Prisoners to fill jobs that used to be held by unionized workers

[thir]

http://www.care2.com/causes/in-wisconsin-prison-labor-replaces-unions.html

"According to the Madison Capital Times, part of Gov. Walker’s bill strips unions of the right to claim certain work as a “union only” job. As a result inmates have been able to step in and fill what used to be good-wage jobs not for pay, but for time off of their sentences."


"Racine County took advantage of this measure almost immediately, using inmates for landscaping, painting, and other basic maintenance around the county that had previously been done by county workers. Just last year the union had successfully sued to prevent the county from using prison labor in lieu of unionized county workers, but under Walker’s law the union no longer has the right to challenge the move."


Is this a good idea?:confused:

[Thorne]

As long as they're doing jobs for the county, or city, or state, or whatever, I don't see a problem with it. Taxpayers are already paying to keep the prisoners in jail. Why not get some benefit from them? And if it's a voluntary program, and the prisoners can accrue good-behavior time along with it, then everybody wins.

Using them to do work for private contractors, on the other hand, is a problem. Too much room for fraud and graft.

[js207]

I'm with Thorne on that - and the idea of "union-only jobs" strikes me as entirely wrong, not to mention illegal in a lot of jurisdictions these days! (Completely prohibited in the UK and Australia, as well as 22 States, Guam and the federal government.)

Certainly not a development I'd object to. I read earlier this week that another side-effect of the new law is that the union-affiliated insurance company has stopped ripping teachers off: since the new law ended their monopoly, they've had to cut premiums down to a competitive level at last.

[Cold Harbor]

@js207. Which also means the insurance companies aren't ripping tax payers off, who pay the teacher salaries.

As someone who works with unions in both the US and Canada, I can tell you that this is not a bad thing. We pay our union employees very well, provide more than competitive benefits. I realize not all companies can do that with their unions during these difficult times. I have found our employees for the most part to be very reasonable, open minded, and aware of the importance of a strong, healthy company. If the company isn't making good money for its shareholders/owners, then there won't be more money available to support raising wages and maintaining benefits, no matter how much the employee believes he/she "deserves it" or is "entitled" to it.

I can't say the same for the union leadership though, which seems to have little regard for the local union members or local operations. I sincerely don't believe unions have their members' well being at heart. They continue to demand contracts that simply aren't reflective of current economic conditions. Their argument: We believe its what we deserve.

For too long public sector unions have been able to operate on the concept of "Its what we deserve" without any concept of market competition. And now their their "businesses" are faced with very real issues in the form of budget shortfalls, rising costs, and customers (ie taxpayers) who no longer want to pay the current price for services let alone absorb increased prices (eg increased taxes), these businesses are having to make unpleasant but realistic and understandable decisions. Smart unions will come to the table and work with their local and state governments to make cuts that preserve jobs. Other unions (eg not smart unions) will continue to demand that their members not have to participate in the process of resetting the country so that we can once again grow. These unions will experience the same thing that has occured in Wisconsin. Governments will stand up and curtail union power, hold or reduce pay/benefits, shift work elsewhere, and take even more drastic steps to meet their budget limits.

Just ask yourself. If times got tight for you, would you pay the kid down the street $20 to mow your lawn or would you pay the kid next door $15 to do the same work, knowing that the market price for lawn service is somewhere around $15? Do you really care about providing jobs for kids in the neighborhood? Not really. You want your lawn taken care of at a realistic price. And with the five dollars you save each time you can turn around and purchase other items in the community, which in turn saves or grows jobs. If the kid down the street sticks with his $20 price, he may get jobs, but only if the work he does is 33% better than what the going market is pricing. Odds are though, it isn't. Bottom line, just because he was mowing your lawn doesn't mean he's entitled to continue mowing your lawn.

[thir]

As long as they're doing jobs for the county, or city, or state, or whatever, I don't see a problem with it. Taxpayers are already paying to keep the prisoners in jail. Why not get some benefit from them? And if it's a voluntary program, and the prisoners can accrue good-behavior time along with it, then everybody wins.


Tax payers do not get anything, the private firms do, and the convicts earn time off their sentence. Ordinary people loose jobs.



Using them to do work for private contractors, on the other hand, is a problem. Too much room for fraud and graft.

I believe that is the idea.

[IAN 2411]

I can understand this if the convicts are coming to the end of their sentence, it would be useful bridge in rehabilitation. However if these prisoners are mid sentence....its a bad idea. I very much doubt if ordinary workers would miss out as the jobs are most probably available because no one will do them.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

Tax payers do not get anything, the private firms do, and the convicts earn time off their sentence. Ordinary people loose jobs.
From the OP I got the impression that the prisoners were doing jobs which had formerly been done by county employees, doing county maintenance, not by workers in a private company. Granted, some county workers will probably lose their jobs, but that's almost a foregone conclusion anyway, with governments at every level having to cut back due to falling revenues. At least this way the necessary maintenance gets done.

I've worked in jobs which required union membership, and I've worked in jobs without unions. I much prefer the latter. In my experience, the only people the union leadership was interested in protecting were those who didn't want to actually do any work. Those of us who did our fair share, and then some, were threatened by the union for doing too much! While I realize that the unions have, or did have, their uses, making it mandatory to join in order to work is just plain wrong! If they want members they should be forced to compete, just like any other business.

[Thorne]

I can understand this if the convicts are coming to the end of their sentence, it would be useful bridge in rehabilitation. However if these prisoners are mid sentence....its a bad idea.
Why? Of course, it would depend on the criminals. You wouldn't want a convicted murderer, or a three-time violent felon to be out there, but some guy doing a year for smoking pot, or a DUI conviction, wouldn't be a likely threat to escape, and the benefits of having time trimmed off their sentence and/or extra privileges in the prison, would be a great incentive.


I very much doubt if ordinary workers would miss out as the jobs are most probably available because no one will do them.
I think these jobs would have been in demand, if only because of the job security, at least before the anti-union laws were passed. I'd be surprised if there weren't people lined up waiting for an opening.

[denuseri]

http://www.care2.com/causes/in-wisconsin-prison-labor-replaces-unions.html

"According to the Madison Capital Times, part of Gov. Walker’s bill strips unions of the right to claim certain work as a “union only” job. As a result inmates have been able to step in and fill what used to be good-wage jobs not for pay, but for time off of their sentences."


"Racine County took advantage of this measure almost immediately, using inmates for landscaping, painting, and other basic maintenance around the county that had previously been done by county workers. Just last year the union had successfully sued to prevent the county from using prison labor in lieu of unionized county workers, but under Walker’s law the union no longer has the right to challenge the move."


Is this a good idea?:confused:

IMHO...no.

It opens the door for exactly what Orwell and others fear. Next stop classrooms, and skilled trades, prisoners on work release to construction companies and being bought (like slaves) for use in greedy corporate industries as a way to under cut yet again the working man and woman and force us to feed their profit margin.

[MMI]

I wonder what middle-class Orwell would have thought. He was, after all, a man of contradiction. Despite being an Etonian, an "intellectual socialist" and a Marxist, he had served with the Indian Police as the British Raj fell into decline. He was an advocate of the common man, and fought in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the Republicans (a necessary commitment to socialism for British left wing intellectuals in the 30's). He did not, however, support Stalinist Russia or its methods.

I believe Orwell would have disapproved of enslaving prisoners for a number of reasons, two of which den alludes to: enslavement is an affront to the dignity of any human being, and an indictment of any society that practices it; and the leaders of capitalism would rather use the cheaper prison labour than pay law-abiding workers an honest day's wage, thereby distorting the economy.

I'm not sure I approve of "union-only" jobs: non-union workers are surely just as entitled to work as people who pay union dues, but I strongly disapprove of a law purporting to give workers fair access to work being used to provide cheap labour at everyone else's expense. To me, that's corrupt.

Orwell despised corruption.

[MMI]

If [unions] want members they should be forced to compete, just like any other business.

Except unions are not businesses. They are (or were) combinations of workers who united to protect their common interests against oppressive employers and governments.

Competition is anathema to them.

[Thorne]

I believe Orwell would have disapproved of enslaving prisoners for a number of reasons
But we aren't talking about slave labor here. We're talking about voluntary work on government properties while earning "points" towards early release, and/or special privileges. Basically, the government (whichever entity is running the prison) provides unskilled labor from a pool of prisoners who want to make their lives better, while saving the cost of over-payed union labor to do unskilled jobs. The necessary work on maintaining infrastructure gets done without soaking the taxpayers.

[Thorne]

Except unions are not businesses. They are (or were) combinations of workers who united to protect their common interests against oppressive employers and governments.

Competition is anathema to them.
The operative word here is "were". Many unions have become little more than monopolies, paying huge sums of members' money to politicians in order to insure that real business cannot carry on without their approval. Not to protect the workers, except as an afterthought, but to protect the incomes of the union leaders. The devastation of Detroit, the disappearance of the US steel industry, the transfer of jobs overseas, and many other business collapses can all be laid, directly or indirectly, at the feet of the unions.

[denuseri]

As if it wasn't the corporations themselves who removed the industry from those regions to begin with so they could line their pockets better by not having to pay the workers in them a fair wage and instead go overseas where they get the labor for pennies on the dollar?

I agree with you MMI, corruption and unchecked greed are the real problem. Orwell didn't support the Soviets because they weren't following communism in the manner in which Marx presented it.

[Cold Harbor]

As if it wasn't the corporations themselves who removed the industry from those regions to begin with so they could line their pockets better by not having to pay the workers in them a fair wage and instead go overseas where they get the labor for pennies on the dollar?

I agree with you MMI, corruption and unchecked greed are the real problem. Orwell didn't support the Soviets because they weren't following communism in the manner in which Marx presented it.

I've never worked for a union company that didn't want to pay its employees a fair wage or provide competitive benefits. Any company that doesn't want to pay fair market wages eventually isn't going to be around very long. I've seen those types of companies too. But Thorne is right; unions don't really serve the needs of their members. Their focus is entirely on continuing their existence. Which means perpetuating conflict with management and, as in the case of Detroit, driving up the cost of labor to unsustainable levels. IMHO, if unions truly were beneficial to their members, they would be willing to have a vote held every year. If the employees feel benefited by their union, protected from evil money-grubbing management (so tired of that personification), then every year they'll continue to vote in their union. But if they feel like they aren't getting jack squat, which my company employees honestly don't get for their union dues, they they'll vote them out. I think you'd see union rolls drop in this country by at least 25%.

The issue in this case is more complex. I'm not a fan of government workers where they aren't necessary. I think private companies should be contracted whenever and where ever possible (union and non-union). The use of prisoners does bother me. But these are difficult times for the state of Wisconsin. If the prisoners are volunteering and they are earning something of value for their efforts, and the work on non-skilled, I don't see much harm. If the state tries to continue the process after the economy has recovered, I would have a problem with that. Just as I would have a problem with the state being obligated to hire MORE union workers to overpay because the state unions felt it was "their work". The work goes to who ever can do it the best at the best price. That has never been a halmark of union philosophy.

[Cold Harbor]

To clarify, I've never worked for a non-union company that didn't pay fair market for the service of its employees. And I completely respect your opinions and perspective Denuseri.

[js207]

Except unions are not businesses. They are (or were) combinations of workers who united to protect their common interests against oppressive employers and governments.

Competition is anathema to them.

Just as it is to Microsoft, the IBM of old, Standard Oil ... that doesn't mean it's in anyone else's interests to protect them from competition!

If I have the right to work in a place, and have the right to join a union if I wish, why should I not have the right to join a union which represents my interests better than the one other people there have joined? As in the Wisconsin case, where the teachers' union was hooked up with a health insurance provider charging excessive amounts for coverage (not directly harming the members, because it was the taxpayer getting ripped off), there will come cases where the union's interests conflict with the members' - the ability to switch to a more honest union seems a very useful safeguard there.

As for not being businesses, when they charge people money for a service, fight to keep their customers and sometimes pay their management well into six figures, where is the difference really? That they channel their profits into political activities and/or their senior staff rather than investing it or returning it to investors? That's exactly the basis a lot of small businesses operate on!

[thir]

From the OP I got the impression that the prisoners were doing jobs which had formerly been done by county employees, doing county maintenance, not by workers in a private company. Granted, some county workers will probably lose their jobs, but that's almost a foregone conclusion anyway, with governments at every level having to cut back due to falling revenues. At least this way the necessary maintenance gets done.


To me the point is that regular jobs disappear. I also wonder how voluntary it really is.
In DK someone got the brilliant idea to make people work for their unemployment money - in real jobs. The result was of course that the number of real jobs went down drastically, and people got locked in unemployment, working for very little money.
This sounds like something of the same rather too 'smart' thinking - get them for nothing, and real work vanishes. If it is a real job, pay real money for it. That is our system - we cannot just go out and gather and hunt for a living!



I've worked in jobs which required union membership, and I've worked in jobs without unions. I much prefer the latter. In my experience, the only people the union leadership was interested in protecting were those who didn't want to actually do any work. Those of us who did our fair share, and then some, were threatened by the union for doing too much! While I realize that the unions have, or did have, their uses, making it mandatory to join in order to work is just plain wrong! If they want members they should be forced to compete, just like any other business.

Agreed.
But jobs should be kept with a real wage, not this sham.

[thir]

To clarify, I've never worked for a non-union company that didn't pay fair market for the service of its employees. And I completely respect your opinions and perspective Denuseri.

Well they do exist! And I wonder how many more if the historical facts of the unions had not been there - there was certainly enough violence around these things.

That said, it is true that the unions seems to be fossilised these days, and they could do with a thorough reform!
But I'd hate to see what would happen - all too soon - without them.