Untitled Document

Rileigh Turnbull English II Professor Bousquet
Living the Low-Wage Life: Prison Inmates “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” -13th Amendment to the US Constitution
Review of the Literature Though the prison population of California and the entire United States has substantially increased over the last 25 years, the amount of prisoners working while incarcerated has declined, significantly (see [4]). Since the age of the Romans, labor has been a common punishment for crime against the state [1], fluctuating in popularity throughout the development of civilization. Recent controversy in the area of prison industry brings up two opposing ideals. The first is the opinion of those who run the Prison Industry (PIA). The PIA claims that the central goal of Prison Industry is to provide productive work environments for inmates in the California adult corrections institutions [8]. The opposing opinion, backed more often than not, is that the Prison Industry fails to meet its own goals and purposes [2,4,5,6,7]. Several researchers, activist groups, and reporters address the idea that the PIA has failed to meet its sole purpose. Goldberg and Evans [7] emphasize the lack of inmates rights to strike, form unions, or to receive workers compensation benefits. Davis [6], a prison activist, provides statistics on the wages earned by inmates and specific private businesses which benefit from this low-wage work. Thompson [4] takes the opposition to a different level. He believes that the true issue is that the PIA provides unfair competition for the free market and private businesses. Overall, each of these sources brings to light at least one point to back the opposition to Prison Industry. On the other hand, one reporter seemed completely unbiased to the situation, but exposed another point against the PIA, claiming that they have no authority to stand up for their workers' rights [3]. The research paper that I propose will link all of main points made by my sources. However, I have found that what most of the articles are lacking is information regarding the inmates, themselves. After all, the workers are the most important part of the equation. What I would like to find out is whether the inmates agree with the current format of Prison Industry and, if not, what they would change to make it a more valuable experience for them. The main focus of this research paper is to examine the benefits and limitations of the Prison Industry and to propose ways in which it can be improved. The Argument By the time of the discovery of America, ancient punishments, originally reserved for slaves, had long been in effect as acceptable legal punishments for criminals. The first US prisons were built in the 18th century in the populous states of New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. Initially, the main purpose of prisons was not only to incarcerate criminals, but also to provide a basis for reform. Labor was integrated with penitence in order to serve as a reform tool, but ultimately became a means of improving the economic stability of the penitentiaries. By 1828, prison labor was so prominent that inmates, through their labor, were actually paying for their own confinement. This was the beginning of prison industry. Not long after, reformers began to feel that prison industry would be more effective, both economically and as a means of rehabilitation, if the inmates were given incentives to work hard. Hence, the institution of the “good time” law, which rewarded inmates for good behavior and the work they had done. In 1829, the prevalence of prison industry led to a number of reforms and a formalization of the system. The question of who should benefit from inmate labor arose and instigated a battle between public and private industries. Seeing as prison industry put forth an economical form of labor, competitive with free labor, both sides wanted to reap the benefits. However, between the late 1890’s and the early 1900’s, there was a strong political reaction to the abuses of prison labor. In 1905, President Roosevelt signed an Executive Order prohibiting the federal government from purchasing prison-made goods. By 1929, the private benefit, known as the contract system, was also outlawed in the Federal Prison System and in 17 state governments. The Great Depression, in turn, put an exhaustive strain on prison industry due to high unemployment levels throughout the country. Most argued that prison industry provided unfair competition for free laborers. Throughout this period, between the 1890’s and the 1980’s, prison industry was in a substantial decline. The number of employed inmates dropped from 85% to about 44% by 1940. It was not until 1967 that prison industry began to rise again, being was reintroduced for rehabilitative purposes. Since then, prison industry has slowing increased in popularity, especially after the mid 1980’s, and has made a permanent imprint on the American Federal Justice System. The 1980’s brought about a number of changes to prison industry due to its increasing popularity. California, in particular, initiated a new program in 1982, the Prison Industry Authority (PIA). The PIA was created to employ inmates on the premise that it would reduce inmate violence and idleness, as well as offering them an opportunity to advance their work habits into effective occupational skills. The other benefits were economic. By employing inmates in prison factories, California and the PIA aimed to reduce the costs of operating and maintaining California state prisons by generating enough revenue from the sales of prison-made goods and services to ultimately be self-supporting. However, it is yet to be established whether or not the PIA has met its goals. Many feel that it would be beneficial to society and to the economy to have inmates to be released from prison as more productive citizens. Moreover, the PIA and the legislature agree that inmates should be required to contribute to the costs of their crimes and their incarceration through wages earned in prison industry programs. The proposed system for inmate contribution includes deductions taken from the inmates’ earnings in order to pay for their court-ordered financial obligations, in reasonable amounts, as not to discourage inmates from working efficiently. Deductions are also taken to contribute to the development and operation of the prison industry program, in addition to the costs of housing and feeding the inmates, themselves. However, legislature feels that the PIA is in desperate need of reform, regarding effective job training and rehabilitation for the inmates, as well as increased safety standards. The PIA provides work sites within the facility to accommodate inmate workers, with little consideration for the safety of the workers, both inmate and civilian. It is also required that inmates be paid for their labor, though appropriate wages are unspecified. Although the PIA provides a decent alternative for inmates to being locked in a cell all day and an opportunity to begin paying off their debt to society, it is apparent that the program is in need of some reform. At the political end of the spectrum, we see that the prison industry is a work-in-progress with the potential to be one of the more successful programs for criminal rehabilitation and the reduction of recidivism. On the other end of the spectrum, we have the inmates, themselves. An article written by Willie Wisely, a California state prisoner, explores the attitude of most prisoners toward prison industry and inmate labor. Wisely opens, “Imagine a half-billion dollar manufacturing company that uses slave labor…”. Wisely’s article is in regards to the PIA and its inability to fulfill its purposes in California State Corrections. He argues that while other states manage to meet their quotas and even compete with private business in the market place, California’s program, the PIA, loses money every year and fails to reform inmates. In fact, the PIA refuses to spend money to help parolees, leaving California with a 75% recidivism rate. Though Wisely’s article is strongly political, it helps us to understand the situation of the inmates and the inner-workings of California’s inmate work program. Wisely speaks out on the short-comings of the program and the lack of regard for the inmates. He goes on to comment on the conditions of the working environment in the prison factories. “Cutting urethane foam,” a product used in the manufacturing of furniture in prison factories, “in the unventilated shop poses a serious, potentially lethal, health threat to prisoners and civilian employees alike.” He also argues that the types of jobs and the “obsolete equipment” that is used in prison factories hardly qualifies for proper training or rehabilitation to help inmates perform in regular society. Another inmate perspective is examined through an interview with a former inmate at the Santa Cruz County Honor Farm. Though the structure of the Honor Farm is a bit different than that of California prisons, the opinions expressed are common to both. While incarcerated, this man was employed at the Watsonville Dump where he was expected to “[load] trailers with electronics, mattresses, etc., clear brush, pick up trash, dig irrigation channels and lay irrigation pipes.” Though the work was difficult, he explains that it was privilege enough just to be able to leave the cell behind. He was not compensated for his labor and he performed his tasks off grounds, unlike inmates in prisons; otherwise, the working conditions were entirely the same. He explains that the employers of inmates do not have to worry about paying health care or unemployment insurance and they do not have to provide sick leave or overtime. Like in prison factories, there are no set standards regarding the treatment or the welfare of the workers and employers are free to hire, fire or reassign workers as they please. Despite this mistreatment, inmate workers are not allowed to respond with strikes, grievances or by threatening to leave and get a better job. It is a virtually lawless system. As a result of these varying perspectives on prison industry, the controversy continues. Inmate labor, supported by law enforcement officials and business groups, can be debated as either an effective means of rehabilitating inmates and strengthening their occupational skills or a potential human rights violation. Inmates provide services for the country from telemarketing to the manufacturing of computer circuit boards. Though they are a flexible and dependable work force, inmates have no bargaining power and are easily exploited, critics say. The conditions of their work environments are less than substandard. Among the atrocities are the lack of benefits, decent wages and health care, safety standards, and the inability of the workers to form a union. So why would inmates subject themselves to such grueling and virtually uncompensated labor? Although it is not required by law that prisoners work while in custody, many are forced to out of necessity. Most states across the country charge inmates for basic necessities; such as medical care, toilet paper, and use of the law library. Some atates even charge their inmates for room and board. Berks County Jail in Pennsylvania charges inmates $10 per day to be there. Though, supporters of the prison industry program would argue that these charges are made simply to instill a sense of responsibility for ones actions and to better the program out of the generated revenue. Labor as a punishment for crime has been prevalent in society since before Greek and Roman times. By the time that the United States was established, millennia of “inmate labor” had set the precedent for punishing criminals. Crime and punishment have become increasingly more of an issue in recent years, that it is necessary to have prisoners support the growing prison establishments through the manufacturing of products. Although the basic premise of prisoners paying their dues to society through labor while incarcerated is justified, it does not mean that the system is entirely fair. The Prison Industry Authority of California provides a perfect example for how under-developed the prison labor system truly is. Though the main purpose of this institution is to provide occupational experience for inmates and to ultimately be a self-supporting operation; in practice, it has not yet been successful. When it comes down to it, inmates employed by prison industries are the slaves of a “free” country and truly feel the effects of “living the low-wage life.” Sources

Rileigh Turnbull
English II
Professor Bousquet

Living the Low-Wage Life: Prison Inmates

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
-13th Amendment to the US Constitution

Review of the Literature

Though the prison population of California and the entire United States has substantially increased over the last 25 years, the amount of prisoners working while incarcerated has declined, significantly (see [4]). Since the age of the Romans, labor has been a common punishment for crime against the state [1], fluctuating in popularity throughout the development of civilization. Recent controversy in the area of prison industry brings up two opposing ideals. The first is the opinion of those who run the Prison Industry (PIA). The PIA claims that the central goal of Prison Industry is to provide productive work environments for inmates in the California adult corrections institutions [8]. The opposing opinion, backed more often than not, is that the Prison Industry fails to meet its own goals and purposes [2,4,5,6,7].

Several researchers, activist groups, and reporters address the idea that the PIA has failed to meet its sole purpose. Goldberg and Evans [7] emphasize the lack of inmates rights to strike, form unions, or to receive workers compensation benefits. Davis [6], a prison activist, provides statistics on the wages earned by inmates and specific private businesses which benefit from this low-wage work. Thompson [4] takes the opposition to a different level. He believes that the true issue is that the PIA provides unfair competition for the free market and private businesses. Overall, each of these sources brings to light at least one point to back the opposition to Prison Industry. On the other hand, one reporter seemed completely unbiased to the situation, but exposed another point against the PIA, claiming that they have no authority to stand up for their workers' rights [3].
The research paper that I propose will link all of main points made by my sources. However, I have found that what most of the articles are lacking is information regarding the inmates, themselves. After all, the workers are the most important part of the equation. What I would like to find out is whether the inmates agree with the current format of Prison Industry and, if not, what they would change to make it a more valuable experience for them. The main focus of this research paper is to examine the benefits and limitations of the Prison Industry and to propose ways in which it can be improved.

The Argument

By the time of the discovery of America, ancient punishments, originally reserved for slaves, had long been in effect as acceptable legal punishments for criminals. The first US prisons were built in the 18th century in the populous states of New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. Initially, the main purpose of prisons was not only to incarcerate criminals, but also to provide a basis for reform. Labor was integrated with penitence in order to serve as a reform tool, but ultimately became a means of improving the economic stability of the penitentiaries. By 1828, prison labor was so prominent that inmates, through their labor, were actually paying for their own confinement. This was the beginning of prison industry. Not long after, reformers began to feel that prison industry would be more effective, both economically and as a means of rehabilitation, if the inmates were given incentives to work hard. Hence, the institution of the “good time” law, which rewarded inmates for good behavior and the work they had done.

In 1829, the prevalence of prison industry led to a number of reforms and a formalization of the system. The question of who should benefit from inmate labor arose and instigated a battle between public and private industries. Seeing as prison industry put forth an economical form of labor, competitive with free labor, both sides wanted to reap the benefits. However, between the late 1890’s and the early 1900’s, there was a strong political reaction to the abuses of prison labor. In 1905, President Roosevelt signed an Executive Order prohibiting the federal government from purchasing prison-made goods. By 1929, the private benefit, known as the contract system, was also outlawed in the Federal Prison System and in 17 state governments. The Great Depression, in turn, put an exhaustive strain on prison industry due to high unemployment levels throughout the country. Most argued that prison industry provided unfair competition for free laborers. Throughout this period, between the 1890’s and the 1980’s, prison industry was in a substantial decline. The number of employed inmates dropped from 85% to about 44% by 1940. It was not until 1967 that prison industry began to rise again, being was reintroduced for rehabilitative purposes. Since then, prison industry has slowing increased in popularity, especially after the mid 1980’s, and has made a permanent imprint on the American Federal Justice System.

The 1980’s brought about a number of changes to prison industry due to its increasing popularity. California, in particular, initiated a new program in 1982, the Prison Industry Authority (PIA). The PIA was created to employ inmates on the premise that it would reduce inmate violence and idleness, as well as offering them an opportunity to advance their work habits into effective occupational skills. The other benefits were economic. By employing inmates in prison factories, California and the PIA aimed to reduce the costs of operating and maintaining California state prisons by generating enough revenue from the sales of prison-made goods and services to ultimately be self-supporting. However, it is yet to be established whether or not the PIA has met its goals.

Many feel that it would be beneficial to society and to the economy to have inmates to be released from prison as more productive citizens. Moreover, the PIA and the legislature agree that inmates should be required to contribute to the costs of their crimes and their incarceration through wages earned in prison industry programs. The proposed system for inmate contribution includes deductions taken from the inmates’ earnings in order to pay for their court-ordered financial obligations, in reasonable amounts, as not to discourage inmates from working efficiently. Deductions are also taken to contribute to the development and operation of the prison industry program, in addition to the costs of housing and feeding the inmates, themselves. However, legislature feels that the PIA is in desperate need of reform, regarding effective job training and rehabilitation for the inmates, as well as increased safety standards. The PIA provides work sites within the facility to accommodate inmate workers, with little consideration for the safety of the workers, both inmate and civilian. It is also required that inmates be paid for their labor, though appropriate wages are unspecified. Although the PIA provides a decent alternative for inmates to being locked in a cell all day and an opportunity to begin paying off their debt to society, it is apparent that the program is in need of some reform.

At the political end of the spectrum, we see that the prison industry is a work-in-progress with the potential to be one of the more successful programs for criminal rehabilitation and the reduction of recidivism. On the other end of the spectrum, we have the inmates, themselves. An article written by Willie Wisely, a California state prisoner, explores the attitude of most prisoners toward prison industry and inmate labor. Wisely opens, “Imagine a half-billion dollar manufacturing company that uses slave labor…”. Wisely’s article is in regards to the PIA and its inability to fulfill its purposes in California State Corrections. He argues that while other states manage to meet their quotas and even compete with private business in the market place, California’s program, the PIA, loses money every year and fails to reform inmates. In fact, the PIA refuses to spend money to help parolees, leaving California with a 75% recidivism rate. Though Wisely’s article is strongly political, it helps us to understand the situation of the inmates and the inner-workings of California’s inmate work program. Wisely speaks out on the short-comings of the program and the lack of regard for the inmates. He goes on to comment on the conditions of the working environment in the prison factories. “Cutting urethane foam,” a product used in the manufacturing of furniture in prison factories, “in the unventilated shop poses a serious, potentially lethal, health threat to prisoners and civilian employees alike.” He also argues that the types of jobs and the “obsolete equipment” that is used in prison factories hardly qualifies for proper training or rehabilitation to help inmates perform in regular society.

Another inmate perspective is examined through an interview with a former inmate at the Santa Cruz County Honor Farm. Though the structure of the Honor Farm is a bit different than that of California prisons, the opinions expressed are common to both. While incarcerated, this man was employed at the Watsonville Dump where he was expected to “[load] trailers with electronics, mattresses, etc., clear brush, pick up trash, dig irrigation channels and lay irrigation pipes.” Though the work was difficult, he explains that it was privilege enough just to be able to leave the cell behind. He was not compensated for his labor and he performed his tasks off grounds, unlike inmates in prisons; otherwise, the working conditions were entirely the same. He explains that the employers of inmates do not have to worry about paying health care or unemployment insurance and they do not have to provide sick leave or overtime. Like in prison factories, there are no set standards regarding the treatment or the welfare of the workers and employers are free to hire, fire or reassign workers as they please. Despite this mistreatment, inmate workers are not allowed to respond with strikes, grievances or by threatening to leave and get a better job. It is a virtually lawless system.

As a result of these varying perspectives on prison industry, the controversy continues. Inmate labor, supported by law enforcement officials and business groups, can be debated as either an effective means of rehabilitating inmates and strengthening their occupational skills or a potential human rights violation. Inmates provide services for the country from telemarketing to the manufacturing of computer circuit boards. Though they are a flexible and dependable work force, inmates have no bargaining power and are easily exploited, critics say. The conditions of their work environments are less than substandard. Among the atrocities are the lack of benefits, decent wages and health care, safety standards, and the inability of the workers to form a union. So why would inmates subject themselves to such grueling and virtually uncompensated labor? Although it is not required by law that prisoners work while in custody, many are forced to out of necessity. Most states across the country charge inmates for basic necessities; such as medical care, toilet paper, and use of the law library. Some atates even charge their inmates for room and board. Berks County Jail in Pennsylvania charges inmates $10 per day to be there. Though, supporters of the prison industry program would argue that these charges are made simply to instill a sense of responsibility for ones actions and to better the program out of the generated revenue.

Labor as a punishment for crime has been prevalent in society since before Greek and Roman times. By the time that the United States was established, millennia of “inmate labor” had set the precedent for punishing criminals. Crime and punishment have become increasingly more of an issue in recent years, that it is necessary to have prisoners support the growing prison establishments through the manufacturing of products. Although the basic premise of prisoners paying their dues to society through labor while incarcerated is justified, it does not mean that the system is entirely fair. The Prison Industry Authority of California provides a perfect example for how under-developed the prison labor system truly is. Though the main purpose of this institution is to provide occupational experience for inmates and to ultimately be a self-supporting operation; in practice, it has not yet been successful. When it comes down to it, inmates employed by prison industries are the slaves of a “free” country and truly feel the effects of “living the low-wage life.”

Sources