The Corporate Use of Prison Labor in America
The issues surrounding the corporate use of prison
labor are by no means new; prison industries have basically existed since
the establishment of the first prison in America. Many people strongly
object to the use of prison labor by corporations and the state or federal
government. These people condemn prison labor programs, stating that they
are exploiting cheap labor. Those who oppose the use of prison labor argue
that it is a violation of human rights and proclaim that it is slavery.
As the rate of incarceration increases, the cost of maintaining the prison
system also increases. Prison industries enable prisons to be generally
self-sufficient institutions. If the burden of providing the funds to maintain
the prison system was placed on taxpayers alone, there would be a large
upheaval. There seems to be no obvious alternative solutions. Most of the
other conventional forms of punishment are considered extremely inhumane
by the American culture. It is necessary that the history, the nature,
and the views that surround this issue be addressed before a solid opinion
is formed.
The first prison in America was built in Auburn,
New York in 1817, and a factory was run within the prison shortly after.
This practice was called the contract system. In the early days prisoners
were also leased out to people, "to be housed, fed, and worked as slaves"
(Browne, 1995 p.2). This was named, "the convict leasing system". In 1840,
prison industries were considered the most cost efficient and prosperous
method of punishment. The former, "slave codes", were reestablished as
the, "black codes", after the civil war. Because many blacks were jailed
for breaking these laws, it is theorized that the prisons in the south
became a way for the, "power, race and economic relationships of slavery",
to remain in tact. The black prisoners were sometimes then leased to plantations,
so those roles of slavery could be reenacted. Mississippi was the first
state to cease to use the convict leasing system, in 1894. However, it
was not until the 1930s that all of the states aborted this system (Browne,
1995). It was also during the 1930s that the prison industries were outlawed
by congress. This action was in response to the scarcity of jobs during
the Great Depression (Wright, 1994). Georgia was the first state to establish
the use of, "chain-gangs", which did not end until the 1950s (Browne, 1995).
On December 6, 1945, Congress passed a law that forbade the establishment
or operation of any business that was completely controlled by the government
(Martin). In 1979 a law that made prison industries legal once again. This
law included the requirement that, prison industries had to obey certain
regulations to remain functional. The law also made the use of prison labor
an issue of debate again (Sexton, 1995).
The AFL-CIO supports prison work programs that meet
specific standards. They support programs that provide convicts with job
skills that will be useful after the completion of their sentence. The
AFL-CIO also approves programs that, "produce goods and services that are
exclusively for government use and may not be sold to the government".
They advocate that prisoners should be paid an amount that is equal to
the existent wages of the public for similar work, with necessary withdrawals
made (Sexton, 1995). These withdrawals are used to pay for their accommodations,
taxes, and victim compensation (Wright, 1994). They oppose programs that
use prison laborers to break strikes or replace free workers (AFL-CIO,
1997). Reese Erlich (1995) reports, that a history of the conflict of interests
between union and industries that utilize prison laborers exists. In 1885,
the state use of prison labor to build the capital in Texas caused the
skilled granite cutters union to boycott the job. When the owners of a
coalmine in Briceville, Tennessee tried to force workers to agree to never
unionize; the miners went on strike. Then, the owners hired prisoners to
continue production; this infuriated the miners. They attacked the mine
and freed the prisoners. Their current position in favor of prison industries
is perhaps influenced by the federal regulations that now exist. Joint-venture
programs are required to consult local unions before the construction of
the enterprise. Despite this law, the company rarely consults unions (Reynolds).
Most of the other federal regulations that apply to prison industries are
obeyed. Joint ventures are forced to pay their employees a wage that is
standard in the open market. It is also necessary that prison-based industries
do not cause the elimination of currently held positions of employment
in the community (Sexton, 1995). These regulations are in compliance with
the desires of the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO states that it will continue to
pursue the instatement of federal and state laws that ensure job security
for union workers.
The replacement of public jobs by prisoners,
is one of the concerns that are used to support opinions that oppose the
use of prison labor. There are several ways in which a community can benefit
from the institution of a prison based industry. Prison industries require
resources for production. The need for resources can create more jobs in
the community. 73% of every $1.00 made by Federal Prison Industries (FPI),
"is spent directly on materials, equipment, and services from private businesses"
(Reynolds p.1). Prison labor programs are a type of economic development
that teaches us, "the cheapest and most efficient or effective way", to
produce (Reynolds p.2). Because the skills required completing the tasks
in prison labor programs are mostly minimal; they spare, "productive resources
for new tasks" (Reynolds p.2). Many communities actually compete for the
establishment of prison industries nearby (Bloomer, 1997). Another way
that people can profit from the growth of prison based joint ventures,
is the profitability of their stocks. Because these companies answer to
share holders, they are very concerned with ways to cut costs (Silverstein,
1997). Joint ventures also allow prisons to be mostly self-sufficient,
even though, "comparisons of operational costs (between public and private
institutions) indicated little difference and/or mixed results" (qtd. in
Bloomer 2). This is because the state is still held responsible for the
costs of many of the necessary benefits, like health benefits, that regular
workers receive. Prison industries are generally more lucrative than non-prison
industries in America; many corporations argue that prison industries have
an unfair advantage. However, many American companies have relocated to
other countries because, of the availability of cheap labor. In comparison,
the American economy is advanced more by prison industries than by companies
who utilize foreign labor (Bloomer, 1997). Prison labor programs that are
completely ran by federal or state governments create or save money. By
employing prisoners to help control fires and conserve forests, California's
Department of Forestry is able to save more than 70 million dollars annually
(Browne,1995). Prison industries are clearly not detrimental to the American
economy.
The convicts and the correctional facilities benefit
from the creation of prison-based joint ventures. Prisoners' sentences
are often decreased by one day for every day that they work. Furthermore,
punishments such as the removal of some or all privileges, longer sentences,
and possibly solitary confinement can be a consequence, if a prisoner refuses
to work (Browne, 1995). The inmates that participate in work programs
are happy to have a source of income so they can send money to their families
or save until they are released. Most prisoners appreciate working because
it gives them something productive to do with their time. Correctional
officers and guards are pleased that the prisoners are busy; because, many
of the disruptions that occur in prisons are due to the idleness of
the convicts (Sexton, 1995). Several work programs are intended to provide
job-skills that the inmates can utilize when they are released, but some
programs such as California's are not at all concerned with teaching
prisoners any new skills. Californian prisoners are evaluated to determine
how they will be classified and what correctional facility they will
be placed in, based on the job-skills that they possess. Inmates are also
categorized by the amount of time they will be allowed to work (Browne,
1995).
One of the many objections to the use of prison
labor is the accusation that it is a form of slavery. These people say
that prisoners do not receive a fair amount of pay and they are forced
to work. The average wage of inmates is less than a dollar an hour, but
that is after the costs of their room and board and the compensation of
their victims have been subtracted. Prisoners are not forced to work. Despite
the fact that inmates may be punished for refusing to work and receive
incentives if they participate in work programs, the prisoners are allowed
to choose. Many people support their comparison of prison labor to slavery
by citing incidences of fatalities, injuries, or abuse that occur while
prisoners are working. Reynolds points out that injuries and fatalities
are likely to result from any strenuous manual labor such as mining or
building railroads. Accidents do happen. Prisoners are also vulnerable
to abuse whether they are working or not. State governments should inspect
private and public prisons more thoroughly. Extreme conditions imposed
on prisoners such as those practiced by chain gangs should be reformed.
Even though, prisoners are no longer chained together (due to a lawsuit
in 1996), prison guards have an outrageous amount of control over the prisoners'
futures. Guards can, "at their own discretion, extend the duration of the
prisoners' punishment" (Browne 1995). There should be a system established
that would repeal the position of the guards as the ultimate authority.
During the late 1800s prisoners who were leased to private industries or
plantation owners were severally maltreated, sometimes even causing their
death. According to Reynolds, these incidents were a result of the, "government's
failure to protect human rights in the entire prison system", not the convict
leasing program (p.4).
The American government is undeniably hypocritical
in their treatment to the subject of prison labor. Although the Sumners-Ashurst
Act made interstate trafficking of merchandise made by convicts a federal
crime; it did not outlaw sales within a state or the exportation of goods
produced by prisoners. Products made by American prisoners are often exported
to China; even though, the U.S. has taken a position that strongly opposes
the use of prison labor in China. China's government has prohibited the
exportation of products made by convicts (Wright, 1994). American prison
labor programs may not force inmates to work, but is China's system so
different that it fails to observe human rights? If the allegation
that the use of prison labor is a violation of the prisoners' human rights
is correct, it is then questionable if incarceration or the punishment
of solitary confinement are violations as well. Where do the rights of
prisoners' end? Prison work programs reduce the amount of money used by
prisons, which is provided by taxpayers. After all, convicts are sent to
prisons to pay their debt to society, not to become an expense of society.
Prison industries may not be a solution to America's
over-crowded prisons and high crime rates. It is essential that the roots
of these problems be addressed, in order for the attainment of a true solution.
This would involve a reevaluation of the goals and values of the American
legal system, and researching the causes of criminal behavior. However,
prison work programs do provide feasible answer to the rising costs of
the prison system and over-crowded prisons. Prison work programs are sometimes
even successful in contributing to the rehabilitation of inmates. Prison
industries provide many favorable results for the inmates, the prisons,
the employers, the economy, and the communities involved. Prison work programs
are not flawless, but realistic improvements can be made. Morgan O. Reynolds
suggests three revisions that would create a fairer market with the presence
of prison industries. His first suggestion is, that prison labor should
be, "applied to products that have negligible domestic competitive effects"
(pg.3). He also proposes that interstate trafficking of merchandise made
by convicts should be legalized. Finally, state and federal governments
should not require that products made by prisoners be sold only to government
agencies. These changes would allow fair competition between prison industries
and non-prison industries. The benifits of prison work programs outweigh
their repairable flaws. They should remain active until a better solution
to the problems of America's criminal-justice system is found.