Menzo
9193
On the contrary, it’s more like step 1000 down that really shitty path.
Well, there are still plenty of workers still out there at low wages. They’re just now employed by foreign competition. That makes for another alternative to raising wages or using prisoner labour.
It’s going to get interesting to see how that plays out, but I’m still not convinced it’s going to benefit most of the UK population, and especially not the worst off.
The problem with this logic is that it’s somewhat circular. You’re essentially saying prisoner labour will always be abusive for the simple fact that more can always be offered to achieve perfect market rate equilibrium to secure a worker instead of a prisoner. The problem with that is it begs the question as to why anyone would ever hire a prisoner in this scenario. They’d cost the same so where’s the incentive in assuming the perceived extra risk?
So; I just feel that all you’d end up doing here is locking out every prisoner from the job market until such a time as unemployment hits 0% (unrealistic?). I don’t think that’s a particularly good outcome.
Outside of this logical loop I feel the only case to be made is whether the salary given to prisoners is abusive in the sense of it being ‘unliveable’ rather than merely below market rates. Further up it was mentioned that there is a floor here, that being minimum wage, and while I’m of the opinion that minimum wage can and should be higher that’s a separate issue entirely. Plus having been there myself (minimum wage, not gaol!) I honestly don’t think I’d quite qualify it as ‘unliveable’, either.
Yes, if the scheme allows prison labor to be used to circumvent the need to pay workers the market rate, it’s abusive. Just as a scheme that allows for temporary migrant workers paid below what would otherwise be the market rate is abusive. “I would like a pool of disadvantaged cheap labor with no ability to bargain for their labor” is an abusive proposal, and I don’t see anything controversial or obviously wrong with saying that.
Once you decide that a particular captive audience can be employed and paid less than free workers, because they don’t have market bargaining power and are a captive audience, then the difference between that and slavery is basically about how cheap you can get them.
Saying that the only reason businesses hire prisoners is to get cheap labor doesn’t really rebut that argument. And it can’t be the case that, on the one hand, the prisoners who get to work are model prisoners and, on the other, that they’re a dangerous risk to employ.
Anecdata: I have a friend who just got out of federal prison after a 10 year stint.
He was/is a highly skilled tradesman, having grown up in a family of masons and builders.
Inside, he was offered work doing maintenance on the prison boilers and water systems.
He started out at 14 cents per hour. Eventually, the highest he was ever paid–for overtime weekend work–was 60 cents per hour. And that was rare, usually it was 40 cents tops.
This must be US, right? Up above there somewhere ☝️ it was pointed out that UK law requires much better than that — they have to be paid what the going rate for the job is, and at least the minimum wage, I think. Which is certainly better than the US. But the problem there is that the going rate for the job is a rate at which no free person wants to do the job.
I assume the UK doesn’t have Federal prisons, but who knows, they also drive on the wrong side. :D
Yes, he was in California most of the time.
@scottagibson I think you’re really glossing over the fact that despite being captives they’re not actually a captive audience in particulars of this scenario. They have a choice and therefore absolutely can ‘bargain for their labour’. They are not forced to work and this isn’t a ‘freedom to starve’ scenario if they don’t, either. If it’s truly as abusive as you say, I wouldn’t expect them to do it, and I don’t see any obvious punishment in them exercising that option.
Firstly, people don’t have to be dangerous to pose a business risk. One of the risks they pose derives purely from the fact that some would certainly like to shut this scheme down and then suddenly the business has lost employees they’ve invested in with no power to get them back. Consequently, compared against a non-offender I see no logical contradiction in saying even a ‘model’ prisoner carries additional risk. Also, do you really consider prison life to be as stable as home life?
I’m going to nitpick and point out that ‘no free person’ is simply not a true statement. ‘Not enough free people’ is the actuality. ‘Free people’ do work these jobs for the wages offered. It’s a small distinction, but an important one.
Mostly this just seems like a “grr, capitalism” argument and, y’know, cool, I get what you’re saying, but this approach does seem to be actively improving the lives of ex-offenders and lowering the chances of reoffence. It’s not perfect, but what is.
I just want to say, great discussion between Scott and Fox. Interesting perspectives, and I’m learning a lot too.
So my nitpick is that I don’t think that’s a reasonable nitpick. If there are unfilled jobs at that wage, then for each of those unfilled jobs, no free person wants to do that at that wage. It’s a statement about the unfilled jobs, not the filled ones.
Similarly, I understand you think the program has value and, properly regulated, I don’t necessarily disagree. As I said before, my complaint, way way way up there somewhere, was the industry in question saying that they must have access to more day release workers. They are demanding that the program be expanded rather than, well, raise wages to the point where workers are attracted to those jobs. And while they’re doing this they’re claiming that they’re ‘“leaving no stone unturned” to find workers’. I can think of one stone they haven’t overturned!
CraigM
9204
It’s almost as if 40 years of economic policy though has eroded the ability for jobs to offer higher wages so that any suggestion of doing so now feels unnatural!
jpinard
9205
That’s just insulting and wrong. Why bother paying at that rate?
KevinC
9206
Because then it would be slavery! 14 cents makes it perfectly ethical.
It’s voluntary, so must be desirable. Quant suff!
Speaking of which:
All that bacon going to waste.
KevinC
9209
Sounds like y’all could use a larger prison population. Up your drug war game, those are rookie numbers!
When offered a forced choice between two things, the merits of the final selection are based only in relation to the other option; X being better than Y doesn’t mean X is individually good or worthwhile. That’s the decision prisoners are provided. It’s not at all surprising many if not most would choose to do labor for a pittance than be stuck in jail the whole time.
If it’s an issue of a company lacking the workers to support it, the company should adapt its ways or die. If the wages being offered aren’t enticing enough to staff at a sufficient level, the profit margins are artificially high. Such artificial profits shouldn’t be maintained by prison labor because the prisoners have a decided lack of real options; work an underpaid job or don’t.
Menzo
9211
Yep, talk about perverse incentives. Hey UK! Want an endless supply of ultra-cheap labor that can’t complain or quit? Start arresting all your undesirables like we do here in the US!
It’s actually worse than that. In many states (mostly in the South, imagine that) prisoners are paid exactly zero for the time they work. And in many cases, the rates cited above are before deductions – prisoners often have their wages docked to pay outstanding court fees or against what they owe their victims in fines.
The other side of the argument is that a prison job is often touted as a benefit to the prisoner, no matter how menial. It is an activity that allows them to have something - anything - to do during the day and make their time go faster. Doing maintenance work on a prison boiler for half a buck an hour may sound terrible… but I imagine it would be heaven compared with starting at the ceiling all day long in a tiny cell.
