Prison is primarily a mechanism for the regulation of labour - Essay Example

?Prison is primarily a mechanism for the regulation of labour Introduction The prison and rehabilitation system is a system which is largely based onpunishment and consequence. It is a highly structured system which seeks to provide a control mechanism for the actions of prisoners as part of their rehabilitation and of paying their debt to society. In many rehabilitation systems, labour is one of its more common and dominant themes. Prisoners are often made to carry out physical labour and other types of work for the maintenance of the prisons or for income-generating purposes. Considerations for the profitability of prison labour have been seen from various corporations and businesses and they have since considered the prisoners as labourers. Critics to this practice however point out that prison seems to have become a mechanism for controlling and regulating labour, and that in the process, the system has circumvented fair labour practices, including unionization and minimum wage requirements. Corporations however are quick to point out that prison labour is part of the rehabilitation process and is within the fair mandates of the law. Based on these opposing sides to the issue, this paper shall discuss the thesis that: Prison is primarily a mechanism for the regulation of labour. A clear and comprehensive analysis shall be considered in order to arrive at a valid and reliable understanding of the issue. Body Prison labour has been the subject of various international legal arguments. These arguments all relate to the application and validity of its practice. Prison labour is basically understood as labour “undertaken by convicts housed within the confines of a prison, both private and public that produces either a good or a service” (American University, 2001). The US is going through a period of liberalization and with the creation of private prisons, laws have begun to change in relation to inmate labour. The US Prisons Industries Enhancement Program (PIE) has assisted prisons to coordinate with private industries in order to market prison products on a wider scale (American University, 2001). This system also ensures that prisoners are paid the minimum wage for their work and 80% of the proceeds of the labour are allocated for the maintenance of the prisons and for the restitution of the victims. In the UK, prison labour is also not an unfamiliar practice. Prisoners in the UK are now known to be working for many of UK’s well-known brands for as little as 4 pounds a week (Cookson and Chamberlain, 2009). Companies like Virgin Atlantic, Monarch Airlines, and Travis Perkins are just some of these companies who are benefiting from prison labour and the NHS and the Ministry of Defence has also been known to utilize these goods produced by prisoners (Cookson and Chamberlain, 2009). More than 100 companies are utilizing prison labour in England and Wales, producing holiday brochures, name tags, and balloons for industrial mouldings. And most people are actually unaware that their products are being made by inmates (Cookson and Chamberlain, 2009). In about a year, an estimated 30 million pounds between companies and prisons are being signed. Critics are quick to label these contracts to be exploitative because they provide prisoners with mundane and repetitive work; and their actual rehabilitation process is actually not given much attention (Cookson and Chamberlain, 2009). There are about 80,000 inmates in the US who are involved in commercial activities, and some of them are making about 21 cents per hour for their labours (Whyte and Baker, 2000). The US government presently employs around 21,000 inmates making various products, including file cabinets, electronic equipment, and military helmets which are then sold to federal agencies and private companies (Whyte and Baker, 2000). Sales from prison labour products now register at $600 million with about 37 million dollars in profits. Prison labourers are also now in the manufacturing industry, participating in making blue jeans, auto parts, electronics, and furniture; Honda actually is paying 2 dollars per hour for jobs which normal labourers get paid for in 20 to 30 dollars. Konica has also used these prisoners to repair copiers, paying them less than 50 cents for each hour (Whyte and Baker, 2000). Clothes exported to other countries are also made by prisoners. They are also known to handle service jobs, handling reservations and telemarketing. They also have been known to be involved in digital mapping and computer-aided design work, all for very low rates (Whyte and Baker, 2000). These efforts have been known to turn out millions of profits for most companies involved in these practices. For which reason, issues on labour violations and on non-regulated labour practices seem to be clear indications on the violation of labour rules. When considering the above discussion and above figures, prison indeed seems to be just another mechanism for the regulation of labour. The legally supported labour practices call for the application of minimum wage practices, favourable labour conditions and workplaces, reasonable work hours, and the establishment of labour unions (Brown, 2003, p. 27). Tapping into prisoners as labourers has given corporations the tools to circumvent these minimal requirements. In a correctional facility in Florida, inmates manufacture processed beef, chicken and pork for the Prison Rehabilitative Industries and Diversified Enterprises (PRIDE), which is a private non-profit corporation which runs the state’s 41 work programs (Elk and Sloan, 2011). This program also manages the manufacture of products for sale in private companies which are then shipped to other companies in the US. This program has a work program which is fashioned to feature vocational training, to improve prison security, and to promote the rehabilitation of inmates (Elk and Sloan, 2011). For many years, prison labour for the private sector has been barred by the government; however with the passage of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Prison Industries Act, and Prison Industries Enhancement Certification Program (PIE), the private sector has now cashed in on the prison labourers. While the purpose and goals of the ALEC and other laws may have been noble and favourable to the public, the end-results of these policies have ensured a large prison population convenient for prison labour. ALEC was able to usher in the ‘three strikes’ laws, as well as mandatory minimum prison sentences for non-violent drug offenders (Elk and Sloan, 2011). ALEC has also proposed so-called solutions to the prison overcrowding through the privatization of the bail bond industry. Moreover, ALEC was able to seek the passage of laws for the creation of the private for profit prisons; and these laws were able to provide much profit to two corporate sponsors: Corrections Corporation of American and Geo Group (Elk and Sloan, 2011). Arizona’s immigration laws which have criminalized illegal migrants have also ensured that the number of detainees would balloon and continue to increase. These provisions of the law which are now being implemented in the US have created a large prison workforce. The passage of these laws was supposed to originally include conditions like minimum wage and room and board deductions, costs which were meant to defray prison expenses (Sudbury, 2005, p. 63). The Prison Industries Act however impacted on these provisions by mandating that the private sector must absorb deductions and that money must then be allocated towards the construction of work facilities, the recruitment of corporations in the private sector, and for the payment of implementation programs (Elk and Sloan, 2011). Money which came from inmate wages which was supposed to offset incarceration expenses went instead into the expansion of prisons. As the prisons expanded, more labour was made available for the private industries. Labour has become a severely controlled enterprise within the prison system. The focus on profit has dominated the goal of rehabilitation. The Prison Industries Act has also created a loophole which suggested that the rules did not apply to prison products which were transported across state lines (Elk and Sloan, 2011). In effect, the law allowed third party companies to establish local addresses in areas with prisons which were tied in with the manufacture of goods and the shipping of goods the state borders. By 1995, this practice was stopped and authority was transferred to the Bureau of Justice Assistance (Elk and Sloan, 2011). Nevertheless, prison labour has already had a significant impact on the business and profit of corporations which do not utilize it. In fact, in Florida, the PRIDE has already become one of the largest printing corporations and its cheap labour has become its major advantage over other printing companies (Elk and Sloan, 2011). Prison labour practice has been slowly gaining ground in other states, Florida has 41 prison industries, California has 60, and 100 more are in other states. Moreover, states seem to be bent on looking towards replacing their public sector workers with prison labourers. Governor Walker’s (Wisconsin) assault on Collective Bargaining has invited the practice of prisoner use in public sector work in Racine (Elk and Sloan, 2011). As a result, prison labourers are now into landscaping, painting, and similar works. It has served the companies well that inmates are not paid for their work, instead, can potentially have their sentences reduced (Elk and Sloan, 2011). The companies and the managers of the prison system know that prisoners need their sentences reduced more than they would need the money they could make while working. The price of their freedom is something they can actively work for, without having to think of expanding prisons, better food, or even clothing allowances. This practice is becoming dominant all across the US and the replacement of public workers with prisoners has become the cheaper and has become the accepted alternative for profiteering industries. Corporations not involved in prison labour are complaining that the prison labour has cut down on their profitability and their competitive abilities. This is lamentable, especially when most corporations are already competing with foreign companies based in countries like China and other Asian nations which are already using cheap labour. Experts have been quick to express also that “prison labour is part of the confluence of similar interests among politicians and corporations, long referred to as the prison industrial complex” (Elk and Sloan, 2011). These experts further point out that prison labour has been seen in various forms in the prison system for many years and it is a practice which has increased the number of prisoners incarcerated, further adding to the great burden of the taxpayers. And yet, the concerns for the rehabilitation of the prisoners are relegated to the background. Moreover, with reduced sentences for prisoners, the risk for releasing un-rehabilitated inmates has become a greater possibility. Among corporations, prison labour has become an effective and brilliant strategy in the quest for profit. By using prisoners, companies have their choice of workers who are cheap and who can be easily controlled and manipulated (Khalek, 2011, p. 1). Corporations are not pressured to provide benefits, like health insurance or to secure sick days for their labourers. Moreover, as was previously mentioned, wages are sometimes very low and in some cases, non-existent. These companies also do not need to worry about union demands, wage increases, or vacation time. Prisoners work full time and are also never late or absent due to family concerns (Khalek, 2011, p. 1). In instances when these labourers complain, they are disciplined or their privileges are revoked; credit for good behaviour is also negated. Moreover, the federal government is also known to subsidize the use of prison labour by private corporations by providing tax write-offs. They are actually allocated atleast $2400 credit for every inmate they hire; moreover, they even get the opportunity to earn back 40% of the wages if they hire risky target groups (Khalek, 2011, p. 1). All in all, this makes for a supremely lucrative scenario for these private corporations. Various studies illustrate the wasteful practice of the prison-industrial complex in relation to taxpayers. However, reducing prison rates has become a significant challenge. In the meantime, private prisons and privately contracted inmate labour have established a system which does not create incentives for leaner sentences (Khalek, 2011, p. 2). For the sake of establishing a large prison labour force, higher sentences for prisoners even for non-violent offenses has become an alarming and dominant trend. Still, the cost of incarcerating these individuals is not shared with profiteering corporations, the bulk of such costs are still burdened by the state and the taxpayers. The use of prison labourers is not a new practice. Historians claim that the exploitation of prison labour is rooted in slavery (Khalek, 2011, p. 2). In the late 1800s, a family plantation in Louisiana was purchased and converted into a prison and the land was tilled by the workers. Convict leasing followed the end of the Civil war, and later was succeeded by the state-run chain gangs (Khalek, 2011, p. 2). Stories of abuse caused the abolition of these chain gangs; and yet prison exploitation never actually ended. Corporations soon started to lease factories in prisons and to lease the prisoners to their factories. In effect, many private corporations have started running prisoners-for-profit operations; and as was noted, the incentives for imprisoning people are spurred on by these glaring profits. Governments have also been known to earn profits from the prison labour system (Deer, et.al., 2008, p. 153). Contracts for these prison labourers often reach millions of dollars, and these millions are hardly something the state can turn its back on. Before the 1970s, private corporations were not allowed to use prison labour for their labour force. In 1979 however, the Department of Justice began the process of deregulation in order to gradually invite the involvement of the private sector into the prison industries (Khalek, 2011, p. 3). Conditions were imposed in this regard. Since the early 1980s, about 37 states have passed legislation in order to allow the use of prison labourers by private corporations, offering a salary of about $0.93 to $4.73 a day. Federal prisons receive higher rates and are employed by Unicor which is a government-owned corporation. This corporation supports the Department of Defence and earns much of its profits from sales to the department (Khalek, 2011, p. 3). The prison industry now currently produces goods and services, much more than that provided by other Fortune 500 companies and it generates billions of profits on an annual basis. And the activities of these workers are severely regulated and their mistakes and refusal to cooperate met with punishment. In fact, in one incident, two men who claimed to have made clothes which were later marked with ‘Made in Honduras’ labels were punished with solitary confinement (Khalek, 2011, p. 4). Aside from manufacturing industries, oil companies have also been known to exploit prison labourers. British Petroleum, following the Gulf of Mexico oil leakage hired Louisiana prison inmates to clean up its mess; and this was done in the face of millions of Louisiana coastal workers out of work due to the oil leak (Young, 2010). BP’s effort to cover up its actions, made the inmates dress in civilian clothing. However, their actions were still exposed as subterfuge because nine out of 10 residents of Louisiana are white, but the workers were mostly black (Young, 2010). Private corporations recognize the fact that using prison labour is more or less the same as using sweat shop workers in third world countries. Industries like Escod have in fact moved their operations from Mexico to South Carolina because it would cost them even less to employ these prison labourers (Khalek, 2011, p. 4). Escod was also prompted to move because of the unionization acts of the Mexico labourers which interfered with the goals for maximum profit. Those who argue in favour of prison labour, point out that prison labour is a useful tool for rehabilitation and for post-jail employment (Rodriguez, 2011, p. 461). However, this argument is only valid for those who are given meaningful employment – where they can learn new skills, not the menial and dangerous work often assigned to them. It is important to curtail this practice of abusive prison labour because of its significant impact on our economy and our prison rehabilitation system in general. The labourers also argue that they are gaining dead end skills from their work in the prison systems (Erlich, 1995). They are actually being engaged in work which would not actually gain them realistic employment in the future. And yet, many of these prison labourers are subjected to hard and hot work in the fields and in manufacturing companies with hardly any air conditioning. Many of the skills they learn are actually meant for jobs which are usually carried out by other individuals, including migrant women (Erlich, 1995). In the end, the likelihood of their landing jobs post-incarceration is slim to none. As a result, the risk of these individuals turning to lives of crime is again increased. Based on a study by Pew Charitable Trusts, a history of incarceration prevents or slows down economic progress (Khalek, 2011, p. 5). This study established that incarceration decreased wages by 11%, reduced annual employment by nine weeks and decreased earnings by atleast 40%. The study also pointed out that the most significant approach which the state can adapt is to make investments which guide inmates to the labour market. Therefore, their work in the prison system must provide training and job placement services (Khalek, 2011, p. 5). In the long-term, the direction of the prison rehabilitation system must be geared towards programs for the low-level and non-violent offenders, imposing instead the sentences which would match appropriate public safety concerns. The abuse of the workforce is severely harmful to all labourers (Hartnett, 2010, p. 25). Moreover, the cheap and sometimes free labour negatively affects everyone’s wages, those within the outside the prison system. Jobs which are allocated to prisoners are taken away from free people. It is therefore important for the prison labour system to allow fair regulation, including unionization and fair living wages, as well as the right to a safe working environment (Hartnett, 2010, p. 25). Securing such conditions would deter corporations from pushing for profits within the prison system. It would prompt them to return to the free citizens as labourers – free labourers who are protected by legal regulations. In the UK, the similar trends are being seen with prisoners being forced to carry out practically full time jobs. Reports claim that these workers would be offered minimum wage, and the prison credits for the purchase of prison amenities. However, these reports contradict each other with the fact that the minimum wage is 5.60 pounds per hour, which is significantly lower than the actual minimum wage (Balderson, 2010). The bulk of the money is withheld by prison governors, although some of it is being set aside for the Victim’s Fund, and the rest for the prison system. This trend in the UK has admittedly also created the dilemma already seen in the US – that of regular employees losing work to prisoners who are being governed under a slave labour system (Balderson, 2010). Moreover, there is an element of potential corruption in this prison labour system with the practice of padding the jails in order to gain more labourers. As was discussed above, this is already apparent in America, and the precursor of the prison industrial complex may also become rampant in the UK. Interest groups are already discussing that if the major companies would be able to save a significant amount of money by hiring prison labourers, their profits would top the millions of dollars. This would then prompt them to stop imports from third world sweat shops (Balderson, 2010). Where human rights activists are quick to protest the presence of these sweat shops in the name of human rights, it seems this same protest is not raised for the prison labourers. Swapping one practice for the other did not change the bottom line – that the prison system is actually making the corporations rich and the morality of the society has been blatantly replaced by profit schemes, to the significant detriment of basic human rights. The current state of our economy is far from ideal and more jobs are needed in order to provide more employees with greater opportunities for earning their income and supporting themselves. The act of perpetuating the prison labour system is practically tantamount to the act of opening up a sweat shop in a third world country because the principles and, more importantly, the end result would be the same (Balderson, 2010). Although the US is very much ahead in the prison labour system, the UK is already slowly gaining much progress in the use of this system. The fact that it is an exploitative practice seems to play second fiddle to the thought of profits being gained from the system. Conclusion Prison has primarily become a mechanism for the regulation of labour. Prison labour has become a rampant practice all over the world, and this practice seems to have grown in recent years due to the legal openings given by various governments. Concerns for labour controls, rehabilitation, and legal requisites have been relegated to the background in favour of profiteering ventures by private corporations and government authorities. In effect, the regular labourers have lost many of their jobs to prisoners who do not demand the same labour benefits like unionization, fair wages, minimum work hours, vacation days, sick days, holiday pay, Medicare, Insurance, and other benefits. With the potential growth of prison labour, the further manipulation of labour into a profit venture devoid of labour protection practices would also become rampant. Works Cited American University 2001, The debate over captive labor, viewed 27 October 2011 from http://www1.american.edu/ted/jail.htm Balderson, K. 2010, Slave Labour Comes To UK Prisons, Wideshot, viewed 27 October 2011 from http://wideshut.co.uk/slave-labour-comes-to-uk-prisons/ Brown, A., 2003, English society and the prison: time, culture, and politics in the development of the modern prison, 1850-1920, London: Boydell Press Cookson, R. & Chamberlain, P. 2009, Inside the sell blocks, The Guardian, viewed 26 October 2011 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/sep/09/prisoners-cheap-labour-major-companies Deer, S., Clairmont, B., Martell, C. 2008, Sharing our stories of survival: native women surviving violence, London: Rowman Altamira. Elk, M. & Sloan, B. 2011, The Hidden History of ALEC and Prison Labor, The Nation, viewed 27 October 2011 from http://www.thenation.com/article/162478/hidden-history-alec-and-prison-labor Erlich, R. 1995, Prison Labor: Workin' For The Man, University of Massachusetts, viewed 27 October 2011 from http://people.umass.edu/kastor/private/prison-labor.html Hartnett, J. 2010, Challenging the Prison-Industrial Complex: Activism, Arts, and Educational Alternatives, London: J.B. Lippincott. Khalek, R. 2011, 21st-Century Slaves: How Corporations Exploit Prison Labor In the eyes of the corporation, inmate labor is a brilliant strategy in the eternal quest to maximize profit, Alternet, viewed 27 October 2011 from http://www.alternet.org/world/151732/21st-century_slaves%3A_how_corporations_exploit_prison_labor/?page=1 Rodriguez, J. 2011, Slavery in the Modern World: A History of Political, Social, and Economic Oppression, London: ABC-CLIO. Sudbury, J. 2005, Global lockdown: race, gender, and the prison-industrial complex, London: Routledge. Whyte, A. & Baker, J. 2000, Prison labor on the rise in US, World Socialist Website, viewed 27 October 2011 from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/may2000/pris-m08.shtml Young, L. 2010, BP Hires Prison Labor to Clean Up Spill While Coastal Residents Struggle, The Nation, viewed 27 October 2011 from http://www.thenation.com/article/37828/bp-hires-prison-labor-clean-spill-while-coastal-residents-struggle Read More