Stateville- the Penitentiary in Mass Society

by James B Jacobs

  In April 1976, shortly before this book went to press, a letter was sent to Governor Walker by an organization calling itself the Afro-American Correctional Officers Movement, complaining of racist oppression of minority employees as well as inmates at Stateville and other Illinois prisons and enclosing a list of seventeen demands. The demands called, among other things, for the resignation of the warden and several other senior white officials, for the removal of Ku Klux Klan organizers from Stateville, and for a review of all guard dismissals that had taken place within the last twelve months.

  Unionization

  Prior to the establishment in 1966 of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) local 1866, there had been several attempts to organize employees in the Stateville-Joliet prison complex. In the mid-1950s an educational administrator tried to organize a union around the issues of low pay, a six-day week, and summary suspensions. This effort, like others that followed, failed to attract more than a dozen employees. At no time would Joe Ragen meet with organized groups of employees or inmates.

  In 1962 Charles Vaught, a line officer at the Joliet Prison and a former member of the UAW, began distributing newsletters and leaflets at the trailer court arguing the need for employee organization. His efforts, however, were stymied by Ragen, who had the known organizers transferred to different shifts and to the towers and other remote assignments. According to one of the captains at the time, a sergeant’s dues were paid by the administration so that he might infiltrate the underground union and report on its activities. That the union was ultimately extended recognition in late 1966 can be attributed to the continued energies of its organizers, the retirement of Ragen from the Department of Public Safety, and the assistance of outside professional union organizers from AFSCME.

  As soon as Randolph assumed the directorship of Public Safety, several Stateville/Joliet guards traveled to Springfield for a meeting. They came back with Randolph’s approval of an employee union. The approval letter, which was signed by Randolph, and tacked on prison bulletin boards, was almost immediately torn down, indicating the strong resistance of the old line staff, who felt (as they did later in the case of the reform administration) that if they held out long enough the union would fold as the previous ones had. Vaught and others returned to Springfield and extracted Randolph’s pledge that he would recognize a prison employee union and that he would not allow retaliation against union members.11 While union check-offs had been permitted under state law since 1962,12 they were authorized in the prisons for the first time in 1967.

  Coinciding with Randolph’s accession to the directorship was the rapid statewide growth of AFSCME. Professional union organizers assisted the guards in drawing up by-laws and a union charter in 1966. Once the union was chartered, several guards were sent to a two-week school for union stewards in Ottawa, Illinois. In addition the union hired a hospital worker at Stateville to its staff, and he became a liaison between the union and the local.

  Early in 1967, two of the union leaders entered Warden Pate’s office for the first union/management meeting in Stateville’s history. Pate is reported to have stared out of his office window and mused out loud, “You know, this is the first time any union people have ever set foot in this office.” It was a further instance of the erosion of the prison’s autonomy. Union minutes taken at the meeting indicate that three issues were raised: salaries, seniority, and compensation for the fifteen minutes daily during which guards were required to stand formation. Even though the “success” of the first meeting (nobody was fired) brought a score of new members, organizing was impeded by widespread skepticism as to the viability of a public employee union, fear of reprisal, and the strong sense of identification of the employees with the administration, particularly with Warden Pate.

  In the following two years there were frequent conflicts over union organizing on state time on state property. On several occasions AFSCME representatives were denied entrance to the prison or were held up at the gate house and subjected to thorough searches. Organizing was stimulated, however, by the success of union lawyers in cases before the Workmen’s Compensation Board. In addition, the union lawyers won reinstatement and back pay for several guards who had been discharged. In one of the cases, the union attorney successfully showed that so widespread were the “pink slips” (disciplinary reports) in the files of all cell house guards that no inference could be drawn from them regarding poor performance on the job.13

  The advent of the Bensinger/Twomey regime was traumatic for Stateville/Joliet employees. Rumors circulated throughout the prison that prison jobs would once again become “political.” There was a widespread feeling that the new young warden would “give it away to the inmates.” The situation was further unsettled by increasing inmate defiance of authority. The local doubled its membership in 1970 (from 179 to 360). Of major significance was the fact that the lieutenants joined the union.14

  Up to 1970 the union’s main function was to provide guards with representation before the Workmen’s Compensation Board, the Civil Service Commission, and at the ultimate stage of the grievance procedure in Springfield. Until Pate’s departure the most salient issues were “bread and butter”—salary, overtime, insurance, job security. After Twomey took office, the union fulfilled a different function entirely; it primarily emphasized the need for more stringent security. At the local level, and in Springfield, the union argued that the prisons were unsafe, that the new programs were creating too much movement with too little supervision. The following minutes reflect the concerns of the guards following the June 1971 ball diamond incident at Stateville in which several guards were injured.

  The items listed below were compiled from suggestions brought to the floor at the special meeting of local 1866, Stateville-Joliet Prison Employees Union, which was held on Thursday night, June 10, 1971. This entire agenda could be summed up in one statement—put the Prisons back to where they were two years ago in regard to security and discipline.

  1. Take mattresses out of isolation and return isolation to one meal per day.

  2. Walk inmates when line Officers or Supervisors deem it necessary.

  3. Towers—replace old, worn-out and out-dated equipment, i.e.: tear gas grenades expired 1961, gas masks torn and useless, telescopes, rifles not accurate. Replace tower instructions with readable up-to-date documents which clearly state when a tower guard is to fire his weapons.

  4. Make provisions to separate troublemakers and wrong doers by lock-up until proof is shown of their willingness to abide by the rules and to show proper respect for the employees.

  5. Why was riot squad disbanded? We need one more now than ever.

  6. Better communication system from front to back of cell house B.

  7. A set of rules for dress and grooming for inmates and Officers alike (including counsellors).

  8. Automatic isolation time for inmates not coming down from cells in all cell houses, for all details, on time.

  9. Inmates to come around to the towers and clean refuse buckets with brushes, soap, and water. Not just dump them and leave them to stink.

  10. Counsellors: Not taking care of inmate requests, interfering in Officers duties, abusing special letter privileges, etc.

  11. Reinforce rules pertaining to clean cells, no pictures, clippings, etc. on walls, nothing to be hung on windows, beds, etc. which obstructs vision into cells in all cell houses.

  12. Hire more guards so that all assignments may be safely and adequately manned at all times.15

  The demands illuminate the lack of confidence in the administration’s ability and willingness to protect the line employees. The situation was so volatile that Twomey felt that if he did not implement a lockup the guards might walk out.16 He recalls that during the period it “was a struggle to keep the place open.” There were constant union demands for lockups, shakedowns, and changes in administrative policies.

  According to one long-time lieutenant, “at one point it seemed th
at there was a union meeting near every other day to talk about security.” The union demanded that lieutenants be supplied blackjacks and mace, that tiers above the ground level be barred in, that blind spots on the yard be fenced off, that the sheet metal shop be closed entirely until some effective means of preventing the scrap from being fashioned into knives was found. Most important, the union demanded the creation of a special segregation facility for troublemakers. Ultimately they settled for SPU.

  Tension between Twomey and the union did not abate. The union charged that Twomey was inaccessible and unresponsive to their problems. When Twomey discharged three guards for “allowing” three inmates to escape in early 1972, the union took their cases and won reinstatement for each.17 Twomey concluded that it was “useless to fire anyone” and that the union had “undermined my authority.”

  The first captain to join the union did so in 1972. He had been given a thirty-day suspension by Warden Twomey for physically throwing a young schoolteacher out of his office when the latter came in to demand an assignment to the school for a particular inmate. Although the captain was not a member of the union, the union took the case, seeing in it an excellent opportunity to increase its strength. The suspension was taken to Springfield via the grievance procedure and reduced to two days. Subsequently all the captains, save one, joined up. The chief guard himself became a member in September 1973 “because a union member came to me and told me about an administrative change that was about to take place and about which I had been told nothing, despite the fact that I thought I was a part of the administration”—further evidence of the consequences of the split between administration and the guard elite.

  After the baseball bat incident of 2 July 1972 (see p. 164), another walk out was threatened, and once again the prison administration responded by calling for a general lockup. This time union pressures on the warden were revealed in the press.

  A shakedown of cells is now being held at Stateville and an employee told the Daily News that he saw the guards take either a radio or a phonograph out of the inmate’s cell and throw it over a railing. “They are going through cells tearing pictures and other personal things off the walls,” he said. “The men consider this unnecessary harassment and intimidation.” It was learned that the Stateville guard lieutenants met Sunday night and threatened to go on strike if Twomey did not order the prison population locked up.18

  Officer James Zeiger was the first officer killed in the line of duty since 1946. Not only was his death (10 January 1973) a highly emotional event, but it also provided an extremely opportune moment for union organizing. Following the incident, the union voted to lock up Stateville if demands for security were not met. On 27 January the 7 A.M.-3 P.M. shift reported to work but followed the union orders not to let any of the inmates out of their cells. One by one Warden Twomey called each of the keepers and then the other guards to his office and asked each one if he was going to open the cells; upon refusal, he suspended them.

  Outside the prison a crowd of some one hundred guards gathered while professional AFSCME organizers from Chicago directed the job action. AFSCME representatives were in contact with the governor’s office and were assured that nobody would lose their job and that the situation would be worked out. Director designate David Fogel was dispatched to Stateville, where he negotiated an end to the day-long walk out by promising to place all the demands upon an agenda to be addressed as soon as possible. Once again command of the local situation was taken over by Springfield.

  By 1973 the union had become a potent force in the Illinois prisons.19 Fogel contacted AFSCME representatives even before he came to Illinois and met with members of the union’s executive board (with the governor in attendance) before his nomination was made public and before he introduced himself to his own central office staff. When Alyn Sielaff became director of corrections, he ordered monthly union/management meetings at each institution. He also maintained department level negotiating sessions with members of the union’s executive council. The first collective bargaining agreement was ratified in the winter of 1975.

  The demands which the union brought to the collective bargaining table were mostly bread and butter (pay, retirement, hours, etc.). However, issues involving the management of the institutions themselves hold the greatest potential for conflict in the future. Just how broadly the clause by which the department promises to ensure “safety and security at all times” will be construed is likely to raise the toughest problems.20

  The trade union movement itself is basically incompatible with the prison’s paramilitary organization. As professional organizers gradually build a spirit of trade unionism at Stateville, the prison is becoming demystified; the fighting spirit and sense of mission are waning. The union maintains that the guards are “working stiffs” laboring for a living in order to raise their children and support their families. They argue that, while on the job, prison employees are entitled to respect, dignity, and decency. As far as the union is concerned, “taking orders” is not consistent with dignity on the job. The union would prefer to remove the military ranks (and uniforms) and substitute simple job descriptions and job titles.

  As the union argues that this is “just a job” and that “you’re not being paid to be a hero,” it can be expected that the guard will become less committed to an esprit de corps. In early May 1975, for example, hostages were seized at the Joliet prison. Tension was high at Stateville and the administration feared that a similar riot might be triggered. As the guards came off the 7 A.M.-3 P.M. shift, the captain asked for volunteers to work overtime (at time-and-a-half) in case of trouble. Only one man volunteered. Five years earlier it was reported that in similar circumstances guards demanded to stay on the job until the threat had passed.21

  The expansion of prisoners’ rights has been paralleled by the drive for both substantive and procedural rights of employees. Under Ragen and Pate, guards could be summarily suspended for “a dirty assignment,” “making a negligent mistake,” “being antagonistic to other employees,” or “having a bad attitude.” The Bensinger administration inaugurated the Employee Review Board, made up of administrators and captains, to hear cases of alleged rule infractions by employees. In addition, under Sielaff the union was finally given the right to represent any employee who demanded representation before the committee. The whole process is now infused with a proto due process, like the inmate disciplinary court; and, as with the inmate court, it is not clear that the substantive outcomes are any different. In 1969, for example, 171 guards were summarily suspended during the year for various reasons, and without hearings or written findings. This is an average of 14.3 suspensions per month. For the Employee Review Board cases from January to April 1975 there were fifty-eight suspensions or 14.5 per month.

  Like the inmates, the guards now have a (five-step) grievance procedure which can be used to appeal disciplinary decisions or any other conflicts that arise on the job. Under Bensinger the last stage of the grievance procedure was heard by the assistant director in Springfield. A union representative recalls that the union never won a single grievance from Bensinger’s assistant director. The same AFSCME representative estimates that during the Sielaff administration (1973–75) the union has won about 50 percent of the grievances at the level of the assistant director. From 1 July 1974 to 30 June 1975, of thirty-six union grievances to reach the assistant director, six were concluded totally favorably to the grievant, twenty-two totally unfavorably and eight ended with mixed results. And there is now a further appeal to an “outside” committee with no members from the Department of Corrections.

  Whereas the union complained that Twomey was inaccessible, both Cannon and Brierton have been in constant contact with the union stewards at Stateville and with the state AFSCME representatives. It is not at all unusual for the warden to call in the union to discuss some policy or security change. In 1969 the union president was four times refused entrance through the gatehouse because it was alleged that he had bee
n carrying out union business on the job. Today the relationship is far more normalized, particularly with Warden Brierton, in whom the union has confidence.

  There are limitations to the development of a union movement inside the prison. The union’s efforts on behalf of Assistant Warden Vern Revis, first in presenting him $500 for a kidney operation, and then in trying to mobilize support for a job action when he was relieved of his line responsibilities, demonstrates that at least some of the esprit de corps of the old regime still remains. Several of the lieutenants went to the union meeting ready to demand a strike if Revis was not reinstated in his old position. This gesture indicated a feeling of solidarity and loyalty between some of the guard staff and some of their superiors who came up through the ranks and are looked upon as heroic leaders. The AFSCME representative argued vigorously that a labor union does not strike merely because one of the bosses is laterally transferred. He told the membership that it would be impossible satisfactorily to explain to a guard’s family that his job had been put in jeopardy because of a top-level administrative shake-up. At the end of his speech, nobody at the meeting was willing to make a motion on behalf of Revis.

  It also remains to be seen how legally strong the public employee union in Illinois will become. The legislature has still not passed legislation providing for collective bargaining despite the fact that it has been proposed during several sessions. While it is unlikely that the legality of establishing collective bargaining by executive order will ever be tested in court (because of the issue of standing), public employee collective bargaining continues to rest on a shakier foundation than collective bargaining in the private sector.22

  Part of the union’s potential strength may be dissipated by recent moves of the Department of Corrections to sever the captains and lieutenants, who are arguably supervisors, from the rest of the guards by challenging their inclusion in the same bargaining unit with the line officers. Taking a strict interpretation of the executive order, the union has countered with the argument that the lieutenants do not strictly “hire and fire” and therefore are not supervisors. The administration has responded by issuing scores of directives urging local wardens to move the lieutenants into actual supervisory situations. Without the lieutenants and captains the union would be sapped of some of its best talent and of a group which would carry considerable weight in the event of a strike.