Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Should be Concerned
by Bob Sloan
From the late 19th century into the depression years, Americans struggled economically.
For the man and woman on the street to the businesses, companies and manufacturers vainly
trying to keep their enterprises afloat, those were difficult times. States strained to overcome the
desperate financial situation which held citizens captive as a result of few jobs and even less
income or money available for business capital.
To partially overcome the public’s lack of – and need for – everyday household,
agricultural and other necessary items, many states began allowing their prison systems to put
prisoners to work producing products for consumers. Many of those goods were distributed
outside the state of manufacture and began to compete with private sector companies, which
were already having difficultly finding markets for their products in the slow economy.
In 1924, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, held a conference on the
“ruinous and unfair competition between prison-made products and free industry and labor” (70
Cong. Rec. S656 (1928)). As a result of that conference, an advisory committee was formed to
study the issue. The need for such a committee was in response to complaints from private sector
businesses alleging unfair competition from more and more prison-made products finding their
way to the marketplace. In 1928, the committee issued its report to Congress.
The eventual legislative response to the committee’s report led to some very important
federal laws regulating the manufacture, sale and distribution of prison-made products. Congress
enacted the Hawes-Cooper Act in 1929, the Ashurst-Sumners Act in 1935 (now known as 18
U.S.C. § 1761(a)), and the Walsh-Healey Act in 1936. Walsh controlled the production of
prison-made goods while Ashurst prohibited distribution of prison-made products in interstate
transportation or commerce. Both statutes authorized federal criminal prosecutions for violations
of state laws enacted pursuant to the Hawes-Cooper Act.
The pertinent language of these laws, as amended, now provides:
Thus, for several decades to come, the manufacture of prisoner-made products for public
or private sale and distribution was prohibited. Certain prison industry products were exempted
by statute from the Ashurst-Sumners Act, including “agricultural commodities or parts for the
repair of farm machinery.”
Codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1761, the Prison Industries Enhancement Certification Program
(PIECP, or “PIE” as it is commonly called) was implemented in 1979. PIECP relaxed the
restrictions imposed under the Ashurst-Sumners and Walsh-Healey Acts, and allowed for the
manufacture, sale and distribution of prisoner-made products across state lines. However, PIECP
limited participation in the program to 38 jurisdictions (later increased to 50), and required each
to apply to the U.S. Department of Justice for certification.
PIECP includes mandatory requirements that must be met prior to receiving certification
to participate in prison industry programs. Eligible jurisdictions that apply to take part in PIECP
must meet all nine of the following criteria:
1. Legislative authority to involve the private sector in the production and sale of prison-
made goods, and administrative authority to ensure that mandatory program criteria will be met
through internal policies and procedures.
2. Legislative authority to pay wages at a rate not less than that paid for similar work in
the same locality’s private sector (termed “prevailing wages”).
3. Written assurances that the PIECP program will not result in the displacement of free-
world workers already employed before the program is implemented.
4. Authority to provide worker benefits, including workers’ compensation or its
equivalent.
5. Legislative or administrative authority to take deductions not to exceed 80 percent of
prisoners’ gross wages for room and board; federal, state and local taxes; allocations for family
support pursuant to state statute, court order or agreement of the offender; and contributions of
not more than 20 percent but not less than 5 percent of gross wages to any fund established by
law to compensate victims of crime.
6. Written assurances that participation by prisoner workers will be voluntary.
7. Written proof of consultation with related organized labor groups before startup of the
PIECP program.
8. Written proof of consultation with related local private industry before startup of the
PIECP program.
9. Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and related federal
environmental review requirements.
Virtually all of the mandatory requirements for PIECP programs are being ignored or
openly violated nationwide. One example involves circumventing the requirement that prisoners
be paid prevailing wages, through the use of training periods.
Of the 32 jurisdictions currently operating PIE programs, most have reduced “prevailing
wages” for incarcerated workers to the state or federal minimum wage. In Florida, for example,
Prison Rehabilitative Industries and Diversified Enterprises (PRIDE) uses a “training program”
to limit the wages paid to PIECP workers.
PRIDE requires prisoners to complete a 480-hour training course (Level I), which pays
the Florida minimum wage. Following this training period, the prisoner advances – with small
wage increases – through three more levels until reaching Level IV after two years, where he or
she “has the potential of making the prevailing wage.” At any time during the four-tiered training
program the prisoner can be moved to another position to begin training on different equipment,
further extending the training period and keeping wages depressed.
This practice allows PRIDE, and other prison industries that follow a similar practice, to
use prisoners to manufacture goods at reduced pay for years before they qualify to receive the
prevailing wages to which they are entitled for their labor.
PIECP participants are required to consult with local unions or labor groups prior to
starting a prison industry program, to determine if the program will interfere with free-world
employment. PRIDE and other prison industries routinely fail to comply with this requirement;
instead, they sometimes advertise their intent to start or operate prison industry programs in
classified ads in local newspapers.
The requirement to consult with competing private sector businesses is handled in a
similar manner. PRIDE notifies the local Chamber of Commerce instead of contacting local
competing businesses to get them to sign off on prison industry programs. This puts the
responsibility for such contacts and obtaining authorization on the Chamber of Commerce
instead of on the prison industry, where it belongs.
PIECP requires any business that partners with a prison industry to maintain its free-
world operations in addition to the prison-based program. This is to ensure that employees of the
private sector PIECP partner are not replaced by prison labor. The employers/partners are also
required to maintain benefits and wages for non-prisoner workers at the same level as before
their participation in the prison industry program. In several cases, however, companies have
violated this provision without being sanctioned.
The requirements for private sector PIECP partners to contact or notify labor unions and
competitors and to maintain their non-prison operations are important issues, as demonstrated by
the 2008 closure of Lufkin Industries’ trailer division in Lufkin, Texas and the loss of 150 free-
world jobs in Austin, Texas due to prison industry programs, among several other examples.
From 2002 to 2005, PRIDE operated a food processing industry program (Union Foods)
at the Union Correctional Institution in Raiford, Florida. PRIDE partnered with ATL Industries,
an Atlanta company. ATL eventually accused PRIDE of improper accounting during a financial
dispute; PRIDE countered that ATL owed the agency money, seized all proprietary technology,
equipment and products owned by the company, and forced ATL off prison property. The son-
in-law of PRIDE’s president then formed two separate companies (Century Meats and Circle A
Brands) which took the place of ATL in the prison industry program, using ATL’s equipment
and customer contacts. PRIDE and ATL counter-sued each other, and the cases are still pending.
See: ATL Industries v. PRIDE, Pinellas County Circuit Court (FL), Case Nos. 05-000696-CI-07
and 05-000797-CI-15.
It was later discovered that PRIDE had performed the same kind of takeover of three
other private sector businesses through PIECP partnerships prior to taking over ATL. In each
case the agency assumed control over joint venture prison industry programs and put the former
partners out of business. The other companies that were taken over by PRIDE included Custom
Converter Sales, Value Line Converters and Fresh Nectars, Inc. PRIDE attempted a similar
takeover of a fourth partner, Man-Trans, LLC, but the agency reportedly settled with the
company and returned its equipment as part of a settlement agreement.
The Florida Attorney General’s office held that several spin-off companies created by
PRIDE, and owned or operated by PRIDE executives or board members, were in violation of
state law. One of those companies, Industries Training Corp. (ITC), which ran PRIDES’ office
and administrative operations, received millions of dollars in loans from the agency. In 2004,
PRIDE CEO Pamela Jo Davis and president John Bruels were asked to resign, and PRIDE was
told to sever its ties with the spin-off companies. Davis also served as president of ITC, which
among other businesses owned Northern Outfitters, a company that manufactures extreme-
weather clothing using prison labor in Utah.
Prison industry programs often hire prisoners serving life or other long-term sentences.
This disregards the fact that PIECP is intended to be a “vocational training program” for the
purpose of training offenders and making them more employable upon their release. Providing
job training to prisoners who have no or little opportunity for parole or release denies such
training to other prisoners who will be released and can use the job skills they learn.
Another important and serious aspect of using lifers in PIECP or other prison industry
programs is the access they have to dangerous tools and materials. Putting offenders with the
least to lose in close proximity to saws, knives and other items that could be used as weapons
places other prisoners and staff at risk.
This was dramatically demonstrated in Florida on June 25, 2008, when a PRIDE prison
industry worker attacked and killed Donna Fitzgerald, 50, a guard at the Tomoka Correctional
Institution. The weapon used was a “shank” made from sheet metal by prisoner Enoch Hall, who
stabbed Fitzgerald 25 times. He has since been charged with first-degree murder. [See: PLN,
Nov. 2008, p.50].
An investigation revealed that Hall, who worked as a welder in a PRIDE program, was
already serving two life sentences. He had received at least four disciplinary reports for problem
behavior prior to Fitzgerald’s murder, but PRIDE pressured the institution to keep him on the job
because the agency needed welders. A report by the Critical Incident Response Team found that
the prison classification panel that placed prisoners in job positions had been “inappropriately
influenced by PRIDE and their production priorities” in retaining Hall as a PRIDE worker.
Prison industry programs have a motivation to employ prisoners with life sentences or
other lengthy prison terms, because keeping such prisoners in the same job for years results in
quicker production by experienced workers, and thus more profit. However, as demonstrated by
Fitzgerald’s death, this practice is also dangerous. According to Florida law, 40 percent of
prisoners who work in PRIDE programs must be serving sentences of at least ten years.
“(A) Deductions from gross wages, if made, may be withheld only for the
following authorized purposes:
“(1) taxes (federal, state, local); (2) in the case of a state prisoner,
reasonable charges for room and board as determined by regulations issued by the
Chief State Correctional Officer; (3) allocations for support of family pursuant to
state statute, court order, or agreement by the offender; and (4) contributions of not
more than 20 percent, but not less than 5 percent of gross wages to any fund
established by law to compensate the victims of crime.”
The BJA says that it maintains jurisdiction and authority over wage deductions to ensure
that participating prison industries use the deductions for the purposes stated in the guidelines. In
the case of room and board deductions, the funds withheld from prisoners’ wages are intended to
offset taxpayer expenditures for the cost of incarceration.
PRIDE decided to take allowable deductions from the wages of incarcerated workers in
PIE industry programs. However, the agency diverted more than $3 million in “room and board”
deductions to offset PIECP operations and program costs – not to reimburse the state or the
Florida Department of Corrections for costs of incarceration.
A similar situation was recently reported in Iowa, involving wages for prisoners in a
private sector industry program at the North Central Correctional Facility in Rockwell City.
According to a November 7, 2009 news report, “Inmates were paid less than people in similar
jobs who are from outside the correctional institution.” The industry program involved work at
local grain elevators.
Non-prison workers received $10.00 per hour for their labor. However, prisoners who
performed similar job duties were paid $6.15 an hour. The $3.85 wage difference was due to an
“up-front deduction” for transportation, supervision costs and work-related materials such as
work clothes. This was permissible according to North Central Correctional Facility Warden Jim
McKinney, who said the problem was one of “misinterpretation, or difference of interpretation.”
A report by the state auditor found that the wage deductions were not being placed in the state’s
general fund as required by law.
Although PIECP workers are supposed to receive prevailing wages for work comparable
to that of free-world employees, this is rarely the case. In fact, the BJA determined in 2006 that
wages for prisoners in PIECP programs “must be set at or above the 10th percentile as defined
by the State Department of Economic Security agency.” The 10th percentile is the point at which
10% of workers earned below that amount and 90% earned more. In other words, starting wages
for prisoners in PIE programs begin at an amount earned by the lowest-paid 10% of comparable
free-world employees, but not less than minimum wage.
Further, prisoners who participate in PIE programs are only entitled to receive minimum
or prevailing wages if they are engaged in production work. In some cases, PIECP programs
have classified prison industry jobs as “service” rather than production positions, which means
minimum wage is not required. For example, a PIE program at the South Central Correctional
Facility in Tennessee made T-shirts for Taco Bell among other customers. Prisoners who printed
the T-shirts received minimum wage while those who packaged the shirts for shipping – labor
classified as service rather than production work – were paid $.50 per hour.
According to an October 2008 NCIA report on PIECP compliance assessments, “wages
were the single most difficult requirement for PIECP Certificate Holders to implement.” The
report noted that six of the 28 jurisdictions assessed had “wage issues of some kind,” though that
was “considerably less than in the previous assessment cycle.” Most of those problems were
considered significant; three were “serious enough to involve the potential payment of back
wages.”
The report stated that “PIECP managers tend to try to hold wages at or near the minimum
wage, sometimes for very long periods of time. They argue that their ability to attract PIECP
partners depends upon keeping wages low. ... The result is that many PIECP inmate workers
never achieve wage levels significantly above the minimum wage, despite the 10th percentile
requirement.”
Additionally, “two jurisdictions were found to be deducting from the inmates’ gross pay
for items other than the four deductions allowed under the PIECP statute.” The report concluded
that assessors had discovered “instances of major non-compliance in eight jurisdictions, which is
roughly 25% of the jurisdictions assessed.”
Those findings are likely optimistic, as the NCIA report frankly acknowledged that “no
independent observers were used” in the assessments, “no assessor training was provided,” a
majority of the findings relied on “desk assessments” rather than “on-site assessments where an
assessor ... observed the operation first-hand,” and much of the information relied upon by the
assessors was provided by the PIECP program members themselves.
Bob Sloan is an independent Prison Industries Consultant dedicated to reducing the number of
private sector jobs lost to prison industries. He has worked with state and federal authorities for
seven years to enforce PIECP requirements regarding prevailing wages and to identify improper
sales of prison-made goods. A former prisoner who worked in a PIE program in Florida, he has
been instrumental in bringing about investigations into PIECP abuses nationwide. For more
information: www.piecp-violations.com.