THE CASE INVOLVED AN INMATE LABOR UNION WHOSE GOAL WAS TO SEEK IMPROVEMENT OF PRISON WORK CONDITIONS THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. PRISON OFFICIALS PROHIBITED THE UNION FROM SOLICITING NEW MEMBERS, ASSERTING THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNION WAS THREAT TO ESSENTIAL PRISON DISCIPLINE AND CONTROL. THE PRISONERS CONTENDED THAT THIS PROHIBITION DEPRIVED THEM OF THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. A THREE-JUDGE FEDERAL LOWER COURT FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE INMATE UNION, HOLDING THAT THE UNION DID NOT APPEAR TO DISRUPT THE OPERATION OF THE PENAL INSTITUTION OR POSE A DANGER TO SECURITY AND ORDER. IN JONES, THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED THIS DECISION. THE COURT FOUND THAT THE LOWER COURT WAS IN ERROR IN REQUIRING THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE UNION WAS DETRIMENTAL TO PROPER PENOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES. THE COURT STATED THAT SUCH CONSIDERATIONS ARE PECULIARLY WITHIN THE PROVINCE AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIALS, AND THAT WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THE OFFICIALS HAVE EXAGGERATED THEIR RESPONSE TO SUCH CONSIDERATIONS, THEREFORE, THE COURTS SHOULD DEFER TO EXPERT JUDGMENT. IN A DISSENTING OPINION, JUSTICES MARSHALL AND BRENNAN STATED THAT IF THE MODE OF ANALYSIS IN THIS DECISION WERE TO BE GENERALLY FOLLOWED, THEN 'PRISONERS WOULD EVENTUALLY BE STRIPPED OF ALL THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND WOULD RETAIN ONLY THOSE PRIVILEGES THAT PRISON OFFICIALS, IN THEIR 'INFORMED DISCRETION', DESIGNED TO RECOGNIZED.' IN JONES, THE COURT REITERATED ITS LONGSTANDING POSITION THAT LAWFUL INCARCERATION BRINGS ABOUT THE NECESSARY WITHDRAWAL OR LIMITATION OF MANY RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. WHILE THE JONES DECISION DOES CLARIFY THE QUESTION OF PRISONERS' RIGHTS TO ORGANIZE LABOR UNIONS, IT FAILED TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF POSSIBLE BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED FROM SUCH UNIONIZATION OR WHETHER PRISONERS ARE ENTITLED TO MINIMUM WAGES AND OTHER STANDARD WORK BENEFITS. ALTHOUGH RARELY MENTIONED IN COURT DECISIONS, THE GREATEST OBSTACLE FOR PRISONERS TO OVERCOME IN THE LABOR AREA IS THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT WHICH STATES THAT, 'NEITHER SLAVERY NOR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME WHEREOF THE PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY CONVICTED, SHALL EXIST IN THE UNITED STATES'. CONSEQUENTLY, BARRING AN AMENDMENT OF THIS CLAUSE, PRISONERS WILL PROBABLY CONTINUE TO BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE DECENT WAGES, TO FORM UNIONS, OR TO OBTAIN THE KIND OF POWER THAT NONINMATE WORKERS HAVE WON. NOTES ARE INCLUDED. (JAP)