RE: [GreenYes] Atwater Prison electronic recycling - Modesto Bee Article

[Helen Spiegelman <hspie@telus.net>]

Atwater/UNICOR raises a cluster of interesting issues that others have
touched on. Here's my read:

• Prisoners (and handicapped) providing 'low cost' labour.
• Companies brokering prisoners' labour for profit.
• Recycling as a community/government responsibility.
• Is producer responsibility 'largesse'?
• Recycling as local economic development.
• Dells and Compaqs setting up 'centralized infrastructure'

Prisoners (and handicapped) providing 'low cost' labour:
It makes sense that *work* be part of a prisoner's
rehabilitation.
The work should be meaningful to optimize the rehabilitation
benefits.
However, prisoner labour should not be traded in the marketplace.
It competes unfairly with non-prisoner labour, distorts labour market so
that demand for prison labour increases (hence incentive to incarcerate
people).
Prisoner/handicapped labour should be used for *work in public interest*,
rather than for profit.
What's wrong with making license plates? maybe wildlife rescue? or even
environmental monitoring?

Companies brokering prisoners' labour for profit
I don't like it: living off the avails
This is a much more fundamental issue than whether UNICOR's services are
'competitively priced'!

Recycling as *work in the public interest*
Here again is the traditional confusion over whether recycling is an
activity carried out 'in public interest'.
It is not the public/community that benefits from recycling.
It is the Dells and Compaqs and their consumers who avoid responsibility
by passing it on to the community.
Recycling, like other environmental requirements, should be part of the
cost of doing business.
Would you like to Ford/Dell/Compaq use prison labour for its assembly
lines? Safeway for its checkout lines?
Why should we tolerate using prison labour for recycling?
Recycling should be an extension of  marketing of products, not a
public clean-up project.
When Dells and Compaqs have to figure out what to do with old computers,
they will compete to provide best service for lowest cost (once the Green
Dot monopoly is finally broken...)

Is producer responsibility 'largesse'?
Absolutely not! No more so than compliance with any other
social/environmental standards.
Largesse is charity. The environment cannot be left as a charity
case.
IMHO one of the things wrong with these times is that corporations are
given the discretion on which environmental responsibility to take:
hence, they throw PR dollars at America Recycles Day/Keep America
Beautiful but fight deposit laws and EPR.
If they have this much $ to throw around, they should not complain about
internalizing environmental/social costs now passed on to public.

Recycling as local economic development.
When it's public sector economic activity, this is false
accounting.
Comparable to the growth in GDP that came from clean-up of Exxon
Valdez...

Dells and Compaqs setting up 'centralized infrastructure'
If we can tolerate 'centralized infrastructure' (I think you mean
ownership) for production, distribution and retailing, why are we
suddenly resisting it for recycling?
IMHO, centralized ownership of any of these market activities is the
problem.
If we want to be consistent we will question it in all areas, not just
recycling.

H.



At 10:41 AM 01/03/2002 -0600, David Wood wrote:

> Ted
> should weigh in too, if he is able to, but the Computer TakeBack Campaign
> platform opposes prison labor because we want the infrastructure for
> electronics recycling to promote local economic development one of the
> historic benefits of recycling. In the same vein, though we want brand
> owners and manufacturers to take full responsibility for the life cycle
> of their products, we d prefer that the Dells and Compaqs of the world
> not control some centralized infrastructure but rather use their largesse
> to promote a more decentralized infrastructure with attendant local
> economic development benefits.
>
>  
>
> Additionally and I speak only for
> myself here moving industrial operations to America s prison system
> legitimates the backwards policies of three-strikes and mandatory minimum
> sentencing because we can then give those people jobs. Why not keep out
> of prison in work programs many of those whose crimes may not warrant
> incarceration, providing them job training in local economic development
> opportunities that are sustainably recycling our tidal wave of high tech
> trash (probably at lower labor costs, if they are trainees in a criminal
> justice program)?
>
>  
>
> David Wood
>
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-greenyes@grrn.org
> [mailto:owner-greenyes@grrn.org]
> On Behalf Of Steen, Terri - Contractor
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 8:37 AM
> To: 'Ted Smith'; greenyes@grrn.org
> Subject: RE: [GreenYes] Atwater Prison electronic recycling -
> Modesto Bee Article
>
>  
>
> Hi Ted,
>
> I read the article about the
> new computer recycling facility at the Federal prison, and checked out
> the UNICOR web site as well.  While admittedly short on statistical
> data, I assume since the project is not yet operational, the premise
> seems reasonable.  
>
> I agree we need guidelines for
> sustainable recycling practices (and decorative clocks will probably not
> be high on that list), but labor costs are one of the biggest drawbacks
> to disassembly and sorting of electronics, right?  And prison labor
> & (pausing to collect thoughts) may be the best solution to that
> particular economic problem.  UNICOR provides a lot of support to
> the Federal government and as far as I know their products and services
> are competitively priced and of reasonable quality.  The government
> is obligated to use the services of disabled persons as well as prison
> labor, which helps keep costs down (and etc.).  
>
> Which aspect of the project did
> you find alarming?  Is there more information available than that
> one rather short article?
>
> Other comments or opinions out
> there?
>
>  
>
> Terri   
>
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Smith
> [mailto:tsmith@svtc.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 1:44 PM
> To: greenyes@grrn.org
> Subject: [GreenYes] Atwater Prison electronic recycling - Modesto
> Bee Article
>
>  
>
> Here is an article about a new
> maximum security Federal Prison opening in California that some see as
> the "final solution" to computer recycling.  I find it
> rather alarming!  Another reason why we must develop guidelines for
> sustainable recycling practices.
>
> Ted Smith
>
> http://www.modbee.com/local/story/1376902p-1446273c.html