----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: Miners' health
>
> In a message dated 5/12/00 7:07:49 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> << (The advent of no-fault compensation in the early
>
> years of the 20th century also eliminated management responsibility for
>
> workplace safety) How many company officials failed to install proper
>
> ventilation systems, how many failed to test for gas, how many failed to
>
> provide proper sanitary facilities, how many failed to ensure proper
>
> timbering, how many failed to reduce the risk of dust and other
underground
>
> dangers. These were traditional company responsibilities. How many
>
> companies pressured miners to work in unsafe areas, or refused to pay for
>
> dead time, such as timbering or clearing waste. >>
>
> You ask a lot of questions without having any answers but you missed my
point
> entirely. There is no good reason for an unsafe act or unsafe condition.
> Government and management owes this to its employees. But if the worker
> himself does not use the equipment, follow the safety rules for his own
> benefit there is something wrong with the program. "Safety pays" of that
> there is no doubt and a safe worker is a good worker. On the other hand
> companies have made great strides in developing mining equipment, programs
> and practices to be accident free only to have the ground prongs cut off,
> respirators not used, safety glasses worn around the neck, deadman switch
> defeated and lanyards not used. How many times do you hear about a fatal
> highway accident where seat belts were present but not worn? How many
> miners have been saved by advances in safety equipment and safety
practices
> initiated by the company? Now there are some good questions with equally
> impossible answers.
>
> Mason Coggin
>
I agree that if one doesn't use a seatbelt when it is available and required
by law, then one must assume liability/responsibility. But when these safety
devises aren't made available?
My point is that safety is not just a one way street. It is about attitudes,
not just technologies. Hence the notion of a culture of safety. As for not
having answers to the rhetorical questions I posed. These questions are
drawn from research into coal mining on Vancouver Island. The companies in
question did not adequately ventilate their mines, inspect for gas, provide
for proper timbering or housekeeping, although the money and technology was
there.There are also cases of downright negligence. That is undeniable. If
someone tampers with equipment, it is the individual's fault - but shouldn't
it be management's job to ensure that this doesn't happen.
To enter into the other debate. Mining may have been unpleasant, but you are
quite right. It is indeed the backbone of our present industrial
civilization. My research has also indicated that unpleasant as it may have
been, miners took great pride in their work and skill, and were quite aware
of the contributions they were making to the economy and the power they
exerted. The negative attitudes towards miners - as drunks, brutes etc. -
came mostly from the bourgeois press, that class that benefitted mostly from
the blood,sweat and tears of the miner.
John.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|