Commentary 09/26/2007
 

Got a great comment from Sally, my step-mother, about the green blogs.  Sally writes:  "About this "green" thing--Since I neither cook nor shop, why don't you just take my share of the credit and be done with it?"  I like it.  Sally Baldridge is my kitchen carbon offset!  

I also got an interesting comment from my brother-in-law, Ken, about yesterday's rant/blog (b-rant? ran-log? There's got to be a word to coin for that) regarding the California Correctional Peace Officers Association and their conflict with our Governator.  Ken asked for more in-depth information about the prisons involved...and he's right.  Yesterday's response to the article was shoot from the hip rather than a carefully researched and well-articulated point of view.

Ken wanted to know what level of prisons I was referring to and whether or not the guards are different at different level prisons.

The prisons I've visited our friend at have varied from Level 1 & 2 (minimum security) to Level 4 (maximum security).  It is my understanding from various news articles that guards get to select their assignments with relative ease, so I don't believe there's a correlation between experience, difficulty of the situation (say, assignment to a maximum security duty) and pay rate.

Which seems counter-intuitive to me...wouldn't you want your most experienced, highest paid guards at the most difficult position?  In that case, the guards would be able to draw on their experience to better handle the most difficult and dangerous prisoners; the state would have better allocation of its resources by paying more for more difficult jobs; the wardens would be able to actually manage their personnel.

One of my key objections to the status quo is that wardens, who theoretically should be in charge of their prison, are not able to manage their personnel.  How does one manage without authority?  The answer, as we see in our California State Prisons, is "not effectively."

Ken also referenced a book, Newjack: Guarding Sing Sing by journalist Ted Conover that I'm going to have to add to my reading list.  Conover became a prison guard in order to write about the experience of prison guards. 

I am sure it will be an interesting read.  I am not unsympathetic toward the guards and the difficulty of their jobs.  I have seen some amazingly compassionate moments from the guards at "our" prison.  I have also seen how the guards are inevitably jaded by their experience as guards and the resultant damage to the guard, the inmate and the visitors. 

What I am unsympathetic toward is the idea that the guards are not, in the current system, subject to substantive review, correction or management.  The system is broken and more of the same isn't going to fix it.  That's why I think Arnold's on the right track.


 


Comments

Kenneth R. Morefield

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 06:21:18

Interesting follow up Laura. My experience with unions has been more limited. I had to join a union when I worked as a grocery bagger in graduate school, and some parts of Illinois Higher Education tried to unionize adjunct professors.

In my experience, the union, rather than protecting the most vulnerable workers from management would negotiate with management the best deal for more experience employees at the expense of newer workers. Thus, a new worker got all the worst assignments under the worst conditions, but if you survived, eventually you would move up to a position where benefits and salary were above average because of the nature of deals the union struck.

It is human nature to want the less stress with the most compensation. I've seen this in all sorts of different industries and its why often the most difficult assignments go to those on the bottom of the hierarchy. (Example: Remedial and ESL classes are some of the hardest and least rewarding to teach, but are often staffed by part time or adjunct professors.) I would not be surprised to learn that if the union has a lot of say into assignments, that those who are most senior would choose the minimum security prisons--and who would blame them? Especially if the pay is commensurate. One would have to be an idealist to say, "I'll assume more risk for the same pay because that's what is best for society."

That is, of course, assuming that the most experienced workers are usually the best workers. We all know that is often but not always the case. So, yes, sounds like we are in agreement that the most logical first step is some sort of evaluation system that seeks to identify the best workers, use them strategically, and to reward them accordingly.

 

Laura

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:13:56

What you describe about how a union protects experienced workers at the expense of new workers is similar to what I've seen with other unions. After making it "over the hump," as you observe, the worker is better paid than otherwise he/she would be and there are more job protections than in an open shop.

I agree that it's human nature to want less stress and more money...thus I think it's sort of a "check and balance" to have management making assignment decisions based on need and utility rather than employees making the decisions based on their natural desire for ease and reasonable (to good) pay. Unfortunately, Gray Davis gave away much of the wardens' ability to do so in the last contract.

 



Leave a Reply