I'm still uneasy about it. They're in a vulnerable position and the alternative is unpleasant because of the same people offering the "opportunity". The pay is only legal because they're prisoners. If it was a fair wage I'd be more comfortable although still uneasy.
It's one of the most sought after opportunities in prison. And the state can't afford to pay them fully. Considering they want to do it, and the state already pays a huge amount to house prisoners, its not that insane
> It's one of the most sought after opportunities in prison.
"In prison" is doing a lot of work there.
> And the state can't afford to pay them fully.
Then the state can't afford to be on fire. An externality that isn't accounted for.
> Considering they want to do it, and the state already pays a huge amount to house prisoners, its not that insane.
I'm really shocked to hear someone just casually say slavery in the United States in 2025 isn't insane. I mean it's legal so maybe I am the crazy one but I'm personally troubled that this practice is going on. I don't even like that my state uses prison labor for license plates and that's not life threatening.
> IMO, its not slavery because it is 100% optional.
It is slavery because the State requires prisoners to work for the benefit of the State (though there are some choices of what form of work), punishes them additionally for not working, economically exploits that work, and has (through all four branches of government, including the people exercising their power to legislate directly) worked to maintain that condition, and in many cases the prison firefighters have been explicitly cited as the reason it is important to maintain that system and maintain prison populations to feed it.
Had voters passed, and the State acted in accord with, this years proposition banning involuntary servitude, it might be possible to make the argument that prison firefighters were no longer slave labor, but that didn't happen.
Where is the requirement to work and how does it punish them additionally?
Sentencing is provided completely independent of labor and 99% of prisoners are ineligible or unable to firefight.
>firefighters have been explicitly cited as the reason it is important to maintain that system and maintain prison populations to feed it.
Cited by a proponent of maintaining prison populations, or cited as allegations against such a system?
>Had voters passed, and the State acted in accord with, this years proposition banning involuntary servitude, it might be possible to make the argument that prison firefighters were no longer slave labor, but that didn't happen.
What a strange take. Why would the passage of a proposition redefine the reality of the situation?
> What a strange take. Why would the passage of a proposition redefine the reality of the situation?
If the proposition was passed, and the State acted in accord with it (as I stated before, not just the passage, but the action), then the labor would not be coerced, because the mechanisms by which it is currently coerced would be prohibited.
That was the whole point of the amendment, banning California continuing to exploit the penal servitude exception to the 13th Amendment ban on slavery and involuntary servitude.
> Where is the requirement to work and how does it punish them additionally?
Forced prison labor is legal in California. This means if a prisoner refuses to work they can be punished for that refusal. This could be with solitary confinement or revoking or removing good behavior benefits.
> Sentencing is provided completely independent of labor and 99% of prisoners are ineligible or unable to firefight.
Firefight maybe but 40% of California’s prisoners work. A choice in what type of labor doesn’t change the fact that this is slavery.
> Slave labor is the labor of a slave. Removing the labor does not remove the slavery.
What is happening in California is indentured servitude. I consider that to be a form of slavery. The labor is precisely what makes it slavery.
> How do you distinguish incarceration from slavery?
The compulsory uncompensated labor.
If prisoners received a fair wage and work was optional then I would have no objection. But they don’t receive a fair wage and working is not optional. Thus the prisoners are enslaved.
I think I would be OK with demonetizing all prisoner labor and stipulating that any particularly risky work must be voluntary.
I dont think it is unreasonable to expect non-voluntary labor to be included as part of a normal sentence. Ideally this non-voluntary work would be limited to supporting prison operations (e.g. cooking, cleaning, upkeep, ect). This work offsets the substantial costs of their incarceration to society and is part of the punishment.
I think it is also reasonable to offer fully voluntary service outside of the prison if it benefits society at large. I think it is reasonable to view this as accelerated restitution to society for their crimes, and reward it with earlier release and additional benefits.
I think the main area where we might agree is preventing the prison (or state) from selling their labor for the benefit of a 3rd party.
Overall, I would like to see the expansion of productive prison labor where possible to provide social benefit (for example cleaning up litter, ect.)
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
> Once you are in prison, choosing to work or not is a free choice.
It is literally not in California (though which work, within bounds that differ by prisoner, may be), and California this year defeated a ballot proposition which would have made your claim true.
The free choice is to whether commit or not the crime that puts you in prison. After that, until you pay your debt to society, the free choices are over.
When you're put in prison, your "freedom is taken". We use that language for a reason. It's what happens, it's intentional, and I used to think everyone understood what it meant. Choices in prison are not the same as "every choice in life".
I don't disagree with what you said, but I don't think that supports the conclusion above.
Trade-offs are different in all sorts of situations. All choices in life have consequence. The fact that one is better than the other does not negate anything or create slavery
So nothing can be slavery if there's any choice at all? By that logic slavery can never exist, because any slave can chose not to work and be killed, kill themselves, run, etc.
At some point you have to draw a line and say, there is choice, but there's not enough choice to say it's not slavery.
> yeah, I expect there are some foundational differences in world view at play.
Agree. I find it fascinating that perspectives can be so different.
> It it is sought after because it is an improvement over the alternative.
Yep, no objection from me.
> I'm honestly unsure how this can be framed as a negative.
To me it's the part where prison is apparently even worse than risking your life fighting fires for free.
The incentives here are perverse. The worse prison conditions are the more "appealing" still-awful conditions become. Access to free labor creates an incentive for the state to create more of that labor. Rehabilitation becomes a threat to the practitioners.
I think the biggest difference is that you believe there is a choice and I don't think that choice is meaningful.
> To me it's the part where prison is apparently even worse than risking your life fighting fires for free.
Makes perfect sense to me, even if the prison was a five-star hotel. The human mind is hard-wired to want to explore and get out. Universally, one of the most difficult parts of being in prison is being forced to stay within the prison walls. The fact that these walls exist is a necessary compromise between keeping society safe and the natural rights of those imprisoned. Any opportunity to get outside the walls will of course be desirable.
The desire to escape is strong in prison when the decision to fight fires is made. The self preservation instinct doesn’t kick in until the danger becomes real at which point it is too late.
This difference in perception is what prison labor exploits in prisoners.
Wouldn't prisoners come back from the firefighting, regret having made the decision, and tell other prisoners that they were afraid for their lives and they shouldn't volunteer; that they wouldn't be volunteering again? Wouldn't this persuade people not to volunteer, and it wouldn't be seen as desirable?
Your argument is a fine hypothesis, but I think it falls apart in the data.
I thought the core of your concern, then I think it's addressed by the lack of regret in reality. Do you have any data on prisoner firefighter retention and turnover? My understanding is that these people ought to fight fire after fire and stay in the program.
I don't have much skin in this argument but I'll offer one more perspective. Some people enjoy work and some people enjoy risk taking. I have a feeling that are some people in prison that like being badass and the hero and this job seems like an excellent opportunity. Your point that they would rather fight fire than be in prison strikes you as they must really hate prison when some people are just wired differently and may want the risk. Maybe they're just bored in prison.
Yeah to me this sounds like letting slaves pick their bunks. It’s technically autonomy but not in any meaningful way. It’s certainly not a free person choosing their living arrangements.
I guess if you don’t consider prison labor to be slavery then it might be palatable but I just can’t draw that distinction. Especially given the history.
Again with the negative spin. That isn't the alternative they face, not at all.
It's the benefit of promised freedom early that is in play. Not that prison is unendurable (many endure it). It's that freedom is preferable. The entire point of prison after all.
> To me it's the part where prison is apparently even worse than risking your life fighting fires for free.
Given the recurring history of California prisons being found (systematically, not just in cases involving special mistreatment of individual prisoners) in violation of the 8th Amendment and the way that has been the main driver of California prison reform over the years, that's not a minor issue.
Almost everyone in California felt uneasy about it after the 2018-2020 fires. In 2021 the governor signed a retroactive law that allowed nonviolent offenders serving less than 8 years to expunge their records if they served as firefighters while incarcerated. I’d prefer they get paid at least minimum wage anyway, but they’re better off than most other prisoners because the expungement means their background checks can come back clean for any job, not just firefighting.
California voters had a question before them in this election of whether or not to ban the practice of slavery, and they voted to keep practicing slavery.
It's not slavery. The inmate firefighters are paid below minimum wage but it's completely voluntary. They can quit any time and go sit in state prison if they prefer. We can argue about whether they should be paid more, but let's not trivialize real slavery by misusing the term.
In general when you're a "prisoner with a job," that's slavery, even if there's some pittance of a wage involved. They're paid $10 a day, let's not pretend this is a fair wage for a fair day's work. This is a form of economic warfare against the working class, who shouldn't have to compete against prison labor.
They also get reduced time. Considering the program is extremely sought after, I think it should continue in light of the fact that its literally what they prefer compared to not doing anything
I don't have a problem with the program, or any prison labor program, as long as it's paying at or above market wages.
We sanction Chinese companies for using prison labor in their products because it's ethically wrong. We shouldn't be engaging in the same practice we sanction other countries for.
Depending on slave labor from prisoners also creates a conflict of interests for society because it creates incentives to imprison people rather than prevent crime. It should never be a smart financial move to imprison your citizens.
It's very literally slavery. You don't have to deny it because the practice is legal in the United States. As you say, they can do this work or they can sit in state prison. I don't have to squint to see how that's a threat. These prisoners didn't volunteer to be in prison. If you gave them the choice of fighting fires or going free I doubt many would pick the $10.00 a day firefighting gig.
They're being provided with a full life while the rest of us pay for it. If, at market rate, their earnings make up for the expense the state pays for them, I'd be willing to let them earn it, but I doubt any are earning that much.
