when they are released.
"We are giving these people a skill set so that when they do get out they
are going to be productive," says Kenneth Mellem, president of GEONEX.
Reynolds says the vast majority of prisoners would gladly work for a
paycheck if given the opportunity.
Sylvia Kee agrees. Ms. Kee, who is serving a life prison sentence, has
worked at Broward Optical for 12 years. She is one of only 54 inmates
employed in the 14-year-old business. But she says 90 percent of the 600
inmates at her prison want to work in the optical lab. It is the only
program of its type in the prison.
But the use of prison-based labor for private enterprise is controversial.
Labor union officials and some industry groups say prison-based industries
result in unfair competition and take jobs from law-abiding workers. Some
critics call it a new form of slavery and warn of the establishment of
American gulags.
The prison industries movement "uses incarceration as the remedy of choice
for poverty, unemployment, poor education, and racism," writes Paul Wright,
a prisoner in Washington State and editor of Prison Legal News. "If you've
lost your job in manufacturing, garment or furniture fabrication,
telemarketing or packaging, it could have simply been sentenced to prison."
Advocates of employing and paying inmates counter that the current system of
human warehouses that does little to prepare prisoners to make honest
livings upon release. Learning a trade like lensmaking or computer data
input, and being paid a regular wage, are far different than earning 15
cents an hour to mop prison floors or wash prison dishes, they say.
"If you can help people develop the right kind of attitude about work - a
healthy, positive work ethic - it will go a long way in helping them once
they get out," says Pamela Davis, president of PRIDE Enterprises, a
nonprofit firm that promotes and runs prison industry programs throughout
Florida. Broward Optical is a division of PRIDE.
To prevent adverse impacts on workers outside prison, most prison-based
businesses are restricted by law to supplying products only to public
agencies. In a few cases, prison-made products and services may enter
broader markets when they don't directly compete with other existing
businesses.
Reynolds says the best answer to critics' concerns about prison labor would
be to permit open competition to employ inmates. Those companies willing to
take the risks and train the inmates should reap the economic rewards. At
the same time, he says, inmate wages would be bid up, reducing the gap
between in-prison wages and nonprison wages.
Reynolds calculates that if half of all prisoners worked in market-type jobs
for five years, earning $7 an hour in full-time employment, they could boost
the nation's gross domestic product by $20 billion. Prison-based industries
would have a ripple effect in their communities, as they tap local suppliers
and other services, advocates say.
Inmates who work contribute as much as 80 percent of their earnings to pay
room and board at prison, family support, and taxes. They also pay
restitution to crime victims.
For many, their prison jobs are the first time in their lives they've been
members of a team, given responsibilities, trusted, and rewarded for jobs
well done.
In a way it is a little taste of freedom. "I feel like when I am on the job
I leave the prison out there," says Kee. "I always know where I am," she
adds quickly, "but when I come in here I come in to give them the best of
myself."
Help to Keep ZaZona.com Online
Donate to the Cause at
http://www.zazona.com/Donations.htm
Back to archives