Talk:Federal Prison Industries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Klarissa Beaton.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Private sector allowed to use UNICOR services now?[edit]

http://www.unicor.gov/services/contact_helpdesk/ according to this any US company can use unicor's service and unicor is no longer limited to providing services to the federal government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.192.237.13 (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lies, lies, filthy lies[edit]

The opening claims UNICOR is economically self-sustaining - doesn't make a lot of sense considering (1) it is dependent on other government entities for labor and demand and (2) UNICOR isn't an autarky. That such a ludicrious and blatently false claim is made suggests to me that, since UNICOR is of great importance, this page should be redone in its entirety. 208.118.163.99 (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-sustaining does necessarily include the lack of dependency. For example, someone may completely live off the land and be economically "self-sustaining", but still "dependent" on the government for title to such land and the ability to use it exclusively, amongst other dependencies. Also, the source cites UNICOR's 2006 Annual Report as its source for such a statement (page 3, footnote 17), so I think it would be proper to challenge such an assertion of self-sustenance if you think it is wrong. Int21h (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

208.118.163.99, if you're going to take such a broad view of dependent, than NO compant is economically self-sustaining. ALL companies are dependent on customers, that's sort of what a business is. Please reconsider your argument. TheOneSean | Talk to me 12:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV,POV,POV![edit]

This has to be the worst POV ive seen. It doesnt even mention the fact that they pay the prisoners maximum a buck forty-five an hour 1.45/hr! Or the fact that they sell all the products that the prisoners spend their paychecks on, and then mark-up all the products accordingly to off set the (minimal) cost of funishing the prisoners wages. Making this a SLAVE-LABOR system! ..free of worker costs. Also, and more wiki-relevent, is the fact that the sole souce is the companys website itself. This should be an encyclopedia article, not an autobiography. I recomend for DELETION!!

Totally agree. If no one is willing to present the other side to this, then it should be deleted. AOGmorrisLee (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to clean this article up a bit, by removed uncited sections and removing the advertising. It's still missing a lot of information and doesn't have a lot of citation. I think there's a whole body of literature on UNICOR out there, but I don't have the capacity to put it in an article.Sumthingweird (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that these people are in prison for violation of federal law. They should be glad they are not setting in a cell 23 hrs a day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.96.195 (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not important. What matters is that this article is clearly lacking NPOV and, as is, would be better left blank.208.118.163.99 (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Free of worker costs"??? It costs nearly $25,000 per year to incarcerate ONE INMATE for ONE YEAR. That is the OPPOSITE of free labor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.90.138.112 (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

76.194.96.195, this isn't the space for discussion about the merits of prison labour, it's a space for making sure that the article represents a neutral point of view (through referencing third sources) rather than the point of view of Unicor itself. If you want to argue that prisoners have no rights or that prison is an appropriate way to deal with social problems, you should do it somewhere else.Sumthingweird (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind: any removal of material (including the entire page) that clearly belongs in the article should (and probably will) be reverted. Your arguments are well founded, and belong on your representatives' desks and in their ears, not Wikipedia articles. Remember, in the United States, you have a Constitutional right to petition your government. In many states, such as California, "people have the right to instruct their representatives". Instruct means you tell them what to do, not just ask, and not just politely. Congressional Representatives and Senators get elected by the states under state law, so if your state has a law like this: use it. Wikipedia simply isn't the place. Int21h (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advirtisement[edit]

The articles feels more like an advertisement than a legitimate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.103.154 (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed references[edit]

Two references critical of FPI have been removed, one being a journal article and the other one being an article from the site infowars.com. This leaves this article without any references. Can the journal article and the information it references be replaced? The infowars article cites from other sources, and is relevant to this article. This page is in danger of becoming corporate whitewash.Sumthingweird (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unicor's not so bad, considering[edit]

The other prison jobs often pay a lot less than Unicor, which is why they tend to look for Unicor jobs. Tisane talk/stalk 21:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Unicor effectively sets the wages for the other available jobs, then that doesn't really represent a fair choice though. --James (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they should unionize. "Just because I unlawfully killed someone doesn't mean I don't deserve a fair choice of work!" Int21h (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're conflating two issues: (1) do prisoners have a fair choice of prison labour jobs, and (2) should prisoners have a fair choice of prison labour jobs. If the answer to the second question is no, then there is no reason to make excuses for the way things are currently set up. --James (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the issue that seems to be lost on this 'forum' is that the self-propagating nature of any business (especially with a 'captive' work-force) may actually be creating a super-lobby effect in which the following axiom becomes a working prospectus for the business administration: ON-GOING BUSINESS SUCCESS (and salaries) ARE CONTINGENT UPON ON-GOING 'CHEAP' AND 'AVAILABLE' LABOR; EXPANDING BUSINESS SUCCESS/PROFIT/SALARIES ARE CONTINGENT UPON AN EXPANDING 'CHEAP AND AVAILABLE' LABOR FORCE. The fact that the US has the largest percentage of incarcerated citizens of all developed countries makes it important to not allow these possible/probable conflicts of interest to continue as the status quo. This is 'quid pro quo' for private prison owners and their wealth and lobbying has created an internecine policy for many 'minor' lawbreakers. - Thorendan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.84.26.190 (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a 'forum,' it's an encyclopedia. Also, well chosen small words are better than poorly chosen large words. AaronMP84 (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Federal Prison Industries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Federal Prison Industries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Federal_Prison_Industries&oldid=1207196528"