SAN JOSE, CA—Dell's "primitive" recycling system exposes prison laborers to dangerous chemicals and thwarts the company's hallmark efficiency, an advocacy group says, while Hewlett-Packard's modern plants protect workers and the environment.
|
From Dell's Website There's no mention here of the extremely low-cost prison labor Dell uses.
source: Dell Website 26jun03 |
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition's "Tale of Two Systems" [Executive Report below] study compared the divergent ways America's top computer makers deal with the growing problem of hazardous "e-waste." The report, published Thursday, coincided with the start of a two-day meeting in Washington for manufacturers, retailers and government agents sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Dell and dozens of other companies pay subcontractors that rely on U.S. prisoners for low-cost recycling. Low-paid inmates handle cathode ray tubes and other unsafe byproducts of the U.S. technology industry.
Environmentalists and workers groups are demanding that companies build state-of-the-art recycling facilities in the United States and dispose of toxins with minimal impact on workers or the environment.
"We scream bloody murder when other countries use prison labor, yet here we are under our own noses seeing this becoming one of the fastest growing industries," said Ted Smith, executive director of the San Jose-based coalition.
Dell complies with worker safety standards mandated by the federal Occupational Safety & Health Administration, company spokesman Bryant Hilton said. He denied claims that Dell, a Wall Street darling because of its highly efficient computer manufacturing system, used prison labor simply to cut costs.
Round Rock, Texas-based Dell outsources recycling work to UNICOR, a self-sustaining corporation that uses prison laborers, part of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Washington-based UNICOR employs 1,100 convicts in recycling, paying them 20 cents to $1.26 per hour.
"It operates differently than a commercial recycler, but they meet the same criteria we'd put on any of our recyclers," Hilton said. "Our goal is to make recycling affordable and easy."
Lawrence M. Novicky, general manager of UNICOR's recycling business group, called SVTC's study "deeply flawed" and "disturbing."
Novicky questioned why SVTC profiled only two companies, noting that more than 500 manufacturers recycle electronics in the United States - and many feature equipment similar to that used by UNICOR.
"I can only conclude that this document was created to support preconceived positions, not to present the truth about how UNICOR is helping to both recycle millions of computers and give thousands of people needed technical skills and a new chance to become productive members of society," Novicky wrote in an angry letter to Smith.
According to SVTC, some of the 240 recyclers at a penitentiary in Atwater toil in a "caged area" where they smash cathode ray tubes with hammers - a "primitive" system that exposes them to dangerous chemicals and broken glass. SVTC investigators said UNICOR would not provide air quality test results.
SVTC criticized UNICOR for forcing inmates to pack and unpack, stack and unstack recycled computers several times before the e-waste leaves the compound.
The report, published with the Computer TakeBack Campaign, praised HP's seven-year-old Micro Metallics plant in Roseville, Calif., similar to one in Nashville, Tenn.
Roseville encourages worker feedback, minimizes exposure to chemicals, and pays $8 to $13 per hour, plus benefits. Mechanical shredders replace hammers. Vacuums replace brooms, which are banned because they may raise dust containing lead or bromiated flame retardants.
Renee St. Denis, who manages the Roseville plant, said HP's $10 million investment in Roseville and Nashville made it more expensive than many recycling options. But she said it may help HP save money by avoiding fines states impose on polluters.
At least 25 states have introduced "end-of-life" management policies for computers, televisions and other electronics. California, Massachusetts and Minnesota have banned from local land mines many hazardous materials in computers.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The problem of electronic waste (e-waste) is growing at an unsustainable rate. E-waste is now the fastest growing, and most toxic, component of municipal garbage. Local governments are facing huge costs to handle e-waste, and even greater costs if they do not capture this toxic stream and handle it in an appropriate manner.
Recycling is both a means of preventing the land disposal of toxic metals in e-waste and recovering some value. The Computer TakeBack Campaign, an advocacy coalition, is developing and campaigning for appropriate models for managing e-waste. (For more information about the campaign, its goals and work see http://www.computertakeback.com).
This case study compares two very different models for recycling obsolete computers and electronics hardware that have been created by the two largest computer makers in the U.S. — Hewlett Packard’s partnership with Micro Metallics of Roseville, California, and Dell Computers’ (recently renamed Dell, Inc.) partnership with UNICOR, the Federal Prison Industry.
Our methodology included visits to both sites to examine the facilities for a number of characteristics:
This study found that the two facilities differed dramatically in their transparency to the public. The Atwater facility exhibited a “fortress UNICOR” mentality, allowing only restricted access to investigators. UNICOR failed to respond to repeated requests to allow an industrial hygienist trained in occupational health and safety to inspect its facility, approving the visit too late for its findings to be included here. During a visit by other inspectors for this study, both investigators and inmates were forbidden from speaking with each other. Fortunately, the investigators were able to supplement their observations with testimonials from inmates, which are presented anonymously in this report to protect prisoners from reprisal. The Atwater facility refused to provide air quality test results, claiming that this information would have to be sought through a Freedom of Information Act request addressed to the federal Bureau of Prisons.
In contrast, the Micro Metallics - Hewlett-Packard facility allowed our industrial hygienist to inspect freely, permitted investigators to speak informally with employees, and provided air monitoring and employee blood –lead test results.
Safety and health standards were very different at the two recycling operations. At Atwater, UNICOR’s primitive practice of manually smashing leaded glass in cathode ray tubes unnecessarily exposed workers to risk of toxic contamination and cuts. Security restrictions on the kinds of tools available to prisoners made their work less efficient and more dangerous. Workstations were not designed to avoid ergonomic hazards. One inmate reported that “Even when I wear the paper mask, I blow out black mucus from my nose everyday. The black particles in my nose and throat look as if I am a heavy smoker. Cuts and abrasions happen all the time. Of these the open wounds are exposed to the dirt and dust and many do not heal as quickly as normal wounds.” Inmates reported that those who sought to improve conditions faced discipline and loss of their jobs.
At Micro Metallics – HP, hazardous tools such as hammers were eliminated in favor of mechanized systems, such as crushers, that reduce worker exposure to toxics. The facility’s workstations were designed to reduce ergonomic hazards. An intranet database allowed workers to access information on hazardous materials and optimal methods for safe disassembly.
The strikingly dissimilar picture at the two operations offers a contrast between some of the worst and best recycling practices. UNICOR’s operation is organized primarily to maintain a maximum-security facility, rather than to maximize the efficiency with which e-waste is sorted and disassembled. Its prison warehouse is organizationally and technologically backward. Cheap labor, paid .20 to $1.26 per hour at Atwater, offers little incentive to invest in worker productivity. In addition, prison workers have few rights and little ability to improve health and safety conditions. Inmates toil outside the protection of state and local environmental and labor regulations that private sector recyclers must follow. Prison laborers are not considered employees and are not protected against retaliatory acts by their employer (UNICOR) under the Fair Labor Standard Act. Inmates are not allowed to unionize or to serve on the prison health and safety committees.
In contrast, Micro Metallics – HP had developed efficient warehousing systems that electronically track materials throughout the recycling process. The facility was staffed by union workers paid a living wage. Non-management employees sat on the company’s health and safety committee. They helped create a workplace that was open to public inquiry and able to respond to state and local regulatory agencies.
UNICOR, a publicly subsidized prison industrial operator, used practices disturbingly similar to those found in developing nations, which were exposed in the 2002 report, Exporting Harm http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/pubs/technotrash.htm. Inspectors found harsh conditions, very few worker rights and protections that are guaranteed to hazardous waste recycling workers in the US, and lack of disclosure of its practices to the public. The Micro Metallics – HP facility, a private sector operation, had much higher levels of demonstrable health and safety and environmental safeguards. In addition, while Hewlett-Packard has committed to a policy of not exporting hazardous ewaste to developing countries, UNICOR has acknowledged that e-waste processed in their facilities is likely exported overseas to foreign countries for final disposition. Because of the lack of transparency surrounding the UNICOR facility, its inefficient and unnecessarily dangerous recycling practices, and the undetermined taxpayer subsidy that underpins its operation, planners and policy makers will be able to learn much from their operations about how not to set up a sound e-waste recycling program. The Micro Metallics facility, while not yet offering comprehensive solutions, offers a far better model for further study and imitation.
These recycling operations suggest two paths for the future of e-waste recycling in America. One path leads toward efficient, transparent, modern facilities staffed by free labor, possessed of their rights as contemporary employees, able to protect themselves and nearby communities from harm. The other path descends into a closed, Dickensian world of prisoners condemned to dangerous work for little pay under backward conditions. Depending on the path we choose, e-waste recycling can contribute to community economic development and environmental protection, or can become the equivalent of breaking rocks on a high-tech chain gang.
source: http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/pubs/prison_final.pdf 26jun03
|
If
you have come to this page from an outside location click
here to get back to mindfully.org |