Posted on 06/24/2002 2:49:44 PM PDT by greydog
WASHINGTON, June 24 (UPI) -- Jobs for prison inmates with private sector or state-run employers help reduce recidivism rates and, despite claims of opponents to the contrary, can provide a spur to the economy, according to a recent report from a Washington think tank.
"I think there are several points to be made from a social policy perspective and from a prison reform perspective," Robert D. Atkinson, vice president of the center-left Progressive Policy Institute, told United Press International. "(A program of prisoners working for outside employers) has positives in reducing recidivism, and economically. (The economic aspect) is really the driving force behind the opposition to prison labor, and is an economic argument that ... doesn't hold any water." PPI is affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council.
In his recent paper, "Prison Labor: It's More than Breaking Rocks," Atkinson -- who is also the director of PPI's Project on Technology and the New Economy -- attacks the economic arguments made by labor unions and business interests who fear competition from prisoner labor because they believe that, like free trade, it displaces American workers from jobs.
In addition, Atkinson says there is clear evidence that prisoners working at outside companies can help reduce recidivism rates by providing convicts with marketable skills. The income from the work can also offset the costs of housing criminals in prisons if they are made to use their wages to pay a portion of the costs.
Industry and labor have long opposed the employment of prisoners for private sector and government production, arguing that it is unfair competition. These opponents have also been largely successful in keeping outside prison work restricted. However, this may not in fact have protected any jobs for ordinary citizens, because companies that employ federal and state inmates have sales contracts with state agencies that private competitors cannot bid against.
Under the auspices of the U.S. government's Federal Prison Industries, known as FPI, and several similar state programs -- the largest being the California Prison Industry Authority prison work program -- prisoners produce furniture and a host of other products that must, by law, be purchased by federal and state agencies. Under the typical government-run prisoner work program, only after FPI or a similar state prison work program turns away an agency's contract request, can the state or federal agency go to the open market to fulfill its needs.
In addition, labor organizations and private companies argue that some private firms employ inmate workers at salaries far below the minimum wage, providing unfair competition through reduced labor costs. Labor groups also argue that these workers do not enjoy the same protections as civilian laborers. The AFL-CIO, for one, says that this amounts to unfair competition with so-called "free labor."
According to the AFL-CIO Web site, federal and state governments should end all programs encouraging the use of prisoners for private sector work and "vigorously enforce laws and regulations designed to prevent prison work programs that unfairly compete with free labor."
The group also argues that the use of inmate labor "appears to violate International Labor Organization Convention No. 102," ratified by the United States in 1991, which "prohibits the use of forced or prison labor for economic development."
Union officials did not return calls for comment for this story.
Atkinson, however, says that arguments of unfair competition and worker displacement are based upon an inaccurate view that prisoner and civilian labor are in competition in a zero sum game, in which one side must lose if the other gains something.
He argues that growth in one area does not come at the expense of the other, because the U.S. economy is not a pie of a set size, but an elastic arena where the levels of goods and services are flexible. Because of this, he believes that the addition of prison labor can actually help the economy, because both prisoners and civilian workers would be contributing to the economy.
"The key to understanding this is to recognize that as new (inmate) workers begin producing output, existing workers are not displaced permanently," said Atkinson. "They get jobs again and produce goods and services ... In the moderate term, employing prisoners doesn't raise unemployment but adds to the overall GDP."
The economic impact of prison labor remains minimal because such workers -- currently 88,000 prisoners in state and federal institutions around the United States -- represent less than one-fiftieth of 1 percent of the civilian work force, says Atkinson. But they are also only a small portion of the approximately 2 million prison inmates in the United States who could be contributing to the economy while they are incarcerated.
Bob Lerman, director of the Labor and Social Policy Center at the left-leaning Urban Institute, told UPI that Atkinson's analysis regarding of the economic impact of prison labor is on the mark.
"We don't have a fixed amount of work to be done and this can expand our capacity," said Lerman. "Obviously, if all of the prisoners enter the work force at one time and employers make sudden shifts, there would be some dislocations, but I think if it is done gradually and begun with demonstrations going forward from there, it would be fine."
Marvin H. Kosters, director of economic policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, believes that the economic arguments of critics of outside prison work are false, and that prisoner labor can have economic as well as social benefit.
"If we have prisoner workers engaged in some kind of productive activities, this makes a contribution to the output of our society as a whole," said Kosters. "Working at something constructive can also help develop skills and work habits."
Lerman added that work experience is also an important concept for prisoners, especially given the fact that prisoner education programs have been cut back substantially in recent years. "I think that providing these people with work could be an extremely significant initiative," he said.
Timothy Lynch, director of the libertarian Cato Institute's project on criminal justice, agrees that prison labor is a worthy idea, but says that such programs often fall short of their goal of helping prisoners gain marketable skills. This is because while they often put inmates to work producing products that states or federal agencies need -- producing machine-made furniture, for example -- the work does not provide the workers with skills, such as carpentry and plumbing, that are applicable to widely available jobs. Such programs, he says, do not fulfill their primary mission.
Nevertheless, Daniel Mears, a research associate at Urban's Justice Policy Center, argues that prison laborers could serve in the labor force in blue-collar work and other jobs that traditionally go to immigrants, and for which there is a growing dearth of applicants.
"It seems moronic not to have prisoners involved in productive labor," said Mears. "These are positions for which there is a demand and which supply cannot meet. Basically, prisoners could fill a certain niche and do so without affecting non-prison labor."
A 1998 study from the University of California, Berkeley, found that state-run prison factories and farms were responsible for more than $150 million annually in direct sales to the states on a range of products ranging from silk-screened clothing to fine-ground optics. And, yes, the incarcerated workers also made state license plates. The researchers found that prisoners lined up for the chance to work at a pay scale ranging from 30 cents to 95 cents per hour.
But critics point to the tax dollars used to prop up such systems as proof that the economic impact of these programs is not what proponents make it out to be.
A 1996 investigation by the California Bureau of State Audits found that over the 13-year history of the state's Prison Industry Authority, the program had lost more than $33 million -- money that was made up with infusions from state coffers.
Atkinson agrees that the state-run programs need to be more market-friendly and that they need to be financially self-sustaining.
"The model we have advocated moving toward is not so much where the government runs these enterprises, but where they are essentially in the business of leasing prisoners," said Atkinson. "If you do that right, you ought to be able to make money, not lose money. It is the completely wrong thing to do to subsidize the process."
Atkinson also believes that steps need to be taken to address concerns that prisoners are not treated like slave labor and that they receive protection from mistreatment. He noted that the private sector workplaces for contract prison workers, for instance, are already subject to oversight from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, to protect them from injury. In order to protect those that work for public-sector companies, he advocates making their workplaces subject to OSHA inspections, and the institution of an ombudsman program in the federal prison system to deal with worker complaints.
He does, however, point out that although prisoners have rights, it is important to note that they are also incarcerated for crimes, and should not have privileges such as vacation time.
Atkinson addresses other concerns about prison labor with specific policy recommendations, including one that prison workers receive at least the minimum wage for their work. He also believes that inmate-produced products should be sold on the open market, not restricted to guaranteed purchase contracts with federal or state agencies. And he believes that the existing restrictions on the interstate transportation of goods and services produced in state prisons should be lifted, allowing such products to effectively compete in the marketplace.
In order to protect jobs, Atkinson recommends extending Trade Adjustment Assistance -- a federal program to train and help workers displaced by free trade find new jobs -- to workers displaced by prison labor.
Atkinson also recommends that in order to maximize the economic effectiveness of the federal prison labor force, all those who can work should be working.
Lynch attacked the idea of forcing prisoners to work on the grounds that it breaches their civil liberties, but agrees that an ombudsman program to address the complaints of prison workers is a good step to address abuses.
"The primary problems with these programs are the problems of captive workers and captive markets," said Lynch. "These are the things that need to be corrected. Participation should be voluntary and they (companies) should not have a legal advantage with respect to competing for federal contracts."
Lynch cited the prison labor program of the state of New Mexico as a good model of how the issue should be handled: It operates on the open market without a captive market of state agencies, and with a work force of voluntary prisoner recruits.
The political viability of Atkinson's recommendations is unclear, but efforts are under way in the House of Representatives to reform the federal prison labor program.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., has introduced a bill in the House that Atkinson sees as a starting point for reforming the system. It would require FPI to compete for its federal contracts with private firms, and make other adjustments that would allow it to contract workers to non-profit companies.
"The politics are doable," said Atkinson. "I think it is possible to pass a bill that would easily let the private sector employ federal prisoners. The real question is -- Can you get prisons and businesses to be flexible enough and entrepreneurial enough to let that happen?"
Copyright © 2002 United Press International
Or the other way around.
Whodathunkit?
You're right. It would be more fun doing it on the job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.