will not settle for unsafe conditions. True fact.

Quote :

"The Massey Energy Company, the biggest coal mining business in central Appalachia and the owner of the Upper Big Branch mine, has drawn sharp scrutiny and fines from regulators over its safety and environmental record. In 2008, one of its subsidiaries paid what federal prosecutors called the largest settlement in the history of the coal industry after pleading guilty to safety violations that contributed to the deaths of two miners in a fire in one of its mines. That year, Massey also paid a $20 million fine — the largest of its kind levied by the Environmental Protection Agency — for clean water violations. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/us/08westvirginia.html?hp


There are at least two presumptions in the title of this thread that can never exist.

4/7/2010 7:51:10 AM

whatever, miners totally exist

we're just down a couple dozen

4/7/2010 8:54:27 AM

They should have just gotten another job, if they didn’t want to die. No sympathy.

4/7/2010 9:27:43 AM

I dont think its that they wont settle for unsafe conditions. Its that they can choose for themselves how much safety they are comfortable with and how much they are payed.

ie. an extremely safe mine would pay its workers less than an extremely unsafe mine (in theory).

I always had a problem with this thinking though. Your basically asking someone to put a dollar amount on their life. Couple that with the poverty in Appalachia and mining companies power in the local governments and you are gonna have exploitation of workers (IMO)


Why would a company not act in good faith to its workers? Why would a company not act in good faith to the community it operates in?


Im gonna throw this link in too. Ny Times has been piling on Coal Mining and Massey Energy in particular, Im not saying its not deserved though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/us/07company.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fnational%2Findex.jsonp

Quote :

"Mines Fight Strict Laws by Filing More Appeals"

Quote :

"Mr. Blankenship has taken on unions, believers in global warming and even, in West Virginia, the trade association representing coal mining companies. He unintentionally set a new national legal precedent last year when the United States Supreme Court ruled that judges must disqualify themselves from cases involving people who spent unusually large sums to elect them. That case was brought after Mr. Blankenship spent about $3 million in 2004 to defeat an incumbent justice on the West Virginia Supreme Court. The beneficiary of Mr. Blankenship’s spending, Brent D. Benjamin, went on to become the court’s chief justice, and he twice joined the majority in 3-to-2 decisions throwing out a $50 million jury verdict against Massey Energy. More questions about Mr. Blankenship’s ties to the court were raised in 2008, when another justice on the court lost his re-election bid after photographs surfaced showing him dining on the French Riviera and in Monaco with Mr. Blankenship at a time when cases involving Massey were pending before the court. "

[Edited on April 7, 2010 at 9:45 AM. Reason : link]

4/7/2010 9:28:38 AM

Because it takes more money to act in good faith to anything but the bottom line.

THE MARKET WILL FIX IT!!!!

4/7/2010 9:36:28 AM

Quote :

"Why would a company not act in good faith to its workers? Why would a company not act in good faith to the community it operates in? "

.... is this a rhetorical question? Are you serious?

Well, for one, because a public company has no obligation to anyone except its shareholders to maximize profits. Its workers are often the least of a company's worries

4/7/2010 9:54:14 AM

The CEO is also (surprise) a global warming denier.

4/7/2010 9:56:23 AM

^Well you just KNOW he is guilty of something then.

Quote :

"Its that they can choose for themselves how much safety they are comfortable with and how much they are payed. "

This. However, there are rules for mines. If it turns out they werent followed then they have our legal system and Im sure will use it.

My grandfather died in a coal mine, when my mom was 4. At the time, they just gave my grandmother 6 months of his salary.

And just to play along with Boones little game here. A key component to a free market is moral restraint. If this company didnt show that and took shortcuts to keep making money at the expense of works. It wont be the federal govt that puts this company out of business, but the fact it is found legally responsible and will face the consequences of their actions. Thus setting the example of companies operating like this one (possibly, we dont know yet for sure) will go out of business. Thus the free market prevails.

Why didnt the host of rules/regulations and inspectors shut down this mine before? I mean the govt is all knowing, they should have done something mannn. (isnt that how most liberal conversations end? maaannnnn)

[Edited on April 7, 2010 at 10:20 AM. Reason : ..]

4/7/2010 10:15:34 AM

Quote :

"A key component to a free market is moral restraint."

Sweet. You just proved to me why the free market system is unsustainable with humans.

4/7/2010 10:23:18 AM

and you think govt shows that? be honest

There will always be those who dont, in govt or in business. In business you are free to take your money or employment elsewhere. When they are in govt you have no such options. The market pressures will move the trend forward and punish bad business decisions/models while rewarding good ones.

4/7/2010 10:30:09 AM

unless the government deems your shady business practices too important to the economy, in which case they give you a bunch of money.

4/7/2010 10:38:05 AM

^sad but true. Gotta buy votes

4/7/2010 10:41:51 AM

Where did I say that the government was immune to the immorality of humanity? The obvious answer is a combination of free market and regulations, which while not perfect allows us to flex the power of the free market to keep prices competitive while having regulations to keep business from fucking over the little guy.

The bottom line though, if a system has humans in it, it will be fucked up.

4/7/2010 11:07:55 AM

Quote :

"A key component to a free market is moral restraint."

Thanks for making me lol at work

Quote :

"If this company didnt show that and took shortcuts to keep making money at the expense of works. It wont be the federal govt that puts this company out of business, but the fact it is found legally responsible and will face the consequences of their actions. Thus setting the example of companies operating like this one (possibly, we dont know yet for sure) will go out of business. Thus the free market prevails."

This never happens. Many people don't like exporting jobs, but most of those same people buy foreign-made products. Nearly everyone dislikes child labor, but we buy products produced by children. It's very clear that low prices > morality.

Quote :

"Why didnt the host of rules/regulations and inspectors shut down this mine before? I mean the govt is all knowing, they should have done something mannn. (isnt that how most liberal conversations end? maaannnnn)"

Because there are politicians who believe that in a free market with rational players...

4/7/2010 11:15:22 AM

Working in a mine has a certain risk associated with it. Many jobs do. Mines are much safer today than they were in the past, and as technology improves, many hazards involved with many jobs decrease. So, we can accept that there are jobs involving risk and allow people to choose to work in those jobs if they feel it is worth it to them, or we can try to bubble-wrap the entire world to make sure no one ever gets hurt.

Really, what alternatives do you think there are to hazardous jobs? Not every job can be low-risk, but those jobs still need to be done. And who are you to decide that a job is too risky for someone else to take? Many of these people unfortunately don't have many alternatives, so maybe they'd rather have a risky job than be poor. Shouldn't that be their decision? I'm sure they understand the risks involved.

4/7/2010 11:28:51 AM

Quote :

"Many of these people unfortunately don't have many alternatives, so maybe they'd rather have a risky job than be poor."

You're entirely correct. Thus the need for reasonable safety regulations.

4/7/2010 11:32:42 AM

Quote :

"is this a rhetorical question? Are you serious?"

Yeah its rhetorical, but only to a degree. I understand that maximizing profits is their only goal.

But at the same time workers are an integral part of obtaining those profits, arguably one of the most important cogs in the company. After you have trained a worker and they have shown they can be productive, they become an asset to the company. Why would you not do everthing you could to make them safe while they were at work, creating your profits?

Obviously, I mean keep the workers safe within reason. I realize mining is dangerous, and probably will continue to be in the future. But the article makes it sound like this accident was preventable.

Quote :

"It wont be the federal govt that puts this company out of business, but the fact it is found legally responsible and will face the consequences of their actions. Thus setting the example of companies operating like this one (possibly, we dont know yet for sure) will go out of business. Thus the free market prevails. "

But my understanding is that in a free market, this company wouldn't necessarily have to face any kind of legal responsibility. Especially if they had some sort of stipulation in the contract with the workers that they were not responsible for death or injury. Consumers might be outraged and refuse to buy their coal, but the only people that buy coal are energy companies that are likewise worried about maximizing profits and not the health of some other companies workers.

Quote :

"Why didnt the host of rules/regulations and inspectors shut down this mine before? I mean the govt is all knowing"

Did you see the link above that showed where the company had bought off the local judge? But Im also not so naive to see the fines imposed on the company by the government were slaps on the wrist for reasons like Shaggy pointed out.

4/7/2010 11:47:55 AM

I dont think anyone here is arguing against saftey standards for mines, but rather we're against the whole "hurrrr free market do a thing waaaah must need more government!!" when in this case government regulators clearly failed to fix the mine despite known issues.

4/7/2010 11:55:11 AM

EXPECTING humans to act with moral restraint at the expense of the profit motive is MATHEMATICALLY FUTILE.

to some of you high IQ geniuses whose level i will never attain, the free market is a religion. dear lord do i envy you!!! for the rest of us, the free market a means to an end.


everyday our jails are filled by kids convicted on 3 strikes bullshit felonies, yet institutions are constantly allowed to recklessly put other peoples' lives in danger. lets not violate the 8th amendment on the reg, and then let scumbags like the leaders of this company get away with this shit.

i was just thinking about getting long some BUCY, so for my sake, for the goddammned sake of my rational free market stock portfolio, please lets take all the assets and operations of this company and give it to Bucyrus.

4/7/2010 11:57:55 AM

^^But can you with a straight face say that the hand of the market would have done better?

Herp, gov't failed at something, I shouldn't have to pay taxes, derp derp.

[Edited on April 7, 2010 at 11:58 AM. Reason : ^^]

4/7/2010 11:58:22 AM

Quote :

"^Well you just KNOW he is guilty of something then"

Yeah, guilty of being an idiot.

4/7/2010 12:03:01 PM

^^ durp durp lets just pay taxes to a government that continues to fail at what it was supposed to do. dont worry, pay more taxes, put more regulation, dont try to fix any problems just throw more money at it.

4/7/2010 12:06:13 PM

Quote :

"when in this case government regulators clearly failed to fix the mine despite known issues."

I guess this is partly what Im getting at with a company acting in good faith to its workers. Government has set standards for safety that I think most of us consider reasonable (ie. while it costs money to keep people safe these rules aren't so expensive that the mine hasn't been able to turn a profit) Why does the government constantly have to be looking over their shoulder and demanding they follow the rules or else shut the mine down, which we all know would have half the nation screaming SOCIALISM? Why cant the company owners exercise personal responsibility and atleast make an effort to follow the rules?

4/7/2010 12:08:42 PM

Quote :

"I dont think anyone here is arguing against saftey standards for mines, but rather we're against the whole "hurrrr free market do a thing waaaah must need more government!!" when in this case government regulators clearly failed to fix the mine despite known issues."

The problem wasn't the regulations; it was the regulators. The safety regulators need to be fired.

4/7/2010 12:17:54 PM

Quote :

"Why cant the company owners exercise personal responsibility and atleast make an effort to follow the rules?"

lol

Microsoft
Cigarette Companies
Monsanto
Nike
Walmart
Oil companies

need I continue?

4/7/2010 12:19:08 PM

Quote :

"Why does the government constantly have to be looking over their shoulder and demanding they follow the rules or else shut the mine down, which we all know would have half the nation screaming SOCIALISM?"

I dont think anyone has a problem with government looking over the shoulders of businesses to ensure safe working environments. And in fact, most places do take safety very seriously to the point where its not necessary for the gov to be there all the time. Mining just seems to be one of the holdovers from before workplace safety was common practice. Maybe its just because its known dangerous work and people are less likely to get upset? IDK. Most of the changes in workplace safety came via outrage from the people.

People just dont care much about coal. Maybe if we had better energy policy in this country we wouldn't need it anymore.

4/7/2010 12:48:37 PM

Quote :

"I dont think anyone has a problem with government looking over the shoulders of businesses to ensure safe working environments."

SOCIALISM

4/7/2010 12:56:40 PM

Shaggy

Quote :

"I dont think anyone has a problem with government looking over the shoulders of businesses to ensure safe working environments."

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=566460
Shaggy

Quote :

"yout dont have a right to work there. You also dont have a right to patronize any business. Everyone calls them public places, but they are not public. They're privately owned businesses that should be able to run their businesses the way they want."

Honestly, they should have just worked at a safer mine, amirite?

[Edited on April 7, 2010 at 1:14 PM. Reason : clarification]

4/7/2010 1:08:35 PM

Smoking is legal under the law. If they banned smoking outright then i'd be fine with banning it in bars. But this horseshit where its banned in some places but not others for bogus reasons is retarded. Either ban it or dont. They do have the option to work in other places, as do the miners.

However, there is a huge difference between being explosed to smoking (which is legal) and getting blown up by a methane explosion. if you dont understand the difference, you're dumb as shit.

[Edited on April 7, 2010 at 1:14 PM. Reason : a]

4/7/2010 1:13:55 PM

Firefighters, soldiers, and bungee jumpers choose to risk their lives every day. Why should miners be denied the same right? Who are you to tell them how they should earn a living?

We can make Alaskan crab fishing safe, we have the technology, all it costs is money, but then there would be no money in the work and no workers would be willing to do it.

More to the point, when you as a third party try and impose your standards upon workers and employers which don't want them (such as preferring comfort to safety) then you engender a culture of deception where both workers and employers lie to society at large just so they can be left alone. But light is the best disinfectant, and employers are then able to take advantage of workers in ways workers would normally complain about, were they not already trapped keeping secrets from the meddlesome outsiders.

That is before you begin discussing adverse regulation, where regulations can make workplaces more dangerous, or regulatory capture, where big firms use the regulator to suppress competitors with the result of harming workers and consumers. As mines compete for workers in terms of risk, comfort, and compensation, anything that suppresses competition will tend to make the life of miners more risky, less comfortable, and less compensated.

4/7/2010 1:15:57 PM

socialism would be if the government took over the mine swapped out the management, didn't change anything in regards to safety, and then gave the workers a bunch of tax payer money.

4/7/2010 1:16:47 PM

And for that matter, why do we have OSHA?

We have lumberjacks, therefore McDonalds workers should HAVE THE RIGHT to work in horrible conditions for 23 hours a day where hot grease could burn them to death.

4/7/2010 1:17:17 PM

I'm intrigued that you're putting more weight into government defined legality than hazards to health.

So is your stance as long as something is legal, it shouldn't be regulated? But since horrible methane explosions are illegal they should be regulated?

4/7/2010 1:17:24 PM

Methane explosions are harmful so we make legislation to avoid them.

If smoking is harmful then we should ban smoking outright in all instances. My objections are to the retarded pick and choose legislation.

4/7/2010 1:18:49 PM

Quote :

"We have lumberjacks, therefore McDonalds workers should HAVE THE RIGHT to work in horrible conditions for 23 hours a day where hot grease could burn them to death."

Exactly. Just like people who enjoy spelunking into volcanoes, you should have the right to play with hot grease for 23 hours a day. Whatever you enjoy doing with your day. That you found someone to pay you to do it should not change your right to risk life and limb.

4/7/2010 1:23:49 PM

I just feel that that there should be stricter regulations on what happens during the workplace than what happens leisure time at your home where you're affecting no one else. Is that so bad?

^
The reasoning for workplace regulations is not "oh, you happened to get someone to pay you to do this". It's that business owners have historically proven that they will endanger their workers to make more money.

[Edited on April 7, 2010 at 1:25 PM. Reason : quickness]

4/7/2010 1:23:58 PM

Not all jobs involve harming someone else. Why does someone else writing you a check change anything? Why do you feel you have the right to dictate procedure to someone spelunking for a TV-Show when you cannot dictate procedure to that same person once the camera turns off and they stop being paid?

^ And human beings have historically proven that they will endanger themselves for fun. I see no difference between your compensation being 'fun' and 'paycheck'. Either you have the right to dictate safety to others, or you don't. This is an opinion, either you can honestly believe regulators should impose upon others, accepting all the costs of such behavior, or you don't. But saying government edict must stop once the paycheck stops is logically inconsistent.

[Edited on April 7, 2010 at 1:31 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/7/2010 1:27:35 PM

A bar is a private place of leisure. If smoking is legal elsewhere, it should be legal there. If smoking is a dangerous killer then it should be banned out right. If someone purposefully allowed methane to build up on their private residence and then exploded their own building, they aren't gonna get off scot free. They're going to jail.

If smoking is something thats no so bad that its ok for individuals and their children, then its ok for bars and the people working there.

4/7/2010 1:29:09 PM

Quote :

"As mines compete for workers in terms of risk, comfort, and compensation, anything that suppresses competition will tend to make the life of miners more risky, less comfortable, and less compensated. "

But here is the problem. Mines don't have to compete for workers. The unemployment rate is high in Appalachia, its one of the most impoverished areas of our nation. Most of the people are willing to work in very risky situations, because they either don't know the risk or are desperate. I think that if mining was deregulated you would start to see workers treated as disposable, which is disgusting.


Granted they could move away (and many have), but thats not always done as easily as its said.

4/7/2010 1:36:33 PM

Shaggy, I have absolutely no respect for people that smoke near their children and am convinced my asthma is a direct result of my parents. I wouldn't support a ban in the homes purely on a personal freedom basis, but I wouldn't cry too hard if it happened.

LoneSnark

Quote :

"But saying government edict must stop once the paycheck stops is logically inconsistent. "

No it's not. If business owners had the power to make people work 20 hour days with no breaks, you think they wouldn't? Just because methane explosions don't happen at other jobs, doesn't mean that business owners wouldn't fuck you over just the same?

I believe that earning a living is a necessity in our society and as such should be protected. What you do during your leisure time is much less necessary to your existence, and should be much less regulated. And since other people (business owners) obviously have great influence on your safety while you work for them, they should be held accountable for your safety.

Hell, this horrible accident happened WITH regulations. The mine declined MANDATED ventilation that most likely would have prevented the accident. Without the regulations, why the hell would they bother at all?

[Edited on April 7, 2010 at 1:40 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2010 1:38:21 PM

If people don't want to work in such risky environments, they are free to quit working there, or petition (strike) for better conditions. I'd imagine that these people feel they get paid enough to offset the hazards of the job, otherwise they would not be working there. There are plenty of other ways for these issues to be settled without the need for government regulation. Ultimately, if people are working a job by their own free choice, then the job must be worth it to them. If they think things should be better, there are things they can do to achieve those goals.

4/7/2010 1:48:43 PM

Quote :

"^ And human beings have historically proven that they will endanger themselves for fun. I see no difference between your compensation being 'fun' and 'paycheck'. Either you have the right to dictate safety to others, or you don't. This is an opinion, either you can honestly believe regulators should impose upon others, accepting all the costs of such behavior, or you don't. But saying government edict must stop once the paycheck stops is logically inconsistent. "

Are you fucking serious

Do you think people have a choice whether or not to work?

4/7/2010 1:50:29 PM

^^
You did miss the part where IF the mine had followed regulations this accident would probably been prevented right?

4/7/2010 1:54:45 PM

No, I read that. But I'm not sure why it matters. The point is that it is up to the workers to decide what type of conditions they are willing to work in for what pay. If they're unsatisfied, there are actions they can take to improve the conditions. If no one was willing to work in those conditions for that pay, the employer would have three options: improve conditions, raise pay, or go out of business.

4/7/2010 1:57:13 PM

Quote :

"If business owners had the power to make people work 20 hour days with no breaks, you think they wouldn't?"

I'm sure they would. Just like I'm sure if consumers had the power to make McDonalds give them free food, they would. But you said 'if' for a reason. Business owners don't have that power any more than customers can pressure McD's into free food.

Quote :

"Do you think people have a choice whether or not to work?"

Customers don't have a choice not to eat. Workers don't have a choice not to work. Employers don't have a choice not to employ. In some sense, we are all slaves to each other. But in any particular case, yes, everyone has a choice. Work is available elsewhere for less pay, minimum wage allowing, so everyone has a choice to work elsewhere.

But there is a crux: most of these workers have worked there fore decades. Do you seriously believe none of them ever had an opportunity to get a job for less pay elsewhere? Maybe save up enough money to move to another region?

4/7/2010 2:00:35 PM

Quote :

"Do you think people have a choice whether or not to work? "

LOL, are you serious dude?

4/7/2010 2:06:34 PM

Quote :

"Mines don't have to compete for workers. The unemployment rate is high in Appalachia, its one of the most impoverished areas of our nation. Most of the people are willing to work in very risky situations, because they either don't know the risk or are desperate."

Unless the workers are currently earning minimum wage, then their employers are clearly in competition to keep them. That said, it may be that the workers don't feel compensated for the risks they assume and would happily work elsewhere, but safer work is not forthcoming because the workers are legally prevented from offering their labor for safer work at wages and comfort levels below the current legislated minimums. Someone may be willing to build a safe call center in Appalachia paying $4 an hour, but that would be illegal.


Now, a place always exists for telling the truth. It has been said here that regulations required ventilation equipment, which the mine did not install. How did they get away with it? Probably the same way all businesses get away with it: the workers and management are in agreement when it comes to keeping the meddlesome outsiders at bay. This is only a problem because the outsiders are meddlesome. It seems to me, there is always room for meddlesome-free information. Why not create a separate entity tasked with the job of rating work-places in terms of safety? All facilities will have a safety rating, just as many states/counties have ratings for restaurants. The sole regulation could require a breakdown of the firm's safety rating be signed by each employee and kept on record. Then we can all be sure that everyone involved knew what they were getting themselves into.

4/7/2010 2:11:49 PM

Quote :

"Customers don't have a choice not to eat. Workers don't have a choice not to work. Employers don't have a choice not to employ."

That last point isn't true. Hence their advantage over workers.

4/7/2010 2:13:10 PM

Quote :

"That last point isn't true. Hence their advantage over workers."

Steve Jobs literally makes every ipod by his own hands. Good point.

4/7/2010 2:18:40 PM

^^ If that isn't true, then neither are the rest. Customers can grow their own food. Workers can too. An Employer technically has the same option of growing their own food. But I doubt they would like it any more than most workers.

[Edited on April 7, 2010 at 2:19 PM. Reason : ^]

4/7/2010 2:19:22 PM