Michael Bloomberg has been using prison labor for people to make his campaign calls.
Is it good that he’s helping to employ prisoners, to provide more opportunity for employment for incarcerated persons, since there isn’t so much? Is it easier/more interesting work than some other prison work, like the firefighters in CA, so therefore more humane? Or, was he just exploiting cheap prison labor? Are there laws stopping paying minimum wage to people who are incarcerated? Stay tuned, or let me know if you know.
And was he exploiting the fact that there’s no way for workers to stand up to bosses when response quotas–standard in push-poll calling–are improbably high and not meeting them send you home for the day or fires you?
I think I got one of these calls. I said I’m not interested because he’s too wealthy & not for the people. answered the candidate of choice question, Bernie Sanders; 2nd, Elizabeth Warren. I’m really glad I thanked the person for doing this work.
I’d also heard, however, that Bloomberg paid very well. So I told the campaign caller that I understood why people would work for Bloomberg, that I’m glad he pays campaign staff well.
If the folks incarcerated could choose a candidate they support–and vote for that person–maybe the ethics of forced proselytizing and the forced support inherent to that could be cleared up.
Are the prisoner-employees glad to get to participate in politics in ways they otherwise cannot, especially in a party primary?
Would volunteers have otherwise done the phone banking, of free will? Could Bloomberg and his campaign not find (enough) supporters to recruit as volunteers?
Sabri Sounds Off 