Tuesday, September 07, 2010

 


INTERNATIONAL LABOUR FRANCE:
GENERAL STRIKE IN FRANCE DRAWS OVER TWO MILLION:


Today's one day general strike in France in protest over the government's proposed pension "reforms" drew considerably larger crowds in the demonstrations than the previous effort in June. Once more there are considerably different estimates from different people, with numbers ranging from 1.1 million (government figures) to close to three million (union sources). Even if you take the lower figure this is a considerable increase from the about 800,000 who took part in June. What this means, however, for either the workers or the Sarkozy government is unclear. Here's a brief report of the demonstration from the BBC.
FSFSFSFSFS

PENSION RALLIES HIT FRENCH CITIES
More than one million French workers have taken to the streets to protest against austerity measures planned by President Nicolas Sarkozy's government.

The rallies came as a 24-hour national strike disrupted flight and rail services, and closed schools.

Activists are angry at government plans to overhaul pensions and raise the retirement age from 60 to 62.

Union leaders say more strikes and protests are possible if the government fails to give an adequate response.

"If they don't respond and they don't pay heed, there'll be a follow up, and nothing is ruled out at this stage," Bernard Thibault, leader of the large CGT union, told a rally in Paris.

France's retirement age is lower than many countries in Europe, but analysts say the issue is polarising politics in the country.


Labour Minister Eric Woerth introduced the pensions bill to the National Assembly, warning of dire consequences if it did not pass.

"If we don't modify our pension plan, then tomorrow there will be no money left to pay the French pensions," he told parliamentarians.

Commuter woe

Under current rules, both men and women in France can retire at 60, providing they have paid social security contributions for 40.5 years - although they are not entitled to a full pension until they are 65.

The government says it will save 70bn euros (£58bn) by raising the retirement age to 62 by 2018, the qualification to 41.5 years, and the pension age to 67.

President Nicolas Sarkozy says reforms are needed to cope with an ageing population and the country's budget deficit.

EUROPE'S RETIREMENT AGES
France - 60
UK, Italy - 65 for men, 60 for women
Germany, Netherlands, Spain - 65
Greece - 65 for men, 62 for women
The government is also looking to find 100bn euros of savings in three years, and is planning cuts in the civil sector.

Some secondary-school teachers went on strike on Monday, protesting against plans to cut 7,000 jobs in education.

State railway operator SNCF said fewer than half of its TGV high-speed services were running, and there was a greatly reduced service on many other lines.

Eurostar said its trains between France and London would operate normally.

Some air-traffic controllers walked out, forcing the cancellation or delay of about a quarter of flights from Paris airports.

Air France said it was operating all of its long-haul flights as planned, but short and medium-haul flights had been affected.

Migrant laws

Amid the disruption caused by strikes, the Interior Ministry said 1.1 million people had joined Tuesday's protests but unions claimed the figure was more than double official estimates.

The figures make Tuesday's protest bigger than a previous one in June, where more than 800,000 people took part.

Huge crowds braved stormy weather across southern parts of France, while demonstrators in Paris and the north enjoyed autumn sunshine.

In Paris, protesters shouted through loud-hailers: "Slave-driving? No, no, no. Working more? No, no, no. Fair reforms? Yes, yes, yes."

Protester Michel Prouvier told AFP news agency: "We're going to have old people living in the street."

Activists were also keen to maker a wider point, angry at the recent deportation of about 1,000 Roma (Gypsies) and a host of proposed laws which they say unfairly target immigrants and minorities.

"Pensions are a pretext for protesting against the Sarkozy system," said Adji Ahoudian, a Socialist Party activist.

Among those concerns is a proposal banning the full face veil worn by Muslim women, which was passed by the lower house in July but is now up for debate in the Senate.

Senators are also expected to debate a controversial new security law which would see recent immigrants stripped of French citizenship if they committed serious crimes such as killing a police officer.

The law would also allow electronic tagging for foreign criminals facing deportation.
FSFSFSFSFS
Here's how this strike was seen by the British Lib Com site.
FSFSFSFSFS
Mass strikes in France over proposed increase to retirement age
7th September 2010 - In response to the government's proposal to raise the pension age from 60 to 62, French workers have held widespread strikes that brought severe disruption to the French economy.

French unions have claimed that up to three million people have taken part in street protests amid a national strike against France's economic policies.

Police gave an estimate of 1.2 million people at rallies nationwide.

Schools have been closed and public transport disrupted, with demonstrations held in about 200 towns.

Unions are demanding more is spent to protect workers in the recession. Unemployment has reached two million and is expected to rise further.

Union members marched towards the Place de la Nation in Paris behind a banner that read: "United against the crisis, defend employment, spending power and public services."

"They have a profound sense of social injustice," said Jean-Claude Mailly, head of the large Force Ouvriere union, "and that, I think, is something that neither the government nor the employers have understood."

Benoit Hamon, a spokesman for the French Socialist Party spokesman said France was experiencing similar problems to other countries, but that the situation was being made worse by President Nicolas Sarkozy.

"We have a president who aggravates the crisis by making the wrong economic and social choices, by his deafness regarding the general dissatisfaction," said Mr Hamom.

"He refuses to give answers regarding layoffs, regarding the cost of living, regarding the way to objectively avoid the rise in job losses in the public sector or in the public health system."

Marches were also being held in Marseille, Lyon, Grenoble and many other towns and cities.

Noel Kouici, demonstrating in Marseilles, said protesters had a "grudge" against the government.

"Of course we are angry against the government when you see the way they serve the banks and leave the people starving and losing their jobs," he said.

But the deputy mayor of Marseille, Roland Blum, told the BBC the government had done a lot to help people.

"Of course I understand the distress of people who've lost or are going to lose their jobs, but what I think is necessary is that we all work together," he said.

There protests were largely peaceful but minor scuffles were reported in several cities later in the evening.

In Paris, police used tear gas to disperse small groups of youths who were setting fire to rubbish bins and throwing bottles.

It is the second time in two months that major demonstrations have been held, following a similar display in January which drew about a million protesters.

Beleaguered industries

The strikes began on Wednesday evening on transport networks.

An employee assists commuters at Gare Saint-Lazare train in Paris (19 March 2009)
French commuters face a limited rail service because of the strike

The national rail operator, SNCF, cancelled 40% of high-speed trains and half of regional services.

A third of flights out of Paris's Orly airport have been cancelled, while a tenth of France's electricity output has been shut down with workers on strike.

However, buses and the Metro rail system in Paris were running normally, thanks to a new law enforcing a minimum transport service during strikes,.

But with many schools and public buildings shut for the day, the number of workers travelling into the capital was reduced.

Private-sector firms were also expecting a depleted workforce, with staff from the beleaguered car industry, oil and retail sectors taking part in the strike.
FSFSFSFSFS
It is, of course, easy to expect too much from such ephemeral wonders. A one day general strike is, after all, nothing but a do it yourself opinion poll with a lot of noise. It has exactly zero immediate effect other than a brief loss of production which, in the case of public enterprise, is often a gain rather than a loss of revenue. As the following article from The Economist points out such symbolic actions have forced the government to back down on the issue of pensions at least once in the past (1995). Whether that will be the case this time is uncertain. President Sarkozy has sunk to record levels of unpopularity, but the reasons are not confined to this one issue or even to a collection of issues related to his neo-liberal agenda. Like most conservative ideologues who preach "morality for the masses" his government has more than its fair share of sleaze and scandal, and this has weighed heavily on his administration.


On the other hand, as the following points out, Sarkozy is constrained by political considerations to at least appear to "give a little". In this he has unlikely allies in the form of the larger union federations, the CFDT and the CGT, both of which are quite happy with their present position in French society and who are unlikely to want to toss the dice in the air in terms of a fundamental rearrangement of same. All the ingredients are there for a compromise whereby both sides declare victory while hoping for electoral gains in 2012. Talk of further general strikes are merely bargaining chips for these unions to "appear" to be useful for their members and in the case of the CFDT for its bedfellow the Socialist party. If the unions were serious about pushing their advantage they would definitely set a general strike for September 29 to coincide with the one planned in Spain and lobby their fellow continental unions for a European wide general strike on that day. Not just talk about it and bluster.


The French anarcho-syndicalist union the CNT (CNT Vignoles) participated in the general strike, but they see the limitations of such actions. Recognizing the ephemeral nature of such protests they have recommended a gradual build up of general assemblies at workplaces. Such general assemblies, independent from the union bureaucracies, would not be tied to any institutional benefits from the state and would be much more effective organs of resistance. They lack the flash and noise of one day demonstrations but unlike the mayfly-like lifespan of such protests they are enduring methods for people to resist the government and its corporate masters.


Something to consider. In any case here is The Economist article.
FSFSFSFSFS
French politics
The retiring type

Sep 8th 2010, 9:27 by The Economist PARIS


FRANCE is bracing itself for more disruption after 1.1m-2.7m demonstrators took to the streets, in hundreds of towns across the country, as part of a 24-hour national strike against President Nicolas Sarkozy’s pension reform. The turn-out was better than trade-union leaders had hoped for, and far higher than a previous day of action in June. Train drivers, teachers, post-office staff, air-traffic controllers, and other mostly public-sector workers, some wheeling children’s buggies, others banging festive drums, took part. Flush with their success, union leaders are now hoping to press the government for further concessions.

Mr Sarkozy wants to raise the minimum legal pension age from 60 to 62 years. This is a relatively modest change by the standards of some other European countries, which are pushing the retirement age up to 65 or even 67. The government forecasts that retirement at 62 will reduce by €18.6 billion the €42 billion state pension-fund shortfall expected by 2018. Tax increases, including a raise in the top income-tax rate from 40% to 41%, will make up a further €4 billion; the rest will come from general government spending.

Yet the reform is symbolically important. France has not touched the legal retirement age since the early 1980s, when it was cut to 60 years. Previous governments have tinkered with contribution rules to try to make the numbers add up, but never dared to meddle with retirement at 60. Back in 1995 Alain Juppé, prime minister under President Jacques Chirac, was forced to withdraw a more modest pension reform after weeks of chaos on French streets.

Union leaders and the opposition Socialist Party, which is also against the reform, argue that the government cannot afford to appear deaf to such this week's show of public opposition. Martine Aubry, the Socialist boss, called the reform “unfair”, and called on the government to “go back to square one”, and withdraw the legislation, which is currently going through parliament. “If we are not listened to, there will be further protests,” declared Bernard Thibault, leader of the powerful Confédération Générale du Travail. Union chiefs now need to decide whether to call another national strike this month. Some are talking about another one-day strike later this month, when parliament is due to vote on the reform.

Mr Sarkozy is in an awkward corner. His popularity has dropped to record lows. His own political camp is restless, and some deputies fear he has lost his political touch. The Socialist Party is freshly confident, and has started to believe in its chances of election at the next presidential poll in 2012. Mr Sarkozy says he will not budge on the retirement age. But he will be tempted to give some ground, in order to thwart further disruption. Certain concessions at the margin, over issues such as special rules for those who have done hard labour (pénibilité), would not necessarily make for a bad deal. But to go too far would only save him trouble in the short run. It would do nothing to restore his credibility as a reformer and a leader ready to take unpopular decisions, without which he has no chances of re-election in 2012.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,


# posted by mollymew @ 8:46 PM 0 comments

Sunday, August 15, 2010

 


CANADIAN LABOUR BRITISH COLUMBIA:
MORE ON SLAVE LABOUR IN BC:




A couple of days ago Molly blogged on the recently discovered conditions of virtual slave labour at the Khaira tree planting camp in BC. The following sort of connects with the previous post on XL Beef about dependence on leftist parties and their good graces, but it has an additional fillip. Regular readers of this blog may notice my general 'pro-union' biases, just as they may notice my biases to rational and organized anarchism (as opposed to so much of the nuttiness of North American anarchism). At the same time I am very happy to be independent of any organization as this allows me to criticize when criticism is due. i say this because of a recent post from the National Union of Public and General Employees Union (NUPGE) blaming the recently uncovered events in BC on cutbacks in the civil service in that province. Here's a reprint from Molly's first blog on this subject:



One reason the government may be hesitant about a full inquiry is that Khaira Enterprises has been a long standing supplier of labour to the province. According to the Power Profiles site they have been in business for 10-20 years with total sales of $2,000,000. As far back as 1999 they were listed as being paid $219,288 by the province. Even more astoundingly in March 2009 they were certified as 'Safe Certified' by BC Forest Safety. The latter is a quanga set up of mainly industry and government representatives but also with a nominal union representation.

Note the following. Khaira Enterprises were getting government contracts as far back as 1999. The NDP was in power in BC until 2001, and the presumed "cuts" were far in the future. Khaira Enterprises "passed inspection" way back in the "glory days" of social democracy. Also note that in 2009 Khaira Entperprises was "safe certified" which seems to say that a civil serpent did indeed inspect said business under the authority of the board of Worksafe BC which has union representation (the USW to be exact). The so-called 'Worksafe BC' was a renaming of the old BC 'Workers' Compensation Board' in 2005, continuing the trend of trying to remove responsibility for unsafe work conditions from the enterprises onto individual workers. This is a trend that has been followed in political jurisdictions governed by left wing parties as well.

What Jacques Ellul called the "political illusion" is nowhere as bluntly visible as in situations such as this. If a system is set up such that various workers are considered to have "fewer rights" than others, and if this system is governed by a political process that allows one side (the employers) to have undue influence on its process then naturally abuses will become common. One can only wonder about how many other Khaira Enterprises there are across the country, and one is not surprised about how these things occur under social democratic governments with a maximum of government employees. Simply multiplying 'inspectors' does nothing if the inspection process is biased to begin with. That's where I, as a libertarian socialist, part company with statist socialists and why I think there is a better way to ensure workers' rights than government decree.

Labels: , , , , , , ,


# posted by mollymew @ 2:47 PM 0 comments

Friday, April 09, 2010

 

AMERICAN LABOUR-WEST VIRGINIA:
MASSEY MINE A REPEAT OFFENDER:




Coal mining has acquired a well deserved reputation as perhaps the most dangerous peace time way to earn a living. It seems, however, that the Massey Mine in Montcoal West Virginia has a particularly egregious record when in comes to safety violations. See the amazing story following below from the AFL-CIO Blog. The mine's owner, Massey Energy Company is apparently one amazing piece of work in terms of not just safety but also in terms of the environment, labour relations and general right wing politics. See the wikipedia article on Massey. Here's the story.
◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙
Massey Mine Cited for 450+ Safety Violations Before Deadly Blast
by Mike Hall, Apr 6, 2010


The Massey Energy Co. mine, where 25 coal miners were killed and four remain unaccounted following an explosion yesterday, was assessed nearly $1 million in fines for safety violations last year, including violations concerning escape routes and ventilation, according to federal records and news reports.

The mine is owned by Massey and operated by its subsidiary, Performance Coal Co.

Early indications indicate the blast was caused by highly explosive methane gas leaking from sealed-off areas of the Upper Big Branch Mine in Raleigh County, W.Va.—the same cause of the 2006 Sago Mine disaster that killed 12 miners. New federal mine safety rules enacted after the Sago disaster included tougher new requirements for sealing off worked-out areas.

CNN reports that in 2009, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) proposed nearly $1 million in fines for more than 450 safety violations at the nonunion Upper Big Branch Mine, including penalties for

more than 50 “unwarrantable failure” violations, which are among the most serious findings an inspector can issue. Among those were citations for escape routes for miners and air quality ventilation.


According to ABC News, Massey was fighting the MSHA fines, including those for

57 infractions just last month for violations that included repeatedly failing to develop and follow the ventilation plan. The federal records catalog the problems at the Upper Big Branch Mine….They show the company was fighting many of the steepest fines, or simply refusing to pay them.

MSHA records also show that in at least six of the past 10 years, the Massey mine’s injury rate has been worse than the national average for similar operations.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, a former Mine Workers (UMWA) president and third generation coal miner, says, “The thoughts and prayers of America’s workers are with the families” of those killed and for the safety of the “courageous” rescue teams. He adds:

However, this incident isn’t just a matter of happenstance, but rather the inevitable result of a profit-driven system and reckless corporate conduct. Many mining companies have given too little attention to safety over the years and too much to the bottom line.

In 2006, a fire at Massey’s Aracoma Alma No. 1 Mine, also in West Virginia, killed two miners. Ultimately, Massey’s Aracoma Coal Co. subsidiary pleaded guilty to 10 criminal mine safety violations and paid $2.5 million in fines related to that fatal fire. According to ABC, the two miners “suffocated as they looked for a way to escape.”

Aracoma later admitted in a plea agreement that two permanent ventilation controls had been removed in 2005 and not replaced, according to published reports. The two widows of the miners killed in Aracoma were unsatisfied by the plea agreement, telling the judge they believed the company cared more about profits then safety.

Tony Oppegard, a lawyer and mine safety advocate from Kentucky, told The New York Times, “Massey’s commitment to safety has long been questioned in the coalfields.” The Times notes a 2006 internal memo from Massey CEO Donald Blankenship.

In the memo, Mr. Blankenship instructed the company’s underground mine superintendents to place coal production first.

“This memo is necessary only because we seem not to understand that the coal pays the bills,” he wrote.

Last night, Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), whose district includes the Upper Big Branch Mine, told reporters:

This is the second major disaster at a Massey site in recent years, and something needs to be done.

Meanwhile, the Charleston Gazette reports safety officials are looking at methane that built up inside a sealed-off area or leaked through the seals as the cause of the blast. In 2006, methane from sealed-off areas caused the explosions at a Sago, W.Va., mine that killed 12 miners and also at the Darby Mine in Kentucky where two coal miners were killed.

The new mine safety rules passed after the Sago and Darby disasters called for increased monitoring of air quality in active and sealed sections of the mines to avoid methane build up. The new regulations also required mine operators to install stronger barriers between active and nonactive sections of mines.

But, as Oppegard told the Gazette, “Seals can be deadly if they are not maintained and monitored properly.”

In a statement today on the explosion at Massey’s Upper Big Branch Mine, Rahall says:

We will scrutinize the health and safety violations at this mine to see whether the law was circumvented and miner’s precious lives were willfully put at risk, and there will be accountability.
◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙
If you want to help the community or keep informed of developments (such as the continued search for four miners still missing) here is an instructive article from the Take Part site.
◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙
West Virginia Mine Disaster:
How to Help Families and Victims

At least 25 miners died Monday in an explosion deep inside a West Virginia coal mine—the accident is being called the nation's worst mining disaster in a quarter century. Rescuers are continuing to search for four additional miners who may still be trapped underground, and federal officials have launched an investigation into the explosion at the Upper Big Branch South Mine in Whitesville, W. Va. Two miners remain hospitalized.

Various relief organizations are on the ground in West Virginia to support the victims' families and rescue workers. Here's how you can get involved with the rescue and recovery effort:

•American Red Cross volunteers are providing food, comfort and emotional support to the victims' families and rescue workers. Click here to make a donation to the Red Cross's general disaster relief fund. The organization is not accepting gifts specifically for the West Virginia miners' families at this time. (NB- Molly )
•The Salvation Army has already provided food and water to victims' families and rescue workers. You can click here to make an area-specific donation to the organization.
•The West Virginia Council of Churches has set up the Montcoal Mining Disaster Fund. Click here to support the Council's efforts.
For updates about the mine disaster and latest news, several news organizations, agencies, and non-governmental organizations are on the ground in Whitesville:

•The Charleston Gazette's "Coal Tattoo" blog is one of the most comprehensive sources of news on the coal mining industry. Its lead reporter, Ken Ward, Jr, is a nationally-recognized expert on the issue.
•Governor Joe Manchin of West Virginia has been providing regular updates to the media. His office has also ordered flags at half-mast throughout the state in honor of the victims.
•Massey Energy Co., the owner of the coal mine, has also been regularly providing briefings to the media and updates about their efforts to support the victims' families.
◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙
Meanwhile it seems that the Obama Administration has known for some time about the fiddles of mining companies such as Massey Energy and, true to bureaucratic form, has done essentially nothing. Here's a story from the Huffington Post about the delay and thumb twiddling amongst officialdom.
◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙
Obama Administration Missed Chance To Get Tougher On Unsafe Mines

Long before the explosion that killed at least 25 coal miners inside Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch Mine on Monday, Obama administration mine safety officials were aware of a major loophole that allowed companies like Massey to avoid stricter enforcement despite alarming safety records.

Mining safety regulations were tightened in 2007, following an explosion the previous year that killed 12 miners at the Sago Mine, also in West Virginia. But mining companies immediately began gaming the new system.

Mines that are designated as having a "pattern of violations" are subject to a greater level of oversight. But Massey and others ducked that designation simply by lodging formal appeals against the major violations issued against them.

It turns out that, according to current rules, contested violations can't be taken into consideration when assessing whether a pattern of violations exists.

Contesting those violations also allowed Massey and other companies to delay paying the fines levied against them -- thwarting a key enforcement mechanism.

And all the appeals overwhelmed the commission charged with adjudicating them, creating a massive backlog that effectively allowed the companies to flaunt the rules indefinitely.

Joe Main, a former United Mine Worker of America official, took over the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA, pronounced em-sha) in October. He told a congressional hearing in February that the backlog has effectively prevented MSHA from applying the stepped-up enforcement mechanisms to mines with a pattern of serious violations.

"And I think the consequence there is that mines have the ability to continue that pattern unabated," he said. His conclusion: "[W]e must diminish the incentives for operators who appear to be developing a pattern of significant and substantial safety violations to contest, simply to delay enforcement."

But that was in February -- at a hearing called by a concerned chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.).

And according to Celeste Monforton, a George Washington University public health professor and former MSHA official, Obama administration officials had known of the problem for more than a year by then.

"I feel very confident that when the presidential transition teams in December and January were meeting with the senior career people in the agency," she said, "they heard that, one, there's a huge backlog in the review commission and, two, this is neutering, or making impotent, the pattern of violations provision of the Mine Act."

So, Monforton told HuffPost, "The question is: 'What did you do, knowing on January 21st that they're gaming the system? What did you do?'

"It doesn't look like they did anything."

Actually, the Obama administration did add four administrative law judges to the panel of 10 charged with ruling on the contested violations, in an attempt to somewhat reduce the backlog. And they've now requested four more.

But the basic rule that the companies are exploiting remained unchanged.

Officials from MSHA and its parent agency, the Department of Labor, could not be reached for comment by HuffPost on Friday, but MSHA deputy Greg Wagner spoke at some length on Thursday to Ken Ward Jr., the award-winning mine reporter and blogger for the Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette.

Wagner told Ward that MSHA reviewed the Upper Big Branch Mine for a potential pattern of violations as recently as October, but concluded it did not meet the criteria, despite an astonishingly high number of serious safety violations.

Wagner, Ward wrote "was not able to explain that decision."

"I don't know the answer to that, but I will get that to you as soon as I can," Wagner told Ward.

There's more:

Wagner said that the new leaders at MSHA under the Obama administration hope to rewrite the pattern-of-violations rules, which date back to 1990. But he conceded that MSHA did not include such a proposal on regulatory agendas issued in May or in December...

In describing MSHA's policing of the Upper Big Branch Mine, Wagner said, "I think we feel that we used the tools that we have available."

But Wagner said he did not know if MSHA ever sought increased fines from the Upper Big Branch Mine for "flagrant violations," as allowed under the 2006 MINER Act.

And he said MSHA did not use its long-standing legal authority to seek a federal court order against any condition at the mine that created "a continuing hazard to the health or safety of miners."

"We did not use that section of the act, no," Wagner said. "I'm really trying to get an opinion from our lawyers to explain to me really what constraints they felt really existed to keep us from going .... I don't think that's ever been used, and I think there's some reason that people haven't and I need to find that out."


The Upper Big Branch mine's abysmal safety record, and its passage through the mining bureaucracy has, by now, been extensively chronicled.

Ward wrote that parts or all of the mine "were ordered closed more than 60 times in 2009 and 2010, and the mine was repeatedly cited in recent months for allowing potentially explosive coal dust to accumulate, according to newly released government documents."

The New York Times reported Friday that the mine was warned in December 2007 that it had been issued 204 serious violations over the previous two years, a rate nearly twice the national average, and would soon be designated as having a pattern of violations. But in the ensuing three months, the mine was able to reduce its rate to just above the national average -- enough to avoid the designation.

MSHA in March 2008 praised Massey and six other violators for "successfully and dramatically" reducing their "significant and substantial (S&S) violation rates -- on average -- by 50 percent during the 90-day review period."

But according to the Washington Post, Massey's mine "met the legal criteria" to avoid the designation "in part because contested violations had not been resolved. Massey is still contesting 352 alleged violations at the Upper Big Branch mine, some dating to 2007."

USA Today reported on Friday that coal mine operators generally have used appeals to avoid paying all but $8 million of the $113 million in major penalties assessed against them since April 2007.

Upper Big Branch in particular "has paid just one major fine since 2007, which cost $10,750. It has appealed or is delinquent on 21 major fines worth $505,000, records show."

The Associated Press reported that the mine "was cited for violating two federal safety rules on the day of the blast."

United Mine Workers of America President Cecil E. Roberts said in a statement released on Thursday that 20 people had been killed at mines operated by Massey, its subsidiaries or subcontractors in the last decade -- prior to Monday's explosion.

"Every year, like clockwork, at least one person has been killed since 2000 on the property of Massey or one of its subsidiaries," Roberts said. "With those already known to be dead at Upper Big Branch, it's now up to 45 people in the past 11 years, and four more missing at this point. No other coal operator even comes close to that fatality rate during that time frame. This demands a serious and immediate investigation by MSHA and by Congress."

West Virginia's senior senator, Democrat Robert Byrd, released a statement on Friday:

Once we learn the cause of this disaster and investigations are completed whether it is wrongdoing by Massey, lack of enforcement by MSHA, or inadequacies with the mine health and safety laws, including the MINER Act of 2006, action will need to be taken...

[T]he more I learn about the extent of these violations by Massey at the Upper Big Branch Mine alone, the angrier I get. 57 citations in the month of March alone! Closed over 60 times during the past two years to correct problems!

To me, one thing is clear -- for a company that has had this number of violations at just one coal mine -- one must seriously begin to question the practices and procedures of this particular coal company and it needs the most serious scrutiny from the Congress and the federal regulators.


Meanwhile, Republican West Virginia Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito made it clear in her statement that the Obama administration's conduct should also be in question:

In 2009, MSHA cited 515 violations and ordered the mine closed 29 times. Upper Big Branch Mine has had 124 violations in 2010 already. In fact, MSHA faulted the Upper Big Branch Mine on the day of the explosion for inadequate maps of escape routes and an improper splice of electrical cable on a piece of equipment. It falls on both the mining company and the regulatory agency to make sure that a mine is safe and in this instance both failed.

I ask that as we move forward, we take a long hard look at the relationship of mine operators and MSHA and how we could have prevented this disaster.


At the congressional hearing in February, Rep. George Miller angrily declared that "delays from growing appeals are undermining MSHA's ability to impose tougher sanctions on the repeat violators... If cases are stuck for months or years in the review commission, MSHA cannot impose stronger penalties on the worst mine operators. As a result, miners' lives are in the cross hairs."

But the committee's ranking Republican, Rep. Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania, defended the companies, arguing that "it appears mine operators are simply adapting to a punitive new regulatory environment that favors litigation and conflict over collaboration."

He expressed his view that "legislation and regulation may actually be the cause rather than the solution to the problem."

Matt Madia, who focuses on federal regulatory policy at the good-government group OMB Watch, sees MSHA's limitations as the result of a systemic problem.

"What's happening is you've got a relatively small agency with too few dollars, with too few inspectors, responsible for policing a huge industry with a huge lobbying presence in Washington. So who do you think's going to win that battle?

"It's easy to blame the bureaucrats after the fact, but the public and Congress and the administration are often not paying attention to these issues before tragedy strikes," he said.

*************************
Do you know more about the circumstances that could have prevented this disaster? How about factors that may have contributed - or could lead to - such mining tragedies elsewhere? Are you aware of situations in which people have been harmed, or where unsafe conditions persist, despite reforms and regulation that should have made those situations safer?
HELP THE HUFFPOST INVESTIGATIVE FUND INVESTIGATE
◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙
Government regulation is, of course, a highly indirect way to address such problems as work safety, and the mining industry is hardly the only field where such regulation has delivered far less than it promised. A more direct way to ensure safe working conditions is organization on the job. Here's a final story from the Digital Journal about the efforts that Massey Energy has put into preventing their workers from exercising their democratic right to unionize...and what this means in terms of workplace safety.
◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙
Union-busting associated with Massey's coal mine disaster
By Carol Forsloff.
Brian Stansberry


Massey forced the unions out, and now non-union coal miners have died in a coal mine cited for 600 violations in the past 18 months, so does the lack of a union contribute to safety concerns?


Some people believe lack of unions is the problem of coal mine safety with respect to Massey and the recent tragedy of 25 miners who died in a West Virginia coal mine and 4 now stranded, left possibly to die because rescuers can't get near them.


A letter to the editor in the Dallas Morning News poses that very important issue that the writer declares people should consider each time they flip a switch and turn on the electric lights.


What's the skinny on Massey and the unions? Is that an important variable in the mine disaster? Is unionism designed to protect the workers in instances like this, and what happens when unions aren't involved?


In 2009 the National Labor Relations Board agreed with a decision that Massey Energy rehire 85 coal miners who said they had been discriminated against because they were union members. Union members have declared Don Blankenship, the manager of the corporation, to have an antipathy for unions.


Don Blankenship, the CEO of Massey, is a Republican and has given large sums of money to various Republican candidates in West Virginia. CBS examined his tweets and found him against environmentalists and making fun of global warming and climate change as well. He has a record for making big donations to Republican candidates with the company giving 91% of its political contributions to Republicans since 1990.


According to the history of coal mining in Appalachia, for many years coal miners worked in hazardous conditions, made little money, had safety concerns, and were afraid to speak about their problems. When unions first attempted to enter the coal mining industry, there was widespread violence, resulting in the West Virginia Coal Mine Wars. When the union gathered thousands of members together in an organized community, that looked to government officials like an army, they were met by state and Federal troops. They were accused of being socialists. Many lives were lost, history declares, but no accurate count ever made. The union members were accused of treason, and the company officials allowed to continue business in the same ways they had historically done.


Coal miner supporters and union officials have accused Massey Energy of being one of the big bosses in the tradition of the coal mine owners of yore. They believe that safety measures, that the union would have insisted upon, would have been instituted had the union been involved.


History tells a lot about unionism, power, and disasters in West Virginia. There are those who wonder if it has been repeated with the one in the coal mine owned by Massey now.


As it is, they say, the result of having unsafe conditions, caused the recent tragedy. President Leo Gerard of the Steelworkers Union had this to say.


“I can absolutely say that if these miners were members of a union, they would have been able to refuse unsafe work… and would not have been subjected to that kind of atrocious conditions,” said Gerard. “In some places like in Australia and Canada, this kind of negligence would result in criminal negligence [charges] being brought against the management and the CEO.”


The United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) offered the following statement on April 5, following the disaster:


“The hearts and prayers of all UMWA members are with the families of those lost today at Performance Coal Company’s Upper Big Branch mine. We are also praying for the safe rescue of those still missing, and for the safety of the courageous mine rescue team members. They are putting their lives on the line, entering a highly dangerous mine to bring any survivors to safety.


“As a mine operated by a subsidiary of Massey Energy, the Upper Big Branch mine is a nonunion mine. Nevertheless, I have dispatched highly trained and skilled UMWA personnel to the immediate vicinity of the mine, and they stand ready to offer any assistance they can to the families and the rescuers at this terrible and anxious time. We are all brothers and sisters in the coalfields at times like this."

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,


# posted by mollymew @ 6:24 PM 0 comments

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?