Helfenbein writes: "Since it is now illegal to import products made with
prison labor, why is it still legal to use prison labor in America? Has our
own government just issued a non-compete clause for foreign prisoners, or
have they issued a free pass for U.S. prison labor to compete on products
that are protected under the Berry Amendment as 'Made in USA'?"
Prisoners. (photo: Getty Images)
It's Illegal to Import Products Made With Prison Labor. Why Is It Still
Legal to Use Prison Labor in America?
By Rick Helfenbein, The Hill
07 May 16
Being There" is a 1979 movie whose main character is Chauncey Gardiner. He
is a simple man who obtains his knowledge by tending to a garden and
watching television. Through a series of events, Chauncey is thrust into the
public spotlight, where people worship every word he says.
Concerned about the economy, the president of the United States asks
Chauncey if the U.S. should try to stimulate growth through incentives.
Chauncey can only answer with what he knows and replies: "Yes, there will be
growth in the spring!" The president loves the response and praises
Chauncey's good sense by adding, "that's precisely what we lack on Capitol
Hill."
One can only wonder if the facts behind the whole "Made in USA" phenomenon
are starting to parody the fictional government that so revered Chauncey.
Except for a few superstars in Congress who have taken the time to
understand the problems, many have ignored the facts surrounding the
government's participation in the demise of our domestic manufacturing base.
While the issues have been present for years, they took a bizarre turn in
February when President Obama signed the Trade Facilitation and Enforcement
Act. This legislation gave U.S. Customs the ability to prohibit, stop and
enforce a ban on products coming into the United States that have been made
with forced or prison labor. The action was well received by all, and would
appear to have been a move in favor of American product, but the mere
enforcement of the law calls into question a huge loophole in the entire
"Made in USA" discussion.
Here's the rub: Since it is now illegal to import products made with prison
labor, why is it still legal to use prison labor in America? Has our own
government just issued a non-compete clause for foreign prisoners, or have
they issued a free pass for U.S. prison labor to compete on products that
are protected under the Berry Amendment as "Made in USA"?
Chauncey the gardener would have a field day with that one. Much like his
first ride in an automobile, when he commented that the view from the window
"is just like television, only you can see much further."
Our federal government does, in fact, promote, allow and encourage inmates
to assemble garments behind prison walls, under a growing and longstanding
program called UNICOR. Prisoners earn as little as 23 cents an hour working
on assembly lines, and their products often compete for business with
legitimate government contractors who operate under under the Berry
Amendment (a law that requires U.S. military uniforms to be made in the
U.S.). These respectable American companies make apparel and footwear for
many branches of the U.S. government and often use the Berry business as an
anchor, to help them run their U.S. factories so they can compete in the
global marketplace.
Established in 1934 and run by Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Federal Prison
Industries (FPI) created UNICOR to keep prisoners busy while they are
serving time, and to reduce the rate of recidivism. But anyone who thinks
that these folks are just stamping license plates is simply wrong. They make
a lot of products, including all types of wearable apparel.
UNICOR is a multimillion-dollar complex making various items in many
locations around the U.S. They claim that inmates who participate in the
program are 24 percent less likely to return to jail and 14 percent more
likely to be gainfully employed. While these numbers sound great to a casual
observer, the bigger picture is that five years after release, national
statistics indicate 76.6 percent of prisoners released are re-arrested
anyways. Bottom line, this is just a crazy situation, and a way to justify
taking jobs away from domestic contractors who utilize the Berry Amendment
to sell to the government and to help support their "Made in USA" efforts.
Just last October, Obama said that "if we can get this agreement [the
Trans-Pacific Partnership] to my desk, then we can help our businesses sell
more Made in America goods and services around the world, and we can help
more American workers compete and win." What the president unfortunately
didn't mention is that UNICOR is aggressively competing with domestic
manufacturers by utilizing cheap prison labor, and the Department of Defense
is using their services (probably in an effort to reduce the cost of their
budgets). Effectively, while it may be legal, it is definitely hypocritical.
If we are planning to grow in the world of global trade, then we have to
simultaneously protect our existing domestic manufacturing infrastructure.
If not, then how can legitimate American factories, with American taxpaying
employees, be able to stay in business and participate in this new world
economy? They simple truth is that they can't, especially if our own
government is working against them!
If the Berry Amendment is good for the goose, then it should be good for the
gander as well. The DOD should not be able to skirt the issue with any
manufactured items. The federal government should just support our domestic
contractors, and not compete with them by utilizing prison labor or granting
vouchers to circumvent Berry requirements.
Laws that pass through Congress are supposed to apply to everyone. It's hard
to find a statute that says the federal government has the right to enforce
only the regulations they choose.
It is illegal to import products that use prison labor.
(While, at the same time, it is legal to utilize U.S. prison labor to make
the same exact same products that are banned as imports.)
It is a requirement that footwear be covered by the Berry amendment.
(While, at the same time, it is a fact that the DOD still grants vouchers to
circumvent that requirement.)
This is just nuts. Chauncey Gardiner would agree.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Prisoners. (photo: Getty Images)
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/278886-prisoners-compete-for-a
-share-of-made-in-usahttp://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/278886-pr
isoners-compete-for-a-share-of-made-in-usa
It's Illegal to Import Products Made With Prison Labor. Why Is It Still
Legal to Use Prison Labor in America?
By Rick Helfenbein, The Hill
07 May 16
eing There" is a 1979 movie whose main character is Chauncey Gardiner. He
is a simple man who obtains his knowledge by tending to a garden and
watching television. Through a series of events, Chauncey is thrust into the
public spotlight, where people worship every word he says.
Concerned about the economy, the president of the United States asks
Chauncey if the U.S. should try to stimulate growth through incentives.
Chauncey can only answer with what he knows and replies: "Yes, there will be
growth in the spring!" The president loves the response and praises
Chauncey's good sense by adding, "that's precisely what we lack on Capitol
Hill."
One can only wonder if the facts behind the whole "Made in USA" phenomenon
are starting to parody the fictional government that so revered Chauncey.
Except for a few superstars in Congress who have taken the time to
understand the problems, many have ignored the facts surrounding the
government's participation in the demise of our domestic manufacturing base.
While the issues have been present for years, they took a bizarre turn in
February when President Obama signed the Trade Facilitation and Enforcement
Act. This legislation gave U.S. Customs the ability to prohibit, stop and
enforce a ban on products coming into the United States that have been made
with forced or prison labor. The action was well received by all, and would
appear to have been a move in favor of American product, but the mere
enforcement of the law calls into question a huge loophole in the entire
"Made in USA" discussion.
Here's the rub: Since it is now illegal to import products made with prison
labor, why is it still legal to use prison labor in America? Has our own
government just issued a non-compete clause for foreign prisoners, or have
they issued a free pass for U.S. prison labor to compete on products that
are protected under the Berry Amendment as "Made in USA"?
Chauncey the gardener would have a field day with that one. Much like his
first ride in an automobile, when he commented that the view from the window
"is just like television, only you can see much further."
Our federal government does, in fact, promote, allow and encourage inmates
to assemble garments behind prison walls, under a growing and longstanding
program called UNICOR. Prisoners earn as little as 23 cents an hour working
on assembly lines, and their products often compete for business with
legitimate government contractors who operate under under the Berry
Amendment (a law that requires U.S. military uniforms to be made in the
U.S.). These respectable American companies make apparel and footwear for
many branches of the U.S. government and often use the Berry business as an
anchor, to help them run their U.S. factories so they can compete in the
global marketplace.
Established in 1934 and run by Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Federal Prison
Industries (FPI) created UNICOR to keep prisoners busy while they are
serving time, and to reduce the rate of recidivism. But anyone who thinks
that these folks are just stamping license plates is simply wrong. They make
a lot of products, including all types of wearable apparel.
UNICOR is a multimillion-dollar complex making various items in many
locations around the U.S. They claim that inmates who participate in the
program are 24 percent less likely to return to jail and 14 percent more
likely to be gainfully employed. While these numbers sound great to a casual
observer, the bigger picture is that five years after release, national
statistics indicate 76.6 percent of prisoners released are re-arrested
anyways. Bottom line, this is just a crazy situation, and a way to justify
taking jobs away from domestic contractors who utilize the Berry Amendment
to sell to the government and to help support their "Made in USA" efforts.
Just last October, Obama said that "if we can get this agreement [the
Trans-Pacific Partnership] to my desk, then we can help our businesses sell
more Made in America goods and services around the world, and we can help
more American workers compete and win." What the president unfortunately
didn't mention is that UNICOR is aggressively competing with domestic
manufacturers by utilizing cheap prison labor, and the Department of Defense
is using their services (probably in an effort to reduce the cost of their
budgets). Effectively, while it may be legal, it is definitely hypocritical.
If we are planning to grow in the world of global trade, then we have to
simultaneously protect our existing domestic manufacturing infrastructure.
If not, then how can legitimate American factories, with American taxpaying
employees, be able to stay in business and participate in this new world
economy? They simple truth is that they can't, especially if our own
government is working against them!
If the Berry Amendment is good for the goose, then it should be good for the
gander as well. The DOD should not be able to skirt the issue with any
manufactured items. The federal government should just support our domestic
contractors, and not compete with them by utilizing prison labor or granting
vouchers to circumvent Berry requirements.
Laws that pass through Congress are supposed to apply to everyone. It's hard
to find a statute that says the federal government has the right to enforce
only the regulations they choose.
It is illegal to import products that use prison labor.
(While, at the same time, it is legal to utilize U.S. prison labor to make
the same exact same products that are banned as imports.)
It is a requirement that footwear be covered by the Berry amendment.
(While, at the same time, it is a fact that the DOD still grants vouchers to
circumvent that requirement.)
This is just nuts. Chauncey Gardiner would agree.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
