|
I agree with Helen's comments.
One other point: I doesn't seem right to lump
prison labor and handicapped labor into the same discussion. They are
different issues.
Van Calvez
Human~Nature Solutions
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 9:46
AM
Subject: RE: [GreenYes] Atwater Prison
electronic recycling - Modesto Bee Article
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
|