Hi
I was an underground worker at Cleveland Potash Mine in North Yorkshire, UK.
First owned by ICI and then by RTZ, conditions were appalling, production
bonuses drove the management & men and not safety issues. Deputies,
experienced coal miners from Durham on the whole, were appauled at the
underground behaviour encouraged by the companies management: quickly
creaping roofs were no determent to mining in high percentage potash ore
thus resulting in crushed and injured miners; going in to extract ore
immeadiatly after blasting despite the increased risk of inhalation of
dust/salt was the norm; one man died when burning off unused/misfired
explosives with a blow-torch on the surface!; we had poor Union
representation (the Transport & General Union was the only one recognised).
My experience was in the 1980s and safety in the mine was on a par with
building sites when the lump system was in operation.
Jim McNeill
Living Easton
[log in to unmask]
----------
>From: Evan Price <[log in to unmask]>
>To: mining <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Miners' health
>Date: Fri, May 12, 2000, 9:51 pm
>

>In referring to miners trading safety for money, I didn't intend to let
>the companies off the hook.  As John Hinde says, this was AND IS an easy
>out for management. The only thing in John's letter that I do argue with
>is the implication that this was a situation that has now passed.  A few
>years ago, there was a disaster in the Westray Mine in the Canadian
>maritimes.  I will include a URL that will provide more information (but
>not enough!!).
>        http://north.nsis.com/~amartin/index.html
>        After the Westray disaster, the government (as is common in
>Canada) held an inquiry that was shown on television.  The testimony at
>the inquiry was shocking (although little was done to punish the men
>mainly to blame).
>        The main points of interest from the inquiry was testimony that:
>
>1.    The Westray mine was supposed to be a showplace of modern methods
>and
>        safety equipment. Unfortunately, much of the new equipment
>(especially gas
>        testing equipment) failed to work.  In some cases, this was a
>fault in the equipment,
>        but shift bosses were known to have disconnected such equipment
>on the coal
>        digging machines to maintain production.  When problems with the
>"back" slowed
>        production drastically, safety concerns were disgarded.
>
>2.   The provincial government was anxious to make this mine a success,
>and pressured
>        inspectors, etc. to keep the mine functioning.
>
>3.    The miners were so anxious to keep a salary coming in that they
>worked under
>        appalling conditions.  They were afraid to protest conditions in
>case the mine
>        would be shut down.  They also didn't want to be fired and
>blacklisted.  They
>        also felt, quite justifiably, that no one would listen to them.
>One man, who
>        normally worked as a mine manager, but was temporarily between
>jobs, did
>        protest.  Although the mines inspectors had dealt with him in
>several of his
>        management positions, they accepted the company's claim that he
>was simply
>        an agitator for the union.  At the time of the inquiry, this man
>still seemed to be
>        blacklisted.
>
>4.    Although I have never been a coal miner, I was appalled at some of
>the things
>        that were going on in this mine.  Welding was being done
>underground without
>        following safety procedures.  Inspectors deliberately kept away
>from high dust
>        areas, and had excuses for not following up on the previous
>man's complaints.
>
>5.    The mine managers kept away from the inquiry, and were never
>forced to testify.
>
>        Sadly, the bad times are not over.  I think all readers of this
>page would benefit from viewing the video tapes of the Westray inquiry.
>
>
>


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%