Rep. Troy Hendrickk proposes classifying incarcerated Vermonters as temporary state employees

Representative Troy Hendrickk told the General & Housing Committee on March 11 that H919 would "classify any incarcerated individual who performs labor for, at the direction of, or under the supervision of [the] Vermont Department of Corrections as a temporary state employee." He said the intent is to recognize that incarcerated people perform work that would otherwise be done by state employees and to open the door to fairer pay and savings mechanisms.

Hendrickk said incarcerated Vermont residents currently earn between $0.25 and $1.20 per hour, with an average of roughly $0.65 an hour. He highlighted examples to illustrate the burden of privatized telecommunications: at those wages a 15-minute phone call can amount to the equivalent of 40 minutes of labor, a 30-minute video call can exceed seven hours of labor, and regular messaging can consume multiple labor hours per week. He said these costs fall on inmates' families and leave returning residents without savings to support reentry.

The bill, Hendrickk said, is short and narrowly drafted to create the temporary-state-employee classification; he read the text to the committee and noted several open questions, including whether OSHA protections apply to incarcerated labor. He also said the proposal, as written, would not confer full state-employee benefits because it uses the "temporary" classification.

Committee members pressed on operational and policy issues. One member raised concerns about giving the classification to people convicted of serious offenses; Hendrickk and others responded that housing and supervision classifications are determined by behavior and security needs rather than crime type and that supervision already exists for current work assignments. Members asked whether classifying the workers would trigger other labor-law obligations, and whether the state could offset higher pay by subtracting housing and meal costs; members suggested Joint Fiscal should be engaged to estimate implementation costs tied to revenue sources such as license-plate production.

Fiscal questions were raised repeatedly: one member recalled a past estimate between $3 million and $5 million to raise wages, and another cited a back‑of‑envelope figure of about $4 million; Hendrickk described an independent estimate that providing no-cost telephone calls statewide would cost roughly $500,000 annually, but he presented that figure as provisional. The committee did not take a vote on H919; the sponsor characterized the presentation as the start of the committee's consideration and said he planned additional study on telecommunications and commissary privatization.

Several members urged more direct engagement with incarcerated people and facility staff. A member who works with reentry nonprofits encouraged colleagues to visit local facilities — she cited the women's prison near South Burlington — to better understand incarcerated residents' daily conditions and to inform policy choices.

The presentation also drew a constitutional and historical frame: speakers referenced the 13th Amendment's exception for penal labor and noted Vermont voters recently approved a change (Prop 2) removing permissive language that had been used to justify forced labor. That context was raised in committee discussion of whether the classification would advance rehabilitation and protect worker rights.

The meeting then moved on to other agenda items; no formal action on H919 was recorded in the committee minutes provided.