OT: California Prison Academy: Better Than a Harvard Degree

[CA renter]

[quote=pabloesqobar][quote=CA renter]
One of my old roommates in L.A. dated a prison guard. It literally drove him crazy, to the point that he shot himself in the head. The stories he told were incredible, and anyone who wants to do it is welcome to do so (then they’d actually have something to base their opinions on). I, for one, would not do it for any price.

Like BG said, it is NOT an easy job to qualify for, nor an easy job to do, contrary to what many of the people who sit behind computers all day like to assert. The turnover is very high, and morale is low, even with this “exhorbitant” pay.

I’d bet the people who are criticizing prison guards’ pay have never had an altercation with a violent and/or insane criminal, much less had to deal with multiple murderers, rapists, child abusers, etc. of the worst kind on a daily basis. That’s why I keep saying, “sign up.” Do it for a year or two, then come back and tell us how easy it is, and how these people should be paid less.[/quote]

That’s cool you don’t want to do it. I’m at a point where I don’t want to either. No need to.

That’s the first time I’ve heard of a prison guard committing suicide solely because of the pressures/stress from the job. People from all walks of life and careers commit suicide. I hear that being a famous actor/comedian is pretty stressful too judging by the suicide rate.

Contrary to what you or BG think, many of those prison guards also sit behind a computer for most of their shift. The turnover is not that high and the morale is no lower than any other field of work.

The “altercation” you’re referring to with a murderer/rapist/abuser, etc. is not what you think it is. These criminals are not so tough when they are locked into a facility wearing PJ’s and ready to get thumped any time they fall out of line. And it’s not one unarmed guard going up against a big bad criminal. It’s 15 armed guards going up against one unarmed moron. Pretty easy job. And for many of the ones that take that job, they do it because they find it to be fun. And financially rewarding.

As for BG not being able to pass the psych exam, well . . . Big Surprise. Big. HUGE.

And, to repeat, to keep beating the drum of “do it yourself, or you’ve waived the right to complain” is nonsensical. It surprises me you keep making that argument, as I assumed you were more thoughtful and reasoned.[/quote]

Regarding the suicide…he was stabbed by prisoners (not sure of the number, as I believe there were multiple prisoners involved…so much for your theory that they all turn into pussycats when they enter jail, or that there are 15 guards any time they have to deal with a criminal — that’s totally untrue), and I believe there was some type of sexual assault or an attempted assault on him when they had him — he never spoke about the sexual assault explicitly, and it’s conjecture on my part, but it was obvious that something went very wrong during this altercation, in addition to “just” being stabbed.

After this incident, he basically lost it. He had such a seething, passionate hatred of criminals after that, that it became an issue on the job. There was some sort of administrative punishment because of the way he acted toward the inmates after that (he might have been in the process of being fired, but I can’t remember the exact details), and he had so much hate inside, that he essentially lost his mind. He thought the criminals destroyed his life by hurting him and, because of the problems on the job that arose as a result of the incident, he didn’t want to live anymore. He worked so hard to get that job, and took great pride in what he did, so when things took a turn for the worse, there was nothing left for him, in his mind.

As to your assertion that turnover is low among prison guards, the facts don’t seem to bear that out:

Nearly 1 in 4 U.S. prison guards quit or are fired each year, a likely consequence of stresses created by low-paid work with often violent or mentally ill inmates in crowded jails, prison experts said Friday.

While high turnover among guards is not new, two recent prison escapes, in Texas and Alabama, put the spotlight on conditions inside the nation’s correctional facilities and the dangers that arise when prison jobs go unfilled.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/feb/03/news/mn-20687

………………

High turnover among prison guards has long been noted as a problem plaguing corrections. This study indicates that turnover among rank and file employees results from organizational and cultural strains within the formal organization. A sample survey of 55 former prison guards indicates that the most significant variable in explaining the termination of their prison work is race. Young urban black guards tend to find themselves in conflict with the top echelon in the custodial force while the white recruits have difficulty normalizing relations with the minority inmates.

http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/2/2/57.short

………………

Prison guard cuts could come through attrition
If the Legislature orders TDCJ to reduce the number of correctional officers and close prisons, the cuts could probably be managed effectively through attrition with few actual layoffs, according to a report (not online) I received in an open records request from TDCJ called “FY 2010 Agency Turnover by Title.” That document shows the number of COs remaining steady a little more than 28,000 over the last fiscal year, but with 5,724 CO “separations” from the agency in just one year, or 20.31% of their prison guard workforce. The turnover rate for a CO 1, or an entry level guard slot, was a whopping 59%.

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2011/03/prison-guard-cuts-could-come-through.html

In Texas:

Annual turnover rate is 90% in TDCJ’s private prisons
Mon, 05/04/2009 – 12:51pm — nick
Amongst the interesting statistics in the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee’s interim report on private prisons (PDF), was the shocking statistic that TDCJ-contracted private prisons have a 90% annual staff turnover rate. The report also presented numbers on differences in guard pay between public and private facilities.

“The wages and benefits paid to employees of private contractors are generally lower than that paid to employees of state-operated facilities… Correctional officer salaries in the private prisons vary among facilities, with the highest peaking at slightly more than $24,000 annually.”

For comparison to this figure, TDCJ Director Brad Livingston told the Austin American Statesman (“Big raises sought for prison workers,” August 14) that starting pay for correctional officers in public facilities is $26,016, and the maximum salaries range from $34,624 to $42,242. This means the lowest-paid TDCJ guard’s annual salary is $2,000 more than the highest-paid guard at TDCJ-contracted private prisons.

This probably contributes to the high turnover at private facilities noted in the report:

During FY 2008 the correctional officer turnover rate at the seven private prisons was 90 percent (60 percent for the five privately-operated state jails), which in either case is higher than the 24 percent turnover rate for TDCJ correctional officers during FY 2008.

It’s hard to understand how ANY organization can operate with 90% staff turnover.

http://www.texasprisonbidness.org/tdcj/annual-turnover-rate-90-tdcjs-private-prisons
———————————-

Gee, I wonder why the high turnover rates when morale is so high, the job is so easy, and they are so overpaid? What a conundrum!

Let me state, yet again (because people really aren’t getting what I’m trying to say, apparently): If the job is so easy, and the pay is so high, SIGN UP!!!

Why do I keep saying this? It’s because we keep hearing the arguments about how, “I don’t get paid that kind of salary, and I’m an [fill in the blank — but it’s almost always someone with a desk job, a college degree, and a tremendously inflated opinion of his/her own work, and very little knowledge about what these “union thugs” actually do], why should they get these benefits/pay?”

The only reasonable answer to this is: apply for the job, see if you qualify, go through the training, and do the job for a year or two. Maybe then, they’d know why prison guards get paid what they do (or at least they can stop complaining, as they’d be “getting rich” as a “union thug,” too!). Again, these positions are acutally open to the general public; there is no reason for the envy that’s displayed here all the time. Go for it!

[PCinSD]

[quote=CA renter]
Gee, I wonder why the high turnover rates when morale is so high, the job is so easy, and they are so overpaid? What a conundrum!

Let me state, yet again (because people really aren’t getting what I’m trying to say, apparently): If the job is so easy, and the pay is so high, SIGN UP!!!

Why do I keep saying this? It’s because we keep hearing the arguments about how, “I don’t get paid that kind of salary, and I’m an [fill in the blank — but it’s almost always someone with a desk job, a college degree, and a tremendously inflated opinion of his/her own work, and very little knowledge about what these “union thugs” actually do], why should they get these benefits/pay?”

The only reasonable answer to this is: apply for the job, see if you qualify, go through the training, and do the job for a year or two. Maybe then, they’d know why prison guards get paid what they do (or at least they can stop complaining, as they’d be “getting rich” as a “union thug,” too!). Again, these positions are acutally open to the general public; there is no reason for the envy that’s displayed here all the time. Go for it![/quote]

None of those studies refer to California, which is what this thread is about. They only mention Texas and Alabama. The pay they refer to is not the pay being complained of here in CA. The attrition rate quoted is not the attrition rate in CA.

The arguments about the pay have not been how you conveniently framed it as “I don’t get that kind of salary, and I’m in “x” job”. The argument has been that the taxpayers in CA pay too much for the prison system, when looking at the pay and benefits the prison guards receive.

You feel taxpayers don’t have the right to complain about any public employee position unless they are willing and able to do that particular job.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Again, sorry about your family member. But 1 isolated incident in another State does not support any conclusion about the prison guards in CA.

[PCinSD]

[quote=CA renter]
Gee, I wonder why the high turnover rates when morale is so high, the job is so easy, and they are so overpaid? What a conundrum!

Let me state, yet again (because people really aren’t getting what I’m trying to say, apparently): If the job is so easy, and the pay is so high, SIGN UP!!!

Why do I keep saying this? It’s because we keep hearing the arguments about how, “I don’t get paid that kind of salary, and I’m an [fill in the blank — but it’s almost always someone with a desk job, a college degree, and a tremendously inflated opinion of his/her own work, and very little knowledge about what these “union thugs” actually do], why should they get these benefits/pay?”

The only reasonable answer to this is: apply for the job, see if you qualify, go through the training, and do the job for a year or two. Maybe then, they’d know why prison guards get paid what they do (or at least they can stop complaining, as they’d be “getting rich” as a “union thug,” too!). Again, these positions are acutally open to the general public; there is no reason for the envy that’s displayed here all the time. Go for it![/quote]

None of those studies refer to California, which is what this thread is about. They only mention Texas and Alabama. The pay they refer to is not the pay being complained of here in CA. The attrition rate quoted is not the attrition rate in CA.

The arguments about the pay have not been how you conveniently framed it as “I don’t get that kind of salary, and I’m in “x” job”. The argument has been that the taxpayers in CA pay too much for the prison system, when looking at the pay and benefits the prison guards receive.

You feel taxpayers don’t have the right to complain about any public employee position unless they are willing and able to do that particular job.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Again, sorry about your family member. But 1 isolated incident in another State does not support any conclusion about the prison guards in CA.

[PCinSD]

[quote=CA renter]
Gee, I wonder why the high turnover rates when morale is so high, the job is so easy, and they are so overpaid? What a conundrum!

Let me state, yet again (because people really aren’t getting what I’m trying to say, apparently): If the job is so easy, and the pay is so high, SIGN UP!!!

Why do I keep saying this? It’s because we keep hearing the arguments about how, “I don’t get paid that kind of salary, and I’m an [fill in the blank — but it’s almost always someone with a desk job, a college degree, and a tremendously inflated opinion of his/her own work, and very little knowledge about what these “union thugs” actually do], why should they get these benefits/pay?”

The only reasonable answer to this is: apply for the job, see if you qualify, go through the training, and do the job for a year or two. Maybe then, they’d know why prison guards get paid what they do (or at least they can stop complaining, as they’d be “getting rich” as a “union thug,” too!). Again, these positions are acutally open to the general public; there is no reason for the envy that’s displayed here all the time. Go for it![/quote]

None of those studies refer to California, which is what this thread is about. They only mention Texas and Alabama. The pay they refer to is not the pay being complained of here in CA. The attrition rate quoted is not the attrition rate in CA.

The arguments about the pay have not been how you conveniently framed it as “I don’t get that kind of salary, and I’m in “x” job”. The argument has been that the taxpayers in CA pay too much for the prison system, when looking at the pay and benefits the prison guards receive.

You feel taxpayers don’t have the right to complain about any public employee position unless they are willing and able to do that particular job.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Again, sorry about your family member. But 1 isolated incident in another State does not support any conclusion about the prison guards in CA.

[PCinSD]

[quote=CA renter]
Gee, I wonder why the high turnover rates when morale is so high, the job is so easy, and they are so overpaid? What a conundrum!

Let me state, yet again (because people really aren’t getting what I’m trying to say, apparently): If the job is so easy, and the pay is so high, SIGN UP!!!

Why do I keep saying this? It’s because we keep hearing the arguments about how, “I don’t get paid that kind of salary, and I’m an [fill in the blank — but it’s almost always someone with a desk job, a college degree, and a tremendously inflated opinion of his/her own work, and very little knowledge about what these “union thugs” actually do], why should they get these benefits/pay?”

The only reasonable answer to this is: apply for the job, see if you qualify, go through the training, and do the job for a year or two. Maybe then, they’d know why prison guards get paid what they do (or at least they can stop complaining, as they’d be “getting rich” as a “union thug,” too!). Again, these positions are acutally open to the general public; there is no reason for the envy that’s displayed here all the time. Go for it![/quote]

None of those studies refer to California, which is what this thread is about. They only mention Texas and Alabama. The pay they refer to is not the pay being complained of here in CA. The attrition rate quoted is not the attrition rate in CA.

The arguments about the pay have not been how you conveniently framed it as “I don’t get that kind of salary, and I’m in “x” job”. The argument has been that the taxpayers in CA pay too much for the prison system, when looking at the pay and benefits the prison guards receive.

You feel taxpayers don’t have the right to complain about any public employee position unless they are willing and able to do that particular job.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Again, sorry about your family member. But 1 isolated incident in another State does not support any conclusion about the prison guards in CA.

[PCinSD]

[quote=CA renter]
Gee, I wonder why the high turnover rates when morale is so high, the job is so easy, and they are so overpaid? What a conundrum!

Let me state, yet again (because people really aren’t getting what I’m trying to say, apparently): If the job is so easy, and the pay is so high, SIGN UP!!!

Why do I keep saying this? It’s because we keep hearing the arguments about how, “I don’t get paid that kind of salary, and I’m an [fill in the blank — but it’s almost always someone with a desk job, a college degree, and a tremendously inflated opinion of his/her own work, and very little knowledge about what these “union thugs” actually do], why should they get these benefits/pay?”

The only reasonable answer to this is: apply for the job, see if you qualify, go through the training, and do the job for a year or two. Maybe then, they’d know why prison guards get paid what they do (or at least they can stop complaining, as they’d be “getting rich” as a “union thug,” too!). Again, these positions are acutally open to the general public; there is no reason for the envy that’s displayed here all the time. Go for it![/quote]

None of those studies refer to California, which is what this thread is about. They only mention Texas and Alabama. The pay they refer to is not the pay being complained of here in CA. The attrition rate quoted is not the attrition rate in CA.

The arguments about the pay have not been how you conveniently framed it as “I don’t get that kind of salary, and I’m in “x” job”. The argument has been that the taxpayers in CA pay too much for the prison system, when looking at the pay and benefits the prison guards receive.

You feel taxpayers don’t have the right to complain about any public employee position unless they are willing and able to do that particular job.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Again, sorry about your family member. But 1 isolated incident in another State does not support any conclusion about the prison guards in CA.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]Let me state, yet again (because people really aren’t getting what I’m trying to say, apparently): If the job is so easy, and the pay is so high, SIGN UP!!![/quote]

So here’s what you are saying (over and over):

The fact that I don’t want to make a drastic career change, drop everything and become a prison guard, is proof that they are not overpaid. All public employee salaries should be based upon my job preference. The State of California can never reduce the salary for any job that *I* don’t want to do.

BTW, since you haven’t signed up to be a banker, wall street type, or CEO, that means that *they* aren’t overpaid either.

[quote]Again, these positions are acutally open to the general public; there is no reason for the envy that’s displayed here all the time.[/quote]

The woman that cleans my house makes $30/hour. She does an OK job.

I just learned that my neighbor has someone working for him that he pays $25/hour. His housekeeper does a good job, at least as good as my housekeeper.

I’d like to fire my housekeeper and use the one my neighbor uses. This would save me some money and give some work to the other housekeeper who works just as hard, if not harder.

But, using your rules, I can’t get rid of my housekeeper, or reduce her salary. If I’m not willing to do her job at her pay rate (because I “envy” her?), then I can’t make any changes. I’m stuck with her, at her current rate no matter what.

That’s how it works, right?

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]Let me state, yet again (because people really aren’t getting what I’m trying to say, apparently): If the job is so easy, and the pay is so high, SIGN UP!!![/quote]

So here’s what you are saying (over and over):

The fact that I don’t want to make a drastic career change, drop everything and become a prison guard, is proof that they are not overpaid. All public employee salaries should be based upon my job preference. The State of California can never reduce the salary for any job that *I* don’t want to do.

BTW, since you haven’t signed up to be a banker, wall street type, or CEO, that means that *they* aren’t overpaid either.

[quote]Again, these positions are acutally open to the general public; there is no reason for the envy that’s displayed here all the time.[/quote]

The woman that cleans my house makes $30/hour. She does an OK job.

I just learned that my neighbor has someone working for him that he pays $25/hour. His housekeeper does a good job, at least as good as my housekeeper.

I’d like to fire my housekeeper and use the one my neighbor uses. This would save me some money and give some work to the other housekeeper who works just as hard, if not harder.

But, using your rules, I can’t get rid of my housekeeper, or reduce her salary. If I’m not willing to do her job at her pay rate (because I “envy” her?), then I can’t make any changes. I’m stuck with her, at her current rate no matter what.

That’s how it works, right?

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]Let me state, yet again (because people really aren’t getting what I’m trying to say, apparently): If the job is so easy, and the pay is so high, SIGN UP!!![/quote]

So here’s what you are saying (over and over):

The fact that I don’t want to make a drastic career change, drop everything and become a prison guard, is proof that they are not overpaid. All public employee salaries should be based upon my job preference. The State of California can never reduce the salary for any job that *I* don’t want to do.

BTW, since you haven’t signed up to be a banker, wall street type, or CEO, that means that *they* aren’t overpaid either.

[quote]Again, these positions are acutally open to the general public; there is no reason for the envy that’s displayed here all the time.[/quote]

The woman that cleans my house makes $30/hour. She does an OK job.

I just learned that my neighbor has someone working for him that he pays $25/hour. His housekeeper does a good job, at least as good as my housekeeper.

I’d like to fire my housekeeper and use the one my neighbor uses. This would save me some money and give some work to the other housekeeper who works just as hard, if not harder.

But, using your rules, I can’t get rid of my housekeeper, or reduce her salary. If I’m not willing to do her job at her pay rate (because I “envy” her?), then I can’t make any changes. I’m stuck with her, at her current rate no matter what.

That’s how it works, right?

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]Let me state, yet again (because people really aren’t getting what I’m trying to say, apparently): If the job is so easy, and the pay is so high, SIGN UP!!![/quote]

So here’s what you are saying (over and over):

The fact that I don’t want to make a drastic career change, drop everything and become a prison guard, is proof that they are not overpaid. All public employee salaries should be based upon my job preference. The State of California can never reduce the salary for any job that *I* don’t want to do.

BTW, since you haven’t signed up to be a banker, wall street type, or CEO, that means that *they* aren’t overpaid either.

[quote]Again, these positions are acutally open to the general public; there is no reason for the envy that’s displayed here all the time.[/quote]

The woman that cleans my house makes $30/hour. She does an OK job.

I just learned that my neighbor has someone working for him that he pays $25/hour. His housekeeper does a good job, at least as good as my housekeeper.

I’d like to fire my housekeeper and use the one my neighbor uses. This would save me some money and give some work to the other housekeeper who works just as hard, if not harder.

But, using your rules, I can’t get rid of my housekeeper, or reduce her salary. If I’m not willing to do her job at her pay rate (because I “envy” her?), then I can’t make any changes. I’m stuck with her, at her current rate no matter what.

That’s how it works, right?

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]Let me state, yet again (because people really aren’t getting what I’m trying to say, apparently): If the job is so easy, and the pay is so high, SIGN UP!!![/quote]

So here’s what you are saying (over and over):

The fact that I don’t want to make a drastic career change, drop everything and become a prison guard, is proof that they are not overpaid. All public employee salaries should be based upon my job preference. The State of California can never reduce the salary for any job that *I* don’t want to do.

BTW, since you haven’t signed up to be a banker, wall street type, or CEO, that means that *they* aren’t overpaid either.

[quote]Again, these positions are acutally open to the general public; there is no reason for the envy that’s displayed here all the time.[/quote]

The woman that cleans my house makes $30/hour. She does an OK job.

I just learned that my neighbor has someone working for him that he pays $25/hour. His housekeeper does a good job, at least as good as my housekeeper.

I’d like to fire my housekeeper and use the one my neighbor uses. This would save me some money and give some work to the other housekeeper who works just as hard, if not harder.

But, using your rules, I can’t get rid of my housekeeper, or reduce her salary. If I’m not willing to do her job at her pay rate (because I “envy” her?), then I can’t make any changes. I’m stuck with her, at her current rate no matter what.

That’s how it works, right?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pabloesqobar]…Again, sorry about your family member. But 1 isolated incident in another State does not support any conclusion about the prison guards in CA.[/quote]

I just want to add that the incidences CAR and UCGal’s relatives who were prison guards experienced happens nearly every week in every state in one or more institutions. There are layer upon layer of regulations and procedures those employees must follow but it’s always a judgment call. Very often, they’re damned if they take action and damned if they don’t (and damned if they take the “wrong kind, not enough,” or “too much” action). Besides these heavy “inmate-control” responsibilites, these institutions are often a hotbed of political discourse and hierarchy inside (“classification” be damned) for those who work there. The unsuspecting “new hire” or “transfer” doesn’t understand all these “ins and outs” until they have been stationed there awhile (and hopefully latch onto a “mentor” they can trust). It is very easy for an employee (new or experienced) to walk into a “situation” in there or have a “situation” walk into them that will end up being a cause of them being disciplined or their ultimate discharge.

It doesn’t help that there are many lawyers in CA who will sue the state on a prisoner’s behalf for prisoner neglect or maltreatment. This keeps an entire fleet of attorneys in each major AG’s office perpetually busy (also taxpayer funded).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pabloesqobar]…Again, sorry about your family member. But 1 isolated incident in another State does not support any conclusion about the prison guards in CA.[/quote]

I just want to add that the incidences CAR and UCGal’s relatives who were prison guards experienced happens nearly every week in every state in one or more institutions. There are layer upon layer of regulations and procedures those employees must follow but it’s always a judgment call. Very often, they’re damned if they take action and damned if they don’t (and damned if they take the “wrong kind, not enough,” or “too much” action). Besides these heavy “inmate-control” responsibilites, these institutions are often a hotbed of political discourse and hierarchy inside (“classification” be damned) for those who work there. The unsuspecting “new hire” or “transfer” doesn’t understand all these “ins and outs” until they have been stationed there awhile (and hopefully latch onto a “mentor” they can trust). It is very easy for an employee (new or experienced) to walk into a “situation” in there or have a “situation” walk into them that will end up being a cause of them being disciplined or their ultimate discharge.

It doesn’t help that there are many lawyers in CA who will sue the state on a prisoner’s behalf for prisoner neglect or maltreatment. This keeps an entire fleet of attorneys in each major AG’s office perpetually busy (also taxpayer funded).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pabloesqobar]…Again, sorry about your family member. But 1 isolated incident in another State does not support any conclusion about the prison guards in CA.[/quote]

I just want to add that the incidences CAR and UCGal’s relatives who were prison guards experienced happens nearly every week in every state in one or more institutions. There are layer upon layer of regulations and procedures those employees must follow but it’s always a judgment call. Very often, they’re damned if they take action and damned if they don’t (and damned if they take the “wrong kind, not enough,” or “too much” action). Besides these heavy “inmate-control” responsibilites, these institutions are often a hotbed of political discourse and hierarchy inside (“classification” be damned) for those who work there. The unsuspecting “new hire” or “transfer” doesn’t understand all these “ins and outs” until they have been stationed there awhile (and hopefully latch onto a “mentor” they can trust). It is very easy for an employee (new or experienced) to walk into a “situation” in there or have a “situation” walk into them that will end up being a cause of them being disciplined or their ultimate discharge.

It doesn’t help that there are many lawyers in CA who will sue the state on a prisoner’s behalf for prisoner neglect or maltreatment. This keeps an entire fleet of attorneys in each major AG’s office perpetually busy (also taxpayer funded).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pabloesqobar]…Again, sorry about your family member. But 1 isolated incident in another State does not support any conclusion about the prison guards in CA.[/quote]

I just want to add that the incidences CAR and UCGal’s relatives who were prison guards experienced happens nearly every week in every state in one or more institutions. There are layer upon layer of regulations and procedures those employees must follow but it’s always a judgment call. Very often, they’re damned if they take action and damned if they don’t (and damned if they take the “wrong kind, not enough,” or “too much” action). Besides these heavy “inmate-control” responsibilites, these institutions are often a hotbed of political discourse and hierarchy inside (“classification” be damned) for those who work there. The unsuspecting “new hire” or “transfer” doesn’t understand all these “ins and outs” until they have been stationed there awhile (and hopefully latch onto a “mentor” they can trust). It is very easy for an employee (new or experienced) to walk into a “situation” in there or have a “situation” walk into them that will end up being a cause of them being disciplined or their ultimate discharge.

It doesn’t help that there are many lawyers in CA who will sue the state on a prisoner’s behalf for prisoner neglect or maltreatment. This keeps an entire fleet of attorneys in each major AG’s office perpetually busy (also taxpayer funded).

[Author]

Posts