Stephen Marks | The Images Bank | Getty ImagesAs chief financial officer of a military clothing manufacturer, Steven W. Eisen was accustomed to winning contracts to make garments for the Defense Department. But in December, Mr. Eisen received surprising news. His company, Tennier Industries, which is in a depressed corner of Tennessee, would not receive a new $45 million contract.
Tennier lost the deal not to a private sector competitor, but to a corporation owned by the federal government, Federal Prison Industries. Federal Prison Industries, also known as Unicor, does not have to worry much about its overhead. It uses prisoners for labor, paying them 23 cents to $1.15 an hour. Although the company is not allowed to sell to the private sector, the law generally requires federal agencies to buy its products, even if they are not the cheapest. Mr. Eisen, who laid off about 100 workers after losing out on the new contract, said the system took sorely needed jobs from law-abiding citizens. “Our government screams, howls and yells how the rest of the world is using prisoners or slave labor to manufacture items, and here we take the items right out of the mouths of people who need it,” he said. Although Federal Prison Industries has been around for decades, its critics are gaining more sympathy this year as jobs, competition and the role of government have become potent political issues. Recently, a clothing company complained that the government company had expressed interest in making Air Force windbreakers like one worn by the president. Last month, amid negative news reports and pressure from the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, F.P.I. said it would stop competing for the contract because it could damage the private company that makes the jackets, Ashland Sales and Service. In addition, a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers is resuscitating a bill to overhaul the way the prison manufacturing company does business, proposing to eliminate its preferential status. Under current practice — governed by intricate laws, regulations and policies — an agency must buy prisoner-made goods if the company offers an item that is comparable in price, quality and time of delivery to that of the private sector, with certain exceptions. The company’s prices are not always the lowest, but it frequently has been able to underbid private companies, Congressional aides say. The bill seeks to limit those advantages by putting a limit on F.P.I.’s sales to the federal government, opening more product areas to private companies and strengthening requirements that the prices for prisoner-made products be competitive. The legislation would also impose federal work-safety standards and higher wages, starting at $2.50 an hour. Separately, Senator McConnell has introduced a bill that would subject the Bureau of Prisons, including its manufacturing company, to greater Congressional oversight. F.P.I. has traditionally relied on office furniture, electronics and clothing manufacturing for the bulk of its business, but it has been moving into new industries like renewable energy. The company already has one factory each in New York and Oregon to build solar panels and is looking into making energy-efficient lighting and small wind turbines. “This is a threat to not just established industries; it’s a threat to emerging industries,” said Representative Bill Huizenga, a Michigan Republican who is the lead sponsor of the proposed overhaul legislation. “If China did this — having their prisoners work at subpar wages in prisons — we would be screaming bloody murder.”
Roslan Rahman | AFP | Getty ImagesWilliams found his password and emailed the company, asking administrators to maintain 22-year-old Loren Williams' account so she could pore through his posts and comments by his friends. But within two hours, she said, Facebook changed the password, blocking her efforts. "I wanted full and unobstructed access, and they balked at that," said Williams, recalling her son's death in 2005. "It was heartbreaking. I was a parent grasping at straws to get anything I could get." Now lawmakers and attorneys in at least two states are considering proposals that would require Facebook and other social networks to grant access to loved ones when a family member dies, essentially making the site contents part of a person's digital estate. The issue is growing increasingly important as people record more thoughts and experiences online and more disputes break out over that material. Williams, a second-grade teacher from the Portland suburbs, ultimately got back into her son's account, but it took a lawsuit and a two-year legal battle that ended with Facebook granting her 10 months of access before her son's page was removed. Nebraska is reviewing legislation modeled after a law in Oklahoma, which last year became the first state to take action. "Mementos, shoe boxes with photos. That, we knew how to distribute once someone passed away," said Ryan Kiesel, a former legislator who wrote the Oklahoma law. "We wanted to get state law and attorneys to begin thinking about the digital estate." Under Facebook's current policy, deaths can be reported in an online form. When the site learns of a death, it puts that person's account in a memorialized state. Certain information is removed, and privacy is restricted to friends only. The profile and wall are left up so friends and loved ones can make posts in remembrance. Facebook will provide the estate of the deceased with a download of the account data "if prior consent is obtained from or decreed by the deceased or mandated by law." If a close relative asks that a profile be removed, Facebook will honor that request, too. Like the Oklahoma law, the Nebraska bill would allow friends or relatives to take control of social media accounts if the deceased person lived in the state. The measure would treat Facebook, Twitter and email accounts as digital assets that could be closed or continued by an appointed representative. Omaha lawyer William Lindsay, who specializes in estate planning, said his professional experience has taught him that the issue should be addressed in the law. But he also has a personal interest because of a cousin who died while serving in the Navy. "We wanted to be able to get the email records, but we couldn't because nobody knew the password," Lindsay said. "We wanted to let her friends know she had died, but we didn't know all of them." Sen. John Wightman, who sponsored the measure at the urging of the state bar association, said he expects the Judiciary Committee to approve the bill, sending it to the full Legislature. Facebook spokesman Tucker Bounds said the company was surprised by the Oklahoma law and was working closely with Nebraska legislators on the latest proposal. The company declined to say how many people had requested access to accounts held by Oklahomans, but Bounds said it was relatively rare. "I can tell you there aren't people pouring out into the streets asking for access," Bounds said. Oregon could be the next state to take up the issue. The Oregon State Bar Association has formed a group to work on the matter and hopes to propose legislation next year. Portland lawyer Victoria Blachly said the plan will mirror the Oklahoma law, but it will also include a "virtual asset instruction letter" that lists online information and passwords, along with instructions for when someone dies or becomes incapacitated. "That's the part that social media providers have been wrestling with," Blachly said. Like others, Blachly said she began studying the issue after a young relative died and left social media accounts in limbo. Her top concern is the emotional value of social media accounts. "Some people say, 'Well, if I get hit by a bus, what do I care?"' she said. "The people who love you care very much about it." © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
