PROPOSED CHANGES


Proposed Structure of Needed Reforms: 


            First, federal and state statutes prohibiting the manufacturing, purchase, sale and shipment of prison-made goods should be repealed.  Prison-made goods should be allowed to move in interstate commerce to the same extent as any other product, without special labeling requirements. The states, through federal preemptive legislation or otherwise, should eliminate their restrictions on prison industries and prison labor. 

            Second, complete freedom of contract should prevail between prison employers, prisoners, and federal and state correctional institutions.  Prisoners and private businesses would negotiate on a laissez-faire basis.  Federal and state governments should encourage contracts between private business and prisoners regarding negotiated wages, hours and conditions of employment.  Prison industries could be established within space rented from the prison or in separate secure facilities.  Prisons or prisoners might provide entire crews to businesses.  Prison industries could be established within space rented from the prison or in separate secure facilities.  Transportation, food, clothing and shelter might all be addressed in contracts if industries chose to employ workers outside existing prison walls.  Involuntary convict leasing has a tragic record and should be avoided.  

            Third, substantial immunity from lawsuits should be provided to prison industries to prevent burdensome litigation under federal and state employment-related statutes.[1]  Employment laws, wage and hour legislation, insurance and restrictions protecting law-abiding workers should exempt prison labor and industries, with the exception of OSHA and scaled-back workers’ compensation for permanent injury.  The creation of a laissez-faire employment regime would bypass the massive layer cake of employment laws that make American labor substantially more expensive than unprotected labor in foreign countries.

            Fourth, subject to their contracts, private businesses would have the unfettered right to return offending workers to the general prison population.  Prisoners could voluntarily return to the general prison population in the event private employers did not provide a better working or living environment.  Protection should be granted to employers to facilitate labor markets in which the prisoners could be sent back to the general prison population at any time and prisoners could voluntarily elect that same return in the event private employers did not provide a better environment than the general prison population. These actions would be subject to whatever contracts the employers and prisoners made prior to the commencement of employment. 

            Fifth, money earned by prisoners would be put into a trust account, pending good behavior and subject to claims for child support, victim restitution, court costs, fines and their own room and board in prison.  Misbehavior by prisoners under contracts might be forfeited after escape attempts, violence, theft or other violation of agreed rules.  Prisoners would undoubtedly behave to assure their continued employment (and sometimes residence) in these better secure environments.  Employers could enforce discipline and rules with the more powerful discretion allowed to laissez-faire employers.  Prisoners would then have an investment in their own good behavior, learn pro-social skills and develop healthy work habits.

            Sixth, state and federal governments would provide administrative and judicial oversight of prison labor and industries, to assure prisoners received their agreed compensation upon release and were not abused.  U.S. Magistrate Judges already serve the function of deciding lawsuits filed by prisoners.

            Seventh, a common concern of those who are suspicious of business is that, like in the convict leasing age, the legal system will provide cheap labor by finding more criminals guilty and increasing the length of prison sentences. This legitimate concern is based in the evidence that criminal convictions fed the need for low-cost labor after the Civil War and even up to the Second World War.[2] Therefore, the opening up of vibrant prison industries ought to include an increase in alternative sentences such as judicial corporal punishment, drug treatment, community service, parole, probation and other punishments short of incarceration. The revitalization of prison industries does not depend upon increasing the 2.26 million prisoners now behind bars. The reduction of the American prison population and the freeing of prison labor could proceed simultaneously. Incarceration is not a vital feature of our republic.  Incarceration as we now know it did not exist when the U.S. Constitution was written.  In fact, the Declaration of Independence re-directed the most successful form of British punishment, transportation, away from the Thirteen Colonies and towards Australia.

            Eighth, to address the stiff unfair competition posed by prison industries and labor to free businesses and labor, prison industries might be limited to manufacturing goods now exclusively made overseas.  Additional accommodations could include allowing competing employers equal access to prison labor or a requirement that prison labor support existing jobs in the free sector.  Union shops, for example, might be supported if their prison industry suppliers sold goods and components to them at lower prices.  With the diversification of the world economy and production methods, competition with American labor and businesses outside prison will not likely be as great as many perceive and can be minimized.
 
by John Dewar Gleissner



[1] See, Vanskike v. Peters, 974 F.2d 806 (7th Cir. 1992) (prisoner performing janitorial, kitchen helper and similar duties directly for Department of Corrections not entitled to minimum wage under Fair Labor Standards Act; different results in other cases); Noah D. Zatz, “Working at the Boundaries of Markets: Prison Labor and the Economic Dimension of Employment Relationships,” 61 Vand. L. Rev. 857 (April 2008) (complexity of potential claims discussed).
[2] Douglas A. Blackmon, Slavery By Another Name – The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II (2008).

Popular posts from this blog

Who is Biased Against Prison and Sentencing Reform?

HOW TO CREATE AMERICAN MANUFACTURING JOBS