|
| |
California Prison Labor
Term Paper ID:27814
|
|
|
Essay Subject:
Focus is on Prop. 139 (Nov. 6, 1990), The CA Prison Inmate Labor Initiative. The initiative was the center of some very heated debate, this is an analysis of the issues from a non-partisan perspective.... More...
|
12 Pages / 2700 Words
9 sources, 13 Citations,
TURABIAN Format
$48.00
Return to List of Papers
|
Paper Abstract:
Focus is on Prop. 139 (Nov. 6, 1990), The CA Prison Inmate Labor Initiative. The initiative was the center of some very heated debate, this is an analysis of the issues from a non-partisan perspective.
Paper Introduction:
California Prison Labor
Introduction:
The intent in this paper is to focus on the California Prison Inmate Labor initiative, or Proposition 139. That Proposition established the possibility of allowing private employers to contract for employment of inmates. There were strong feelings on both sides of the issue, and those will be discussed in the following pages.
History of Proposition 139:
The prison labor initiative, or Proposition 139, was initially proposed by Governor George Deukmejian, who favored its passage in order to reduce the cost to the taxpayers of housing prisoners, as
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
The intent was clearlynot rehabilitative, but a combination of punishment and restitution tosociety.Results of Passage: There is indication, however, that the passage of Proposition 139 didnot result in the windfall for private enterprise that opponents predicted. The prison establishment did not view the goal of the effort asmaking a profit, or becoming competitive with private industry, but saw thegoal as contributing to the rehabilitation of prisoners by improving theirskills, self-esteem. The legal climate variesnationally, with some states allowing prisoners to produce much of theirown requirements - food, clothing. Convict labor was used in NaziGermany and this was strongly condemned after the war. There are several points tothink about in looking at convict labor: Restitution - The idea of restitution is an ethically sound one thatallows for the restoration of community, right relationship, and theresponsible connection of the prisoner with his victim. 82.-84.Shuit, Douglas. In a series of articles, this topic was explored fully, withcommentators indicating that the use of convict labor represented a form ofslave labor on the part of the Chinese and was reprehensible politically.The government set forth its position clearly in several statementsincluding a 1992 Memorandum of Understanding which forbade trade inproducts of prison labor. The mostappropriate people to make restitution to crime victims are those whocommitted the crimes. Prison financing - There seems to be some ethical problem in requiringprisoners who do not have a choice in the matter, to contribute financiallyto their room and board. Los Angeles Times, Business. Essentially,Bernstein argued that Deukmejian's prison job plan was a direct threat tofree labor and did not offer much in the way of financial advantage to thestate. While unions weremore concerned with competition at the level of convict laborers in privateenterprise, the private sector was more concerned with the oppositesituation. That Proposition established thepossibility of allowing private employers to contract for employment ofinmates. This is similar to arguments made by the originalopponents of Proposition 139. BibliographyBernsetin, Aaron. Any of these would enable the prison system toteach those convicts who were interested new skills, while providing thestate with a service and the convicts with some income. The Times notedthat there were several dangers involved in allowing private employers toutilize prison laborers, including the competition that presented toregular labor. This argument was made even earlier by Harry Bernstein (1989) in anarticle in the business section of the Los Angeles Times. The fact that prisoners work for sub-minimum wages continues to be aproblem for unions, and rightly so. Hehad suggested recycling as a particularly appropriate sort of activity forconvict labor, which would also contribute to the community and to stateefforts to reduce waste. Essentially,this initiative sought to amend the state constitution in order to allowlaborers to work at private enterprise jobs. Early results seemed to be positive, not only in California, but in otherstates where prison labor was used by the private sector. Convict labor inChina has been condemned during the 199 's by a conservative, Republicannational administration. Aaron Bernsetin (1992) seems to have been one of the few commentatorswho noted that there was convict labor in the United States, too, and thatthis had its opponents within the country. Deukmejian himself earlier attemptedto repeal the constitutional ban against the private use of prisonlaborers, but the state legislature did not support this effort. (1989), Letter to the editor, Los Angeles Times, March 26, Bus., p. It would avoid theproblems of inappropriate competition with unions and other privatecompanies, and it would avoid the appearance of slave labor. As a consequence,the cost of doing business with convict labor does not really represent thewindfall that unions feared. There seemed tobe indication that what organized labor had feared was true, that companiescontracting convict labor were able to make goods at lower costs,undercutting unions and competing companies (Bernsetin, 1992). Assistant Secretary Lord indicated in 1993 thathe believed that China was still involved in this activity, despite theMemorandum, and that business people should help the government identifyviolations by China (Chinese compliance..., 1993). Jill Stewart (1986) had earlier reported on a program that releasedwomen from their prison cells for work on fire lines within the state.Although serving public enterprise, rather than private enterprise, herreview of prisoner comments seemed to indicate that they preferred theopportunity to work at something that contributed to the community, thatwas demanding and got them out of their cells. (1994). Theinitiative passed on November 6, 199 and resulted in several changes tothe state Constitution and the California legislative code. Bernstein (1989) also noted that most prisoners were not sittingaround in their cells doing nothing, as Deukmejian and others indicated.Instead, 66% were in academic or vocational training programs or involvedwith jobs such as the production of license plates, clothing, food, andmaintenance of the prisons themselves, However, he also indicated that theproblems he found with the initiative could be addressed through thecreation of an active labor-management advisory committee and a good dueprocess system. However, other statesemploy prisoners in labor that directly assists the state, such as theproduction of license plates. When convicts get competitive: Industry worriesabout successful prison workers. However, contributions in the form of foodproduction, clothing, maintenance, etc., seem appropriate. This does not, however, make it appropriate as it is soconstituted in California at the current time. This caused apopular outcry and the government demanded that China cease the practice orrisk weakening relationships with this country. 3 .Goldman, Stan. which was ambivalent about passage of Proposition 139,Harry Bernstein (1989) indicated that he, and the general population,viewed the change as possibly contributing to the rehabilitation ofconvicts, which seemed to be an increasingly important need in the state. The result, however, favored Deukmejian and his supporters. Essentially, such a program should be strictly voluntary, provideinmates with the opportunity to improve their skills and engage inmeaningful work, and contribute to the community as a whole. Again, there is a strongtheme in modern history which decries the use of convict labor by privateenterprise as representing a condition too similar to slave labor, as inNazi Germany and Communist China. Private enterprise - There seems to be essentially no justificationin allowing private enterprise to use convict labor to compete moreeffectively in domestic and foreign markets. furniture, etc. This is the traditionalwork camp labor that had previously been available only to male inmates. While convict laborersin the United States did not experience the same kind of exploitation asdid their peers in China, they did indicate that there was considerablepressure on them to perform at a high level, with lower than averageremuneration. (1991 ), U.S. Reducing drain on state funds The prison system currently is a tremendous drain on state coffers.Providing for employment for prisoners, which would allow them to pay roomand board at a minimum, would reduce the amount that taxpayers currentlyspend in housing prisoners. In an article dealing with that very issue (Factories behind bars,1991), the author noted that the effort to increase the productivity ofprisoners, and create productive, competitive, industries behind bars wasgrowing. The private sector was particularlyworried about convict labor that was directly competitive, as a publicenterprise, with private companies. The Constitutional provision forbidding prison labor hadbeen promulgated in 1879, with the intent of avoiding the sordid andexploitative practices that were current at the time. Even when workers are trained, they require more supervision andpresent more discipline problems than do free workers. These aredetailed in West's California Legislative Code. Presumably prisoners represent a captive labor force withfew, if any, bargaining rights. Vol. Improved skills and self-esteem The contention of most supporters of Initiative 139 was thatrehabilitative programs have been generally unsuccessful in reducingrecidivism and returning inmates to the general population. Providing a meansfor the convict to earn money and make some financial restitution alsoseems like a community good. When the normal reservation system wasoverloaded for TWA, Youth Authority workers would take inquiries and makereservations. There were strong feelings on both sides of the issue, and thosewill be discussed in the following pages.History of Proposition 139: The prison labor initiative, or Proposition 139, was initiallyproposed by Governor George Deukmejian, who favored its passage in order toreduce the cost to the taxpayers of housing prisoners, as well as providingprisoners with some means to increase their work skills and avoid futureincarceration. Essentially. Instead, it remains a problematic way toproduce consumer goods that must compete in any market whether domestic orforeign. Vol. Work - in itself is not always meaningful. Allowing prisoners to work would provide them withan income from which they could make restitution. Bob Gore, a spokesman for the Correctional System, noted that the TWAprogram was so successful because the young offenders found the workdesirable and also received a credit of one day's reduction in their termsfor each day that they worked for TWA (Shuit, 1989). seem to be possible tasks for which theprison system could contract. Department of State Dispatch, October 4, 1993, p. As he noted, the state would only be able to reduce the prisonbudget by approximately 1% and then only if 7, prisoners were able towork full-time year-around and earn an average of $5 an hour. 1, col.4.West's California Legislative Code. 3 pt. Yet therealways exists the fact that prisoners are being held against their willand, as a consequence, represent a coerced labor force at all times. 1.Miller, Mark. Captive labor, captive markets. Optimally, prisoners would be provided withopportunities for meaningful work that would improve their skill levels andgive them the opportunity, to restore their self-esteem. 44.Munk, Nina. 3 pt. 681 -684.Factories behind bars. There's prison labor in America, too. (199 ). (1988). In other words, private enterprise didnot support convict labor that was solely involved with public enterpriseas in a publicly-owned factory within the prison walls. Governor threatens to take prison labor issueto state voters. 4, col. (199 ). The state Constitution didallow prisoners to engage in private enterprise that would put them incompetition with either industry or labor. Arguments opposing passage: The Los Angeles Times itself favored defeat of Proposition 139 in astrongly worded editorial printed on October 15, 199 . (1989). and employability upon release.Other Similar Programs: In explaining how the prison labor initiative would work, GovernorDeukmejian referred to the California Youth Authority as offering a similarprogram that was quite successful. Work was expected to be voluntary on the part of the prisoners; theywould not be required to work, but would be allowed to work. 4, col. California Prison LaborIntroduction: The intent in this paper is to focus on the California Prison InmateLabor initiative, or Proposition 139. Although the United States considersitself quite different from these two countries in the provision of dueprocess and recognition of human rights, the situation is similar in thatall the groups involved are coerced to some degree and not truly a "free"labor force. Despite the fact that it does have a captive market and captiveworkers, the California Prison Industry Authority argued that it still hashidden costs that make it less competitive than would be anticipated. While prisoners are denied many oftheir legal rights while they are incarcerated, and some of their civilrights are abridged, there seems to be little justification for singlingthem out to receive sub-minimum wages in their jobs. According to thisargument, the focus of the initiative on the production of consumer itemsfrom domestic industries would enable manufacturers to use prison labor tobecome competitive again with foreign imports. 11, 199 . He examined the experience ofthe prisoners themselves, noting that there were both benefits anddisadvantages to their involvement in the programs. pt. In looking at all these factors, the optimum solution would seem to besome combination of internal vocational training/enterprise and workrelease to private jobs in the community under standard conditions. Rehabilitation In his article. In that program, the California YouthAuthority trained young offenders to work as back-up airline reservationclerks for Trans World Airlines. p.1. This idea was based on theassumption that it the program would teach inmates new skills and therebyimprove their self-esteem. the government, and commentators on the Chinesesituation, attacked convict labor on two major grounds: 1) that itrepresented unfair competition, because it involved a captive labor forcethat worked at less than prevailing rates and under poor conditions; and,2) that it represented an immoral exploitation of a captive population,similar to slave labor. In addition, changesin the legislative code allowed for convict labor to be paid at rates lessthan the minimum wage.Arguments Favoring Passage: There are a number of arguments which favored passage of theinitiative. In addition, prison laborers might be able toproduce things such as furniture and clothing which would also go directlyto reducing the drain on private citizens. II. Although the argumentis made that much of the appeal of convict labor is based in the fact thatit is cheaper, and captive, this has not been considered to be morallyjustified for at least the past 5 years. Workthat remained within the state system itself, such as the recycling ofpaper from offices into new products, construction of furniture, computerrepair, word processing, etc. Deukmejian made strong appeals to the population with his implicationthat the initiative would allow him to reduce the prison budgetsubstantially. Business Week. Yet, convict labor in California, at sub-minimumwages, is somehow seen as exempt from the ethical concerns that have beenapplied to foreign policy.Conclusion and Recommendations There seems to be little doubt that convict labor will continue inthis country and, given the current political climate, will probably evenbe increased. Although notdirectly designed to rehabilitate prisoners, the prison labor initiative,they contended, could be rehabilitative. February 17, pp. In a worst case scenario, theunemployed individual outside of prison might wind up preferringimprisonment with the opportunity to work and be provided with the meansfor survival than to remain free and starve. Itclearly illustrates the advantages of inmate participation in the life ofthe community, and work, rather than simple confinement.The Politics of Convict Labor: Interestingly enough, the politics of convict labor became anincreasingly absorbing subject to the State Department during the early199 s. Competitive advantage to business In a letter to the editor, dated March 26, 1989, one of the proponentsof the initiative set forth an argument favoring prison labor as providinga competitive advantage to business (Goldman, 1989). As a consequence, they wererestricted to engaging in work activities that support their own dailyliving, but cannot perform most work functions. However, it appeared that, as in China, the majorbenefit was to the companies, not to the convicts. However, individuals whoare unemployed or otherwise unoccupied often experience lower self-esteemand greater depression. The benefits to them were in obtaining some income of theirown, occupation, and improved skills, although many of these were notreadily transferable. Opponents, which included organized labor, insisted thatthe reductions would not justify the competition with free labor, and thatthere were other ways to achieve penal goals. Newsweek, August 2 , 199 . Instead, the Prison Authority was actuallycharging more for its products and losing more money than private industrycompetitors, even though its markets were guaranteed and its convictlaborers worked for sub-minimum wages (Munk, 1994). A-179.The major consequences of passage include the amendment of the stateConstitution to allow for convict labor in private enterprise, and themajor change in the legislative code mirrored that. It is, perhaps, less trainable thanthe normal and requires more training in order to produce at acceptablelevels. This wouldallow convicts to restore their bond to the community in an appropriateway, and serve rehabilitative purposes by helping them become moreemployable before leaving prison. In otherwords, the financial gains to the taxpayers under the system were not whatDeukmejian implied that they would be. They are summarized as follows: Restitution There was very little available for crime victim restitution. Thus, prison labor wouldhelp to reduce the trade deficit. The initiative included a number of important provisions. 1.Chinese compliance with MOU governing prison labor exports. Deukmejian's prison job plan is a threat to free labor. During RonaldReagan's term of office in California, he attempted to Institute prisonlabor, but was stopped by the courts. News & World Report, December 3 , p. Los Angeles Times, March 1 , 1988, p. Mark Miller (199 ) noted that the private sector itself, however, didnot necessarily favor convict labor. Forexample, many of the workers that it involves in production have lowskills, high discipline problems, little work experience, and troublededucational backgrounds, In other words, although this is a captive workforce, it is not an ideal work force. Forbes, August 29, pp. p. (1993) U.S. 42-44.Bernstein, Harry. The Bush administration reacted strongly to evidence that China wasusing prison labor to produce consumer goods for trade. (1992). Bernstein (1989) had suggested somethinglike this in his earlier article opposing passage of Proposition 139. Private enterprise could exploit prisonlabor and eliminate the need to provide good salaries and benefits to theunemployed outside of prison walls. p. However, inlooking strictly at the California Prison Industry Authority, and resultsof its production efforts, by 1994 indications were that it was notparticularly successful.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
Click here to request an essay written just for you.
|
|
|
