The West Virginia coal mine that exploded this week and killed 25 workers has a less than pleasing legal back story. Upper Big Branch mine, operated by the Performance Coal Company, is a subsidiary of Massey Energy. That should ring a bell for lawyers and academics as the company owned by Don Blankenship, who was at the heart of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Caperton v. Massey — a case involving Blakenship’s alleged control of the West Virginia bench through massive campaign contributions.
Blankenship is widely viewed as a corrupting influence in West Virginia where he uses his considerable wealth to place judges and legislators in key positions. As if to fulfill his reputation as the Mr. Montgomery Burns of West Virginia, he is quoted by ABC as saying if you take photos, “you’re liable to get shot.” (here).
The mine involved in the recent explosion has had a history of safety infractions and citations. Since 1984, it has amassed a huge number of such citations, including 57 infractions just last month for violations that included repeatedly failing to develop and follow a ventilation plan.
Blankenship is often accused of skirting safety regulations and fighting such fines. One of his subsidiaries agreed to pay $4.2 million in criminal and civil fines just last year. He seems, however, all too willing to give money to West Virginia politicians and judges.
In the 2009 decision, Justice Kennedy wrote for a 5-4 majority that Blakenship’s massive contributions to Judge Brent Benjamin required the judge to recuse himself from cases involving Massey due to the “serious risk of actual bias.” The Due Process Clause required the recusal of Judge Brent Benjamin, according to the majority.
For the full story, click here.
Buddha:
the other side is to say that whatever regulatory oversight agency did nothing to enforce their violations. If someone was paid off to look the other way I would hope that some sort of manslaughter or negligent homicide could be brought against them.
Although what were the safety violations? Were they serious or superficial? Like the health inspections of restaurants most times the infractions are minor and if left unattended would not lead to illness.
Byron,
“It is also very bad that the owner of the mine did not value his men enough to make sure they had a safe working environment.”
Laws are supposed to act to prevent very bad things through the functions of regulation (civil and criminal) and enforcement.
Yet government should stay out of business, as you so often assert?
This statement and scenario kind of belie that assertion, B. Had the mine owner been held responsible for non-compliance on safety regulations, these men might be alive.
Goneville:
this is an extreme tragedy and I don’t think you should get into an argument with Bdaman about it, hopefully the reasons will come to light and if there is any individual or individuals responsible they will be punished to the full extent the law allows.
Mining is a very dangerous business and those miners knew the risks and did so of their own volition to provide for their families. Too bad more people don’t have loved ones with that amount of character. It is also very bad that the owner of the mine did not value his men enough to make sure they had a safe working environment.
goneville-n-keys 1, April 8, 2010 at 12:54 am
Bdaman 1, April 7, 2010 at 9:12 am
******************************************
Bdaman 1, April 7, 2010 at 10:02 am
**************************************************
Bdaman 1, April 7, 2010 at 9:59 am
“Bdaman 1, April 7, 2010 at 9:12 am
It’s like the miners accept the poor safety conditions.”
***********************
I’m having a difficult time pinning down the meaning of this statement. You say that the mines should be safe or shut down but you first qualify the statement by stating the miners accepted their conditions. Later you suggest they could have went on strike if they didn’t like it.
Are you saying it was the miners fault they died for choosing to work there?
“you’re liable to get shot”
Yes, Mr Blankenship you may very well be heading for a reckoning of your own.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new…/new…/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf
Jason, looks like things are trending that way already. But will that help the miners who keep getting killed under current conditions?
And even if we do migrate to safer and more efficient energy productions, does that supersede the need to enforce and implement the current laws and rules affecting them ?(miners).
Sorry, forgot one other thing. Nuclear waste is fairly easy to safely contain and store. The public hears about bazillion year half-lives not realizing that it’s the short half-life stuff that you should worry about. Again, contrast nuclear’s environmental impact vs coal and it’s astounding which one we are afraid of.
Woosty-
The worst case scenarios for American-built plants are not good but not the catastrophic scenarios postulated by popular media. Chernobyl can’t happen here because it was a design that would never be approved here.
Does it make any sense to fear an industry with an insanely great safety record while we continue to allow a competitor to kill people (both workers and customers) by the thousands every year with almost no consequences? How many decades do nuclear plants have to operate without a catastrophe (Three Mile Island was not a catastrophe) before they’ve passed the test?
ok, I’ll be diverted;
“For the first time, Gallup is reporting that a majority of Americans prioritize energy production over environmental protection. In 2007, there was a 24 point gap (58% to 34%) in favor of protection, but the latest numbers show a 31 point swing. ”
Either Ore thinking…if polled with integrity I’m guessing the majority of Americans want to see active change in BOTH categories. And why not? Enhanced energy production by way of more environmentally sound industry is already available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States
Here in West Virginia, mining is one of the best paying jobs available. The pay is above average (since the average is very low in all of Appalachia that doesn’t mean too much) and so the risk is taken. Much like soldiers put their lives on the line for little pay or benefits.
As to why they do without unions, here’s a short history of the mining wars in WV:
http://www.wvculture.org/history/minewars.html
Not only private detective agencies were hired to keep the unions out, but US troops were called in. It’s not easy being a union member in the coal fields – then or now.
Here in West Virginia, mining is one of the best paying jobs available. The pay is above average (since the average is very low in all of Appalachia that doesn’t mean too much) and so the risk is taken. Much like soldiers put their lives on the line for little pay or benefits.
As to why they do without unions, here’s a short history of the mining wars in WV:
ttp://www.wvculture.org/history/minewars.html
Not only private detective agencies were hired to keep the unions out, but US troops were called in. It’s not easy being a union member in the coal fields – then or now.
“In the 2009 decision, Justice Kennedy wrote for a 5-4 majority that Blakenship’s massive contributions to Judge Brent Benjamin required the judge to recuse himself from cases involving Massey due to the “serious risk of actual bias.” The Due Process Clause required the recusal of Judge Brent Benjamin, according to the majority. ”
How ironic that the court that approved the “corporation is an individual as far as political contributions are concerned” can see the problem with contributing to a judge, but can’t see a problem with such contributions in the electoral process. Do you think those guys were the same minority in the Judge Benjamin decision?
I think the problem with atoms right now is that it’s accident potential is like a plane crash…doesn’t happen often statistically speaking but the odds of survival are kinda awful. Plus, radiation damage isn’t quite the same either. It is there and killing for a long time…slowly and ickily.
Plus, the argument for nuclear vrs. the danger of coal mines is simply diversional. I do agree, it has potential for future use when it is made safer. Or, better, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Accident_potential
President Obama said he would look into nuclear more when “safety” issues were dealt with.
What exactly is the threshold? If the American commercial nuclear power industry had a safety record like coal’s, there would be hysteria.
Compare the lives lost in this single accident to the number of lives lost at commercial nuclear plants/uranium mines in the HISTORY of the industry in this country. Our staggering ignorance regarding nuclear power is costing thousands of lives annually and an excellent means of slashing greenhouse gasses.
Instead, it’s, “Oh my god, atoms!”
Thanks Nal
I kinda feel like the professor on the correction page 🙂
Byron,
Regulation is useless without enforcement. Regulation is a two part tool. It’s illegal to war profiteer and commit treason yet Cheney still walks free. Rules without enforcement.
And where companies can’t buy the legislation they want, they’ll ignore it and hope they can cover up their abuses when busted. And the mining industry has such a great track record too. Three words for you: Battle of Matewan.
Nal,
Good link. Very interesting.
“The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are “winners” — receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes — 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States.”
That’s a nifty link.
I’d like to see a time arc to show how that came about…and also where those tax dollars are ending up.
“Food Stamps, Welfare, Medicare, Schooling.”
Gee, thanks.
Bdaman, if I misread I apologize, but to me it seemed to suggest.
As a nurse, I encounter personal risk everytime I take care of a person with an infectious disease. I undertook that risk eyes open. What I never agreed to, was to encounter those elements under increasingly risk fostering conditions just so some profit driven corporation could reap the financial rewards. These mining ‘incidents’ are a repetitively cycling machine much like that experienced in nursing and other industries and those miners are simply fodder. Do they have a choice? In this economic climate?
That I would love to see proved.