President of the Prison Officers’ Association of Trinidad and Tobago, Gerard Gordon, has published a statement on social media addressing what he describes as one of the most misunderstood aspects of modern corrections: prison labour.
Mr Gordon argues that public discussion around inmates assisting with agriculture, road maintenance, environmental projects or public works often becomes polarised with some viewing it as exploitation and others insisting prisoners should simply “work to repay society.”
“The truth is far more nuanced,” Gordon writes, noting that international law does not prohibit prison labour. He points to the International Labour Organization (ILO), the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, commonly known as the Mandela Rules and correctional systems across the democratic world as recognising that properly managed prison work is an important part of rehabilitation.
“The real question is not whether prisoners should work. The real question is how they should work,” he states.
Gordon outlines two key ILO conventions governing prison labour. ILO Convention No. 29, the Forced Labour Convention of 1930, permits prison labour provided certain safeguards are met namely, that the prisoner has been convicted by a court of law, that the work remains under the direct supervision and control of the State, and that prisoners are not simply leased to private companies for commercial gain without proper legal protections and voluntary consent.
ILO Convention No. 105, the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention of 1957, draws firmer boundaries. According to Gordon, states cannot use compulsory prison labour as a tool for political punishment, cannot force political prisoners into labour, cannot use it to punish people for participating in lawful strikes, and must not apply it in a discriminatory manner against particular racial, religious or social groups. He adds that governments should also avoid mobilising compulsory prison labour purely as a cheap workforce for national economic development.
“These safeguards exist to prevent abuse while still allowing meaningful rehabilitation,” he writes.
Gordon argues that modern correctional philosophy has evolved to view work programmes as tools for teaching responsibility, punctuality, teamwork, vocational skills and self-discipline. He also notes that busy inmates are generally less likely to engage in violence, gang activity or other disruptive behaviour, meaning such programmes can improve institutional safety for both inmates and staff.
Gordon highlights that Trinidad and Tobago’s own Prison Rules already provide for prisoner earnings under Rule 293, which establishes a graded remuneration system for qualifying convicted prisoners:
- Grade A: no remuneration during the first 13 weeks
- Grade B: 50 cents per week
- Grade C: 70 cents per week
- Grade D: 90 cents per week
The Rules also allow for promotion or demotion based on conduct and industry, permit deductions for misconduct, and generally provide for earnings to be paid upon discharge. While acknowledging that “whether those monetary amounts remain realistic in today’s economy is a separate discussion altogether,” Gordon says the broader principle remains significant that Trinidad and Tobago recognised decades ago that productive labour deserved recognition and reward.
In closing, the President reiterates the Association’s long-standing position that prisons exist to protect society but that protection is achieved through correction as much as through secure walls.
“Properly supervised work programmes can build discipline, restore self worth and prepare offenders for lawful employment upon release. Prison labour should always advance rehabilitation before revenue,” Gordon states. “Perhaps the greatest lesson is this: The safest society is not the one that simply punishes offenders. It is the one that returns fewer offenders to prison because rehabilitation actually worked.”