West Virginia Mine Disaster: Mourning in the Mountains

Were these risks commonly known? Then the miners went to work voluntarily.
Why have certain risks been mitigated while others have not? Perhaps because mining companies could not find workers willing to work in mines where risk was too great, or perhaps those same miners demanded more pay to work in the risky conditions than it would cost to reduce the risk.
This is the key constraint which is overlooked.
Miners can demand more pay to work in more risky conditions. If they strike a bargain, then the firm is no longer responsible, nor should it be!
People are constantly looking for ways to shirk responsibility. So are firms. It is only under competitive circumstances that these temptations to shirk are disciplined. Regulation cannot do the job, there are not enough people to do the monitoring. The best regulation can do is punish infractions after the fact. But market discipline prevent the emergence of overly risky situations in the first place.
Before you go crying "company towns!" recognize that many of these companies had special favors granted by government entities which relieved the costs of risky behavior, and insulated them from after-the-fact prosecution. The real injustice lay at the level of the government, not the firms.
Nathanael Snow

So, to sum up. It was the victim's fault they are dead. The company holds no responsibility whatsoever. Even though they broke the law.

If businesses don't have to take personal responsibility for their actions, why should any of us? Businesses can apparently act freely and do whatever they want, regardless of how it affects others, as long as they gain a profit. It is up to us to stop them by not buying their product.

Do you make the same argument for individuals? If an individual hurts someone, are they not responsible for the harm they did to that person? Should they not be held to account and brought to justice? If so, why do businesses get a free pass? Why is it market forces are the only form of justice they should be subjected to? Businesses can do far more harm that individuals can on a far grander and longer lasting scale.

So we let these huge behemoths of business who have no obligation to have any moral standards whatsoever run the world. But it's OK, because our market forces will keep these soul-less beings in check...except when they don't.

Take the coal mines for example. Market forces should drive us away from coal because the market should recognize the inherent dangers to people and the environment as the result of coal mining practices. But they don't. They don't recognize it because the only people who truly understand the dangers are those who live in coal mining districts who see their watersheds poisoned and toxic waste bury their river valley when holding ponds from mountain top mining fail. But they are incredibly impoverished people, and without money, they have no voice. And would anyone who benefits from the cheap energy their sacrificed environment provides even pay attention anyway? So market forces fail, and people's lives are lost under the crush of the almighty corporation. But as long as we have cheap energy and profits are made, it's all good. They should just move, afterall. Business is far more important than their needs or lives.

Where is Christ in your theology? Where does He exalt business and corporation and power and might over the lowly forgotten of the world? Where does He say "don't worry about these people--they either need to make better choices or the communities' capitalistic will will fix any problems they are having."

Ultra-individualism leads down a path where we don't care about anyone but our own self-interests. And this is in no way a Christlike position.

Actually, one of the primary reasons for some level of government regulation of industry is that people won't have to expend ridiculous levels of resources just to be sure they won't be cheated. For instance, I can go to the store, and pick up a bottle of ketchup w/o having to worry about whether it's contaminated with bacteria that will kill me. Human dignity and respect recognizes two things (1) people have a right to choose what they'll work for, but at the same time (2) things are made "reasonably" safe and healthy. Human dignity means that people cannot contract to be a slave, and cannot contract to work in fatally poisonous conditions, even if they "want" to.

I agree that my post is somewhat insensitive, and I beg the forgiveness of those who are mourning today.
But I find it equally opportunistic to take what is an accident and to attempt to use it as an argument for political action which may have more dire consequences in the long run.
It is this politicization of circumstances which I most ardently oppose. The right response to crisis is not, "there oughtta be a law," but, "God be merciful."
Nathanael Snow

By your logic, there should be no law for any crime. If someone murders a loved one, chalk it up to life being full of risks. We're all on our own in this life, and don't expect anyone to be responsible for you but yourself. No one is their brother's keeper.

Mining is an incredibly dangerous profession, one of the most dangerous if not the most dangerous. However, there are known risks that can and are mitigated in order to provide the safest working environment possible. These can be expensive mitigations, so human nature would dictate companies to cut corners if they can get by with it. And they do. And if this company cut corners, such as not providing proper ventilation to avoid the build up of methane, then they are culpable. They broke the law. They are responsible for the deaths of these miners, and they are as guilty as if they went down there with a match and lit the fire themselves. Massey also knew the risks, and the responsibilities, and the consequences of shirking such regulations. They hold far more responsibility than the miners do because it is their job to keep their workers safe, and decisions to cut corners on safety are literally life and death decisions.

Blame the victim, though, and the company is off the hook. They should have known better. It's their own fault for wanting to provide food for their family by landing the best job in town.

Again, I agree, and stated that if there was fraud involved the liars should be held responsible. I do not agree that it is the job of a firm to keep their employees safe. It is the job of a firm to earn profits, period. Market discipline and the conditions under which people are willing to provide labor are sufficient for pressuring firms to provide whatever degree of a safe working environment is best.
There are tradeoffs in life, which is what the speed limit analogy is supposed to illustrate. We reach the best compromises not when government steps in to manage negotiations, but when people are free to bargain on their own.
Miners don't have to be miners.
Nathanael Snow

"if there was fraud involved the liars should be held responsible."

The only way there could be fraud involved is if the mining company didn't obey safety regulations. The very regulations you argue they should not be responsible for.

We could just do away with all work force safety regulations. In the coal industry, that would mean the accident rate would look like China's. Do you really want that? Is that a right sacrifice to make for the sake of business? And that's just the coal industry. Do you really want to see accident and death rates rise in every industry we have in this country by telling businesses they are no longer responsible for providing a safe workplace? You really would turn back the clock on the history of our labor laws? Because that is exactly what would happen.

Take it to the extreme. Let's say an energy company has no responsibility to provide safety precautions for their nuclear power plant. The energy company is only responsible for making a profit, so no need for all those pesky multiply-redundant safety precautions that prevent radiation from affecting their workers or from leaking out into the environment or from resulting in a core meltdown that would affect people from hundreds if not thousands of miles from the reactor. Is that a reasonable risk?

Ah, but no one has to work these jobs. It's their fault if they do. But then if no one worked the jobs the company would be compelled to provide safety. But that is what workers did do. They struck, and laws were enacted, and safety increased. And thankfully, we are no longer like China, even in this, one of the most dangerous professions in the world.

West Virginia Mine Disaster: Mourning in the Mountains - Rose ......

Here at World Spinner we are debating the same thing......

jurisnaturalist: "But I find it equally opportunistic to take what is an accident..."

This is not an accident.

This is mostly a consequence of neglecting safety.
It was not by chance that the company failed to follow all the safety regulations.

Please don't incorrectly rationalize (which in effect trivializes) this largely preventable tragedy.

I hope your prayers are with the affected families.

"For the simple reason that American workers have a broad variety of other employment opportunities than Chinese workers do, and at better wages. "

Not in the vicinity of the mine in question, they don't.

"Gary Williams, a miner and pastor of New Life Assembly, a church near the mine, told AP there is always risk associated with coal mines.

"It's not something you dread every day, but there's always that danger. But for this area, it's the only way you're going to make a living," Williams said."

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=32643

Your argument completely ignores the economic realities of parts of the country with chronically depressed economies.

"Market discipline and the conditions under which people are willing to provide labor are sufficient for pressuring firms to provide whatever degree of a safe working environment is best."

Clearly this is not the case, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. People will put up with all manner of unsafe working conditions if it is the only way to put bread on the table.

I don't know. My guess would be the informtion was withheld from the workers since Massey has had a history of ignoring safety violations. At least that is what I have heard. I can't speak for the veracity of that.

1. If all workplace regulations were eliminated would we have conditions similar to China?
No. For the simple reason that American workers have a broad variety of other employment opportunities than Chinese workers do, and at better wages. Our wealth is what generates the demand for better workplace conditions. That's why garbage men in America don't even have to pick up trashcans anymore, the truck has a machine that does it for them.
2. Who has more invested in a nuclear power plant, the employees or the owner of the plant? Who then has a greater incentive to protect their investment? Where do accidents at nuclear power plants happen? Where the government is involved, because the government has even less at stake than the workers or the owners!
I am arguing that the firms have incentive enough to provide the "right" amount of safety precaution without writing laws.
When laws get involved, more often than not it is to the advantage of one firm over another firm! Duke power lobbied for stiffer environmental regulations on power plants. They did this because they already had a proprietary technology which made their plants cleaner. By creating the law the competitive firms had to buy Duke's technology, or go out of business. Duke won, big time. This is what regulation is really all about, using the government to beat the competition unfairly.
Nathanael Snow

Were these risks commonly known? Then the miners went to work voluntarily.
Why have certain risks been mitigated while others have not? Perhaps because mining companies could not find workers willing to work in mines where risk was too great, or perhaps those same miners demanded more pay to work in the risky conditions than it would cost to reduce the risk.
This is the key constraint which is overlooked.
Miners can demand more pay to work in more risky conditions. If they strike a bargain, then the firm is no longer responsible, nor should it be!
People are constantly looking for ways to shirk responsibility. So are firms. It is only under competitive circumstances that these temptations to shirk are disciplined. Regulation cannot do the job, there are not enough people to do the monitoring. The best regulation can do is punish infractions after the fact. But market discipline prevent the emergence of overly risky situations in the first place.
Before you go crying "company towns!" recognize that many of these companies had special favors granted by government entities which relieved the costs of risky behavior, and insulated them from after-the-fact prosecution. The real injustice lay at the level of the government, not the firms.
Nathanael Snow

So, to sum up. It was the victim's fault they are dead. The company holds no responsibility whatsoever. Even though they broke the law.

If businesses don't have to take personal responsibility for their actions, why should any of us? Businesses can apparently act freely and do whatever they want, regardless of how it affects others, as long as they gain a profit. It is up to us to stop them by not buying their product.

Do you make the same argument for individuals? If an individual hurts someone, are they not responsible for the harm they did to that person? Should they not be held to account and brought to justice? If so, why do businesses get a free pass? Why is it market forces are the only form of justice they should be subjected to? Businesses can do far more harm that individuals can on a far grander and longer lasting scale.

So we let these huge behemoths of business who have no obligation to have any moral standards whatsoever run the world. But it's OK, because our market forces will keep these soul-less beings in check...except when they don't.

Take the coal mines for example. Market forces should drive us away from coal because the market should recognize the inherent dangers to people and the environment as the result of coal mining practices. But they don't. They don't recognize it because the only people who truly understand the dangers are those who live in coal mining districts who see their watersheds poisoned and toxic waste bury their river valley when holding ponds from mountain top mining fail. But they are incredibly impoverished people, and without money, they have no voice. And would anyone who benefits from the cheap energy their sacrificed environment provides even pay attention anyway? So market forces fail, and people's lives are lost under the crush of the almighty corporation. But as long as we have cheap energy and profits are made, it's all good. They should just move, afterall. Business is far more important than their needs or lives.

Where is Christ in your theology? Where does He exalt business and corporation and power and might over the lowly forgotten of the world? Where does He say "don't worry about these people--they either need to make better choices or the communities' capitalistic will will fix any problems they are having."

Ultra-individualism leads down a path where we don't care about anyone but our own self-interests. And this is in no way a Christlike position.

Actually, one of the primary reasons for some level of government regulation of industry is that people won't have to expend ridiculous levels of resources just to be sure they won't be cheated. For instance, I can go to the store, and pick up a bottle of ketchup w/o having to worry about whether it's contaminated with bacteria that will kill me. Human dignity and respect recognizes two things (1) people have a right to choose what they'll work for, but at the same time (2) things are made "reasonably" safe and healthy. Human dignity means that people cannot contract to be a slave, and cannot contract to work in fatally poisonous conditions, even if they "want" to.

Did you use a solar computer to post here?

jurisnatuarlist - I think we all know there are risks in life and we all except that. However if we are led to believe we are being protected and in actuality are not that is wrong. Just like thinking a police officer would stop someone from assaulting you instead of ignoring the situation.
But I give up, you win. You are right, its their own fault for working and assuming codes were being followed.

Fault? If you really have to blame someone, blame God. No one wanted this accident to happen. No matter how safe you make something, there remains some probability that an accident can happen.
Businesses only exist to satisfy their customers. If you are not happy with a firm, by all means stop buying from them, and feel free to start a boycott. Voluntary action along these lines is to be applauded. It is part of what keeps firms disciplined.
Businesses are constrained by their reputation and profitability. They have no other obligations. (At least they should not.)
I subject the firms to only market forces, because market forces are the most brutal. They are unforgiving. If you do something bad, you get destroyed. Even if you do something good but your competitor does better you get destroyed. Why do you assume that market forces are somehow less compelling than political forces?
Jesus does not say very much against business actually. He identifies hording of wealth as vanity. He actually has more to say about manipulating the political process, and about how His disciples should work through subversion instead.
Only Christians are capable of being anything other than ultra-individualistic. So only we have that responsibility.
Or do you not think that you are regenerate as a result of salvation? That's a wonderful theological conversation we could have.
I believe the pollution issues are really property rights problems. The problem is that polluters damage property that is not their own. Of course they should have to pay for that. But I don't believe we should stop using coal. Our environment is a good deal cleaner than it was 20 years ago.
I'm beginning to believe that environmentalist arguments are the new reductio ad Hitlerium.
The way many people throw Hitler into an argument to win the conversation, people are now throwing environmentalism into arguments as a rhetorical tactic. I think that's a shame, because it distracts people from the issue they were discussing, and effectively shuts down communication.

Is Jack in the box still dangerous? Did they put the Ecoli in there on purpose? did the existing government regulatory agency catch it?
No.
Accidents happen, and when they do it is not an excuse to say, "there oughta be a law."
The competitive marketplace ensures that firms do not want to hurt their customers and employees. Wherever there is regulation, there is less competition, and so it is actually more likely for accidents to happen because the market discipline is gone.

"Market discipline and the conditions under which people are willing to provide labor are sufficient for pressuring firms to provide whatever degree of a safe working environment is best."

Clearly this is not the case, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. People will put up with all manner of unsafe working conditions if it is the only way to put bread on the table.

Right, which is another reason why regulations might actually create more unsafe conditions than pure "buyer beware" behavior.
When people feel they are protected by the government they let their guards down, and make less than reasonable decisions about risks involved in various activities. But the government is not big enough (yet) to monitor every risky situation. When the man on the spot is wary, he is more likely to know when the risk is not worth it.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that mining is the only occupation available to individuals who have liberty to move anywhere within these 50 states to look for work.
It might have been the most lucrative job they could find. It might have paid better than any other alternative, and cost of living may be lower in WV. That is just to say that miners make a reasonable decision when they chose to remain miners, and that they take the relevant risks into consideration when making that decision.

No, the safer widget should not be mandated.
Part of the pay the worker receives is a premium for working in risky conditions. Mandate the new coupler and their wages fall.
This might be okay, or it might not. If the cost to the RR for the new couplers is greater than what they have to pay in premium wages, then it is not a good move. If the cost is less than the age premium than it is a good move, and too bad to the worker who is now getting paid less.
Such a mandate would punish the better workers, who knew how to do the job without getting hurt, and give an unfair advantage to less careful workers, who might be willing to earn less.
I oppose government regulation in general.