[SarahBell]

http://www.summit.co.uk/about-us



Summit is one of the most extraordinary success stories of the UK’s digital media industry.
We started in 2000 at HMP Wolds with the ambition of providing businesses with highly-effective online marketing services supported by a pioneering training and rehabilitation scheme for prisoners that would lead to employment upon release.

[wonderpup]

Why not have a prison/supermarket combo so that the prisoners can work side by side with the unpaid people from the job centre- that way the convicts can learn about their future in the world of work.

[Saberu]

This company are scum, this is no better than slave labour.

At least they are highlighting the obvious problem, the jobs given to these prisoners aren't economical at minimum wage so clearly living costs need to be brought down in the UK to the same levels they have in China and India so we can compete. Because there are millions more jobs gone overseas which should have stayed here.

120 pounds/ month is less than minimum wage for most places in China. Just to put into perspective how little they are paying.

This post has been edited by Saberu: 19 February 2012 - 07:53 AM

[John The Pessimist]

What is the monthly cost of detaining prisoners at her majesty's pleasure? If that was added to their £120 payment, the headline looks very different.

[Secure Tenant]

wonderpup, on 17 February 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

Why not have a prison/supermarket combo so that the prisoners can work side by side with the unpaid people from the job centre- that way the convicts can learn about their future in the world of work.

Its good to see prisoners getting a better hourly than Workfair workers.

[Ah-so]

Saberu, on 19 February 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

This company are scum, this is no better than slave labour.

At least they are highlighting the obvious problem, the jobs given to these prisoners aren't economical at minimum wage so clearly living costs need to be brought down in the UK to the same levels they have in China and India so we can compete. Because there are millions more jobs gone overseas which should have stayed here.

120 pounds/ month is less than minimum wage for most places in China. Just to put into perspective how little they are paying.

The marginal cost of an extra prison place is £41,000 per year.

The Chinese minimum wage in Beijing (presumably one of the highest) is 1260 yuan, at the current FX rate of 9.98, that is £126. The prisoners are being offered £30 a week, or £130 p/m, higher than Beijing.

Unlike their "free" Chinese equivalents, the prisoners do not have to put the money towards food, accommodation, clothing or fuel. I am sure that in the UK there are plenty of people who do not have that much surplus cash after the essentials, even honest people who have not lost their liberty as a punishment. Also, I do not know how long the inmates spend working. Is it 12 hours a day like in China or about 15 hours a week?

Once you take into account that the inmates are doing a proper job and not stitching mail bags or peeling potatoes, it seems a great deal. If I was banged up, I would jump at the chance to do something like this.

[The Eagle]

Ah-so, on 19 February 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

The marginal cost of an extra prison place is £41,000 per year.

The Chinese minimum wage in Beijing (presumably one of the highest) is 1260 yuan, at the current FX rate of 9.98, that is £126. The prisoners are being offered £30 a week, or £130 p/m, higher than Beijing.

Unlike their "free" Chinese equivalents, the prisoners do not have to put the money towards food, accommodation, clothing or fuel. I am sure that in the UK there are plenty of people who do not have that much surplus cash after the essentials, even honest people who have not lost their liberty as a punishment. Also, I do not know how long the inmates spend working. Is it 12 hours a day like in China or about 15 hours a week?

Once you take into account that the inmates are doing a proper job and not stitching mail bags or peeling potatoes, it seems a great deal. If I was banged up, I would jump at the chance to do something like this.

That is all completely beside the point. The point is that a company is getting full time labour at 130/month, which gives it an unfair taxpayer subsidised advantage and reduces job availability for everyone else.



---

This post has been edited by awake_eagle: 19 February 2012 - 10:38 AM

[LJAR]

awake_eagle, on 19 February 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

That is all completely beside the point. The point is that a company is getting full time labour at 130/month, which gives it an unfair taxpayer subsidised advantage and reduces job availability for everyone else.

LIFE IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME.

ONE PERSON WINNING DOES NOT MEAN ANOTHER PERSON LOSING.


THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST PERSISTENT ECONOMIC FALLACIES OF ALL TIME.


so basically no it doesn't and you are wrong. The number of jobs in the economy is not fixed so they re not taking jobs from other people.

[The Eagle]

LJAR, on 19 February 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

so basically no it doesn't and you are wrong. The number of jobs in the economy is not fixed so they re not taking jobs from other people.

WRONG. The only fair way to do this would be if the company pays at least minimum wage and then the state deduces a fair chunk from that to pay for prison meals and accommodation. In that case the company wouldn't have an unfair advantage and the jobs would be competing fairly with the open job market and there would be no taxpayer subsidy.

It's not hard to do these things right, all it needs is some common sense (which seems to have disappeared in 21st century UK).

This post has been edited by awake_eagle: 19 February 2012 - 11:40 AM

[looking for the out]

Agree with that I think. Company should pay at least the min wage for the prisoners, a token amount going to the prisoner and the rest to subsidise the cost of the prison. Actually, I think I would be in favour of making participation a condition of early release too...

[Ulfar]

LJAR, on 19 February 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

LIFE IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME.

ONE PERSON WINNING DOES NOT MEAN ANOTHER PERSON LOSING.


THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST PERSISTENT ECONOMIC FALLACIES OF ALL TIME.


so basically no it doesn't and you are wrong. The number of jobs in the economy is not fixed so they re not taking jobs from other people.

It may not be a zero sum game, but if big companies can get there work done for £130.00 a month by prisoners or for free by benefit claimants then not only this company but others will jump on the band wagon. The ultimate result is that work will not pay. It will also mean that if you try to start your own business and you don't have access to these schemes you will not be able to compete.

[LJAR]

Or the jobs would just not exist if there was no subsidy.

I'm not condoning the policy - which is a useless and arbitrary distortion of the market, but the statement that this will directly mean that those jobs will be taken away from people is completely wrong.

other jobs will be lost in the wider economy due to the taxes levied to pay for the prison for these workers, yes but that is a separate issue to that of competition by lowering wages.


the act of prisoners going out to work does not reduce the number of jobs in the economy. the taxes taken to pay for their prison places does mean there is less work in the economy.

[wonderpup]

Quote

Its good to see prisoners getting a better hourly than Workfair workers.

I never thought of that! So being a criminal is the route to a pay rise in brave new world of 21st century employment.

[wonderpup]

Quote

Or the jobs would just not exist if there was no subsidy.

I'm not condoning the policy - which is a useless and arbitrary distortion of the market, but the statement that this will directly mean that those jobs will be taken away from people is completely wrong.

other jobs will be lost in the wider economy due to the taxes levied to pay for the prison for these workers, yes but that is a separate issue to that of competition by lowering wages.


the act of prisoners going out to work does not reduce the number of jobs in the economy. the taxes taken to pay for their prison places does mean there is less work in the economy.

If the number of jobs is a function of demand and no new demand is being created by those jobs then it's entirely possible to argue that those prisoners are taking work away from other people. Paying virtually no wages means that the prisoners add no demand.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

Saw something on TV a while back, apparently 3/4 of white goods manufactured in America are made by prisoners.