Comments on: The Controversial Issue of Prison Labor http://wp.istc.illinois.edu/sei/2010/05/27/the-controversial-issue-of-prison-labor/ Promoting the reuse of electronics through greener design and improved waste management Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:15:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Amy Cade http://wp.istc.illinois.edu/sei/2010/05/27/the-controversial-issue-of-prison-labor/#comment-195 Amy Cade Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:23:41 +0000 http://lib.wmrc.uiuc.edu/sei/?p=544#comment-195 Thanks Stephanie. I really like the idea of providing work experience to inmates especially in a green collar job field (as you probably aware after reading this post) but I understand that other electronic recyclers need a fair value market. Since its conception, UNICOR only sells to government facilities so as to not compete in the private sector. It also diversifies its programs so as to not affect one industry. It would and still does buy a significant amount of materials and supplies from private vendors to help promote private economy. Finally, since there is approximately 53 million tons of e-waste in the world, I think this area could use any help it can get. I am somewhat familiar with the 2004 complaint to OSHA. I’ll be interested to see OIG’s report on its investigation (expected to be completed fiscal year 2010) I am pleasantly surprised by your affirmation towards my comments about the dismissal of R2 by advocates from the e-Stewards standard. I am not against the e-Steward standard, in fact, I commend their many efforts towards better export and more responsible recycling but I also think R2 does a nice job with this. I would like to see recyclers embrace at least one of these standards. So we might be in agreement here. Great point about responsible exports. In an earlier post I discussed Eric Williams’ new report on new findings about export. I support his idea that we start to develop facilities that are able to handle electronic recycling responsibly in places like Nigeria because even if the US stops all export there is still going to be the problem due to their own remarkable growth of e-waste. Responsible electronic recycling facilities would allow those informal recyclers in Nigeria to keep a job but at a place that has better capabilities to process the waste. And for the time being, we in the United States are still at major fault therefore this gives us an opportunity to help build these responsible recycling systems. Thanks Stephanie.

I really like the idea of providing work experience to inmates especially in a green collar job field (as you probably aware after reading this post) but I understand that other electronic recyclers need a fair value market. Since its conception, UNICOR only sells to government facilities so as to not compete in the private sector. It also diversifies its programs so as to not affect one industry. It would and still does buy a significant amount of materials and supplies from private vendors to help promote private economy. Finally, since there is approximately 53 million tons of e-waste in the world, I think this area could use any help it can get.

I am somewhat familiar with the 2004 complaint to OSHA. I’ll be interested to see OIG’s report on its investigation (expected to be completed fiscal year 2010)

I am pleasantly surprised by your affirmation towards my comments about the dismissal of R2 by advocates from the e-Stewards standard. I am not against the e-Steward standard, in fact, I commend their many efforts towards better export and more responsible recycling but I also think R2 does a nice job with this. I would like to see recyclers embrace at least one of these standards. So we might be in agreement here.

Great point about responsible exports. In an earlier post I discussed Eric Williams’ new report on new findings about export. I support his idea that we start to develop facilities that are able to handle electronic recycling responsibly in places like Nigeria because even if the US stops all export there is still going to be the problem due to their own remarkable growth of e-waste. Responsible electronic recycling facilities would allow those informal recyclers in Nigeria to keep a job but at a place that has better capabilities to process the waste. And for the time being, we in the United States are still at major fault therefore this gives us an opportunity to help build these responsible recycling systems.

]]> By: Stephanie Alarcon http://wp.istc.illinois.edu/sei/2010/05/27/the-controversial-issue-of-prison-labor/#comment-194 Stephanie Alarcon Sun, 30 May 2010 03:33:57 +0000 http://lib.wmrc.uiuc.edu/sei/?p=544#comment-194 Amy, Carol Baroudi's response to your "The Controversy: e-Stewards vs. R2" contained a very important clarification that you seem to have missed again in this post, which is that BAN is not a company, but rather a not-for-profit NGO that works toward seeing that the Basel Convention is upheld. Lauren Roman's comment that the use of prison labor skews the market, is an astute one. Separate from claims of reduced recidivism or purported social benefits to inmates (which are claims I am unqualified and unwilling to make) is the issue of having a marketplace where good conditions and practices can be economically sustainable, and where environmental resources are appropriate priced. Prison labor, to say nothing of the impact to the laborers, artificially drives down the cost of recycling electronics, making it difficult for legitimate recyclers to maintain their businesses, much less take financial risks on advanced machinery to do the job better or more efficiently. However, the issue of impact to inmate laborers cannot and should not be ignored. For more insight on this topic, I highly recommend the book "High Tech Trash" by Elizabeth Grossman. In the chapter entitiled "The Politics of Recycling", she looks into very serious threats to health and safety of UNICOR workers at the Atwater Federal Penitentiary. The facility's former safety manager filed an OSHA complaint in 2004 which stated that UNICOR workers were exposed to threats that would not be tolerated or allowed in the private sector. Worker safety and data protection are only as secure as the enforcement mechanism around them, and this chapter shows that there is huge opportunity for gross negligence in both areas. I encourage you to read the book and particularly that chapter. It's good stuff. There are many other sources that do a much better job than I could of addressing the root causes of prison overcrowding and lack of opportunities for former inmates returning to the workforce after incarceration, and I urge you to get your feet wet with this topic. While I appreciate and understand some of your critiques that question whether R2 is being largely dismissed by advocates of the E-Stewards standard, I would point you to a 2008 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study that looks at US e-waste laws with a very critical eye. Among their recommendations, you'll find items that sound quite similar to what E-Stewards provides. You can find the abstract and full text here: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1044 You also talk a bit about "responsible exports". This is a non-trivial issue of course, since re-use is generally a Good Thing. However, because electronics came about in a time before extended producer responsibility (manufacturer take-back) and mostly still do, exporting not only gives old electronics another shot at usefulness, but also shifts the burden of disposal once they finally die, to the importing nation. So I may send my old cell phone to Nigeria in the hopes that it will be re-used, but once it finally stops working, it's going to stay in Nigeria, where it has a higher chance of contributing to the already devastating informal e-waste processing pipeline. That's why, under EU regulations, it is only legal to export electronics to countries that have demonstrated that they have the same or better capability to process waste electronics as the importing country. Just some things to consider. Amy,
Carol Baroudi’s response to your “The Controversy: e-Stewards vs. R2″ contained a very important clarification that you seem to have missed again in this post, which is that BAN is not a company, but rather a not-for-profit NGO that works toward seeing that the Basel Convention is upheld. Lauren Roman’s comment that the use of prison labor skews the market, is an astute one. Separate from claims of reduced recidivism or purported social benefits to inmates (which are claims I am unqualified and unwilling to make) is the issue of having a marketplace where good conditions and practices can be economically sustainable, and where environmental resources are appropriate priced. Prison labor, to say nothing of the impact to the laborers, artificially drives down the cost of recycling electronics, making it difficult for legitimate recyclers to maintain their businesses, much less take financial risks on advanced machinery to do the job better or more efficiently.

However, the issue of impact to inmate laborers cannot and should not be ignored. For more insight on this topic, I highly recommend the book “High Tech Trash” by Elizabeth Grossman. In the chapter entitiled “The Politics of Recycling”, she looks into very serious threats to health and safety of UNICOR workers at the Atwater Federal Penitentiary. The facility’s former safety manager filed an OSHA complaint in 2004 which stated that UNICOR workers were exposed to threats that would not be tolerated or allowed in the private sector. Worker safety and data protection are only as secure as the enforcement mechanism around them, and this chapter shows that there is huge opportunity for gross negligence in both areas. I encourage you to read the book and particularly that chapter. It’s good stuff. There are many other sources that do a much better job than I could of addressing the root causes of prison overcrowding and lack of opportunities for former inmates returning to the workforce after incarceration, and I urge you to get your feet wet with this topic.

While I appreciate and understand some of your critiques that question whether R2 is being largely dismissed by advocates of the E-Stewards standard, I would point you to a 2008 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study that looks at US e-waste laws with a very critical eye. Among their recommendations, you’ll find items that sound quite similar to what E-Stewards provides. You can find the abstract and full text here: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1044

You also talk a bit about “responsible exports”. This is a non-trivial issue of course, since re-use is generally a Good Thing. However, because electronics came about in a time before extended producer responsibility (manufacturer take-back) and mostly still do, exporting not only gives old electronics another shot at usefulness, but also shifts the burden of disposal once they finally die, to the importing nation. So I may send my old cell phone to Nigeria in the hopes that it will be re-used, but once it finally stops working, it’s going to stay in Nigeria, where it has a higher chance of contributing to the already devastating informal e-waste processing pipeline. That’s why, under EU regulations, it is only legal to export electronics to countries that have demonstrated that they have the same or better capability to process waste electronics as the importing country.

Just some things to consider.

]]>