Like it or not, if you are affiliated with Sacramento State, you are a beneficiary of prison labor.

I’m not referring to the Chinese prisoner that made your Wal-Mart jeans or the Sri Lankan that made your Victoria’s Secret bra. I’m referring to a fellow Californian.

State prisoners built the desks you use in classrooms. They built the comfy chairs you use for naps in the University Union and library. They even sewed the American flag that flies at the front of campus.

Last year, over $150 million in office furniture, clothing, agricultural goods and other products were made, shipped and sold to the state under the auspices of the Prison Industry Authority (PIA).

By law, every state agency, including Sac State, must come to the PIA first when it wants to acquire new furniture or other goods that the PIA can produce. If a state agency wants to use a different source, it must run a bureaucratic gauntlet of waivers and memos for permission.

These rules give the PIA a virtual monopoly when it comes to providing its products to the huge market of state-run universities, offices and agencies. As a result of its monopoly, the PIA can get away with charging up to three times the normal retail value for its goods. A quick look at its catalog (available online at pia.ca.gov) reveals that a simple office chair costs $152, whereas a comparable model at Staples costs just $43.

But why the extra cost? Is the PIA paying too much for its laborers? Hardly.

Prisoners who work under the PIA’s programs receive wages between 30 and 95 cents per hour. This wage is further reduced if an inmate has a monetary judgment against him, leading to a net wage as low as 20 cents per hour. This meager wage must pay for many of an inmate’s necessities, such as toothpaste, soap and other hygiene products. Thus, while prisoners are not forced to work for the PIA, many have little economic choice.

Given these conditions, where does this leave students and where does this leave our state?

Our moral obligation as a state lies in devoting resources to the rehabilitation of prisoners rather than focusing on prison’s punitive aspects. Some of the PIA’s programs are indeed helpful in giving its inmates useful skills for reintegrating into California’s populace upon release, but we need to watch this system carefully and raise the public’s awareness of it.

With regard to the prices that the PIA charges state agencies, the PIA board needs to reassess the wages it pays to inmates and operate on a strict not-for-profit basis.

Our duties as the beneficiaries of PIA inmate labor are both to be aware of the inmates’ plights and to advocate for their successful rehabilitation. This includes not only simple awareness, but also means fostering an open discussion and inspection of our criminal justice system as a whole. Is our system more punitive than rehabilitative? Is 20 cents per hour a fair wage? Is it right to force state agencies to buy from PIA if they could save money by buying elsewhere?

How we as a society answer these questions will shape the future of our state prisons and the people incarcerated there. Such a discussion is important and necessary, and it’s our job to start it.

Contact Sean at [email protected]