RICKAMAVEN
Friday, March 3, 2006 11:10:00 AM
how this figures into the current administration's grand plans to fight terrorists.

i look forward to all your explainations.

http://1tiny.com/3P4 

Steven Drummond
Friday, March 3, 2006 11:13:00 AM
Sorry im on the Left today......LOL

Hi Rick how you doing these days ?

Steven Drumnmond TUC

teedubbya
Friday, March 3, 2006 11:23:00 AM
Mine your own b'ness
donutboy2000
Friday, March 3, 2006 1:29:00 PM
U.S. Is Reducing Safety Penalties for Mine Flaws

huh?

TrannyMk
Friday, March 3, 2006 2:00:00 PM
This has nothing to do with National Security, DUMBASS!
TrannyMk
Friday, March 3, 2006 2:03:00 PM
I'm sorry. I overreacted again. You aren't a DUMBASS. You aren't smart enough to be one.
tsmith283
Friday, March 3, 2006 5:31:00 PM
You are 100% correct Rick!

It has absolutely nothing to do with the fight on terrorism.

How can you compare apples to oranges and hope to get lemonade?

I look forward to your explanation.

RICKAMAVEN
Friday, March 3, 2006 7:07:00 PM
do some of you miss the point.

why has this administration allowed corporations, in this case the mine corporations, get away with, in this case, murder.

RICKAMAVEN
Friday, March 3, 2006 7:10:00 PM
TrannyMk

listen DOUBLE DUMBASS, you have little reading comprehension.

it doesn't have anything to do with the war on terrorists. that is why i asked, see my response above.

RICKAMAVEN
Friday, March 3, 2006 7:11:00 PM
TrannyMk

above in this case is the post just before this one.

tsmith283
Friday, March 3, 2006 7:38:00 PM
This issue still has nothing to do with the war on terror, it has everything to do with the cost of heating homes in the colder parts of our country.

Mining is dangerous, and there have been deaths related to mine accidents for as many years as there has been mining. To try and blame mine safety issues on one administration is pure faulty logic at the very best.

Why not blame Roosevelt for the deaths suffered while building the Hoover dam? Which, I believe, still powers the lights of many Californians.

rugrunner
Friday, March 3, 2006 7:44:00 PM
The NYT managed to spin a story as to be anti Bush? I can't believe it! Next thing you know howard Dean will be calling Bush too Dove like on National Security.

That happened today, BTW. Get a grip rick.

TrannyMk
Friday, March 3, 2006 7:49:00 PM
You arent even making any sense. This has nothing to do with the war on terror so what's your point?

My God, you must be taking some realy powerful meds. Give it up. You look like a damn fool.

RICKAMAVEN
Friday, March 3, 2006 8:00:00 PM
tsmith283

we are in agreement with the inherent dangers of working in a mine,, except for the idea that his administraation has, by not enforcing, or reducing the penalties has given mine owners a break they should not have.

the question is why aren't the mine owners forced to abide by the safety standards.

judge i was speeding and i know the fine is $88.00, but could you reduce it for me to $10.00. remember i gave to your campaign when you ran for judge.

adroomi
Friday, March 3, 2006 8:25:00 PM
Rick,

It is too bad that the penalties for mine safety violations is being reduced. It's even worse that many of the penalties already given have not been paid. This puts workers in even greater danger in an already dangerous job.

You had a couple of good answers from folks on post. Anyone in the work field should be upset by this.

Just ignore the fools that post their hateful posts to you....they can't seem to grasp the idea of discussion.

RICKAMAVEN
Friday, March 3, 2006 8:39:00 PM
someone posted a hateful post to or about me?

i must have missed it.

adroomi
Friday, March 3, 2006 8:41:00 PM
🙂
donutboy2000
Friday, March 3, 2006 9:33:00 PM
Another point of view:

The Sago mine disaster is proof that Congress needs to deregulate mine safety.

In the wake of the deaths of a dozen miners at the Sago coal mine in West Virginia this January, Congress is demanding that the federal government take another look at mine safety. A delegation led by senators Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) wants to raise the penalties for safety violations assessed by the Mine Safety & Health Administration (MSHA).

That's the wrong approach. Coal mine fatalities started to drop way back in 1910. After 1969, when the federal government first introduced punitive law-enforcement tactics that included fines for all violations, the decline in fatalities per million tons of coal mined did not accelerate. The safety trend is driven by market forces and not by law enforcement. A mine operator who isn't concerned about safety will see insurance, accident and compensation costs eat away at its bottom line. Tougher law enforcement is ultimately working against the goal of zero mining fatalities. Here's how.

• Regulations create a rule-bound mentality that stymies the adoption of safety innovations. At a recent hearing Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) demanded to know why more U.S. coal mines don't provide miners with personal emergency devices that can receive one-way text messages underground. Although these devices don't work in all mines, they might have gotten crucial information to the Sago miners. But U.S. companies that are early adopters of new technologies run the risk of losing their investment if MSHA subsequently publishes a different requirement based on another technology. Although intended as minimum standards, the reality is that enforceable rules tend to keep most companies from raising the bar.

Special Offer for Forbes.com members -- receive a Free Trial Issue of Forbes Magazine... no risk... no obligation! Click here for your Free Issue!

• Federal inspections give miners a false sense of security. Inspectors logged 744 hours at Sago in 2005. But as Sago shows, conditions in mines can change with lightning speed. Only mine operators and miners can assure a mine's safety. To the extent that federal inspections inadvertently relax that vigilance, they jeopardize safety.

• MSHA inspectors distract mining companies from their priorities. At Sago, MSHA issued 208 citations in 2005. More than half of these were deemed by MSHA to be "unlikely" to result in an injury that might cause the miner to be away from work. Nonetheless, the company was required to address those conditions immediately in order to avoid additional penalties. Frequently this government-directed work is performed at the expense of more important tasks identified by company managers who really know the mine.

• The threat of penalties turns government officials and mine operators into adversaries. At Sago in 2005 MSHA shut down areas of the mine on 18 occasions and assessed $24,000 in fines. That's $24,000 the Sago mine did not spend on improving safety. This type of enforcement, which is common, forces mine managers to treat the MSHA inspector as a cop, thus diminishing the effectiveness of the government's nonenforcement, research-based initiatives to improve mine safety, which depend upon cooperation.

Special Offer for Forbes.com members -- receive a Free Trial Issue of Forbes Magazine... no risk... no obligation! Click here for your Free Issue!

The federal government should get out of the mine safety business. There is little that MSHA does that can't be done more effectively by the private sector. Voluntary consensus standards maintained by private organizations should replace MSHA regulations that can't keep pace with technology. Audits by insurance companies are a great substitute for MSHA inspections, without the potential to lull miners into complacency. When accidents expose reckless operators, state leaders, like West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin, are fully capable of meting out appropriate punishments.

In February the Senate passed a provision that allows companies to immediately write off 50% of new mine safety equipment. That's a small step in the right direction. If the U.S. ever hopes to achieve and maintain zero fatalities, Congress will need to replace the law enforcement approach with a system that better aligns economic interests. Perhaps that can be Sago's legacy.

C. Gregory Ruffennach, 02.27.06, 12:00 AM ET

sepia5
Saturday, March 4, 2006 3:42:00 AM
Mine Companies = Most powerful political base in W.VA.

Mine Workers = Poor country bumpkins w/ zero political clout.

I love the argument to "let the market forces" create safety. Ever read Sinclair's the Jungle? I'm not so sure the market will always convince corporations to do what they morally ought to do. Glad to see Forbes magazine is sure, though. Shocker.

MACS
Saturday, March 4, 2006 3:55:00 AM
"This puts workers in even greater danger in an already dangerous job."

adroomi - I ain't saying I agree with the reducing of fines, but don't you think that the mine workers KNOW the danger they face every day? It is a conscious decision to go underground.

What's next? Fining the gov't for sending the military into harm's way? It's part of the job. You apply Operational Risk Management and accept some risk while trying to eliminate as much risk as you can. But the fact remains it is a dangerous job and SOME measure of risk MUST be taken.