by Ken Ward Jr., cross-posted from CoalTattoo
There’s been no formal announcement yet today from the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration about how it plans to proceed in its investigation of the Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster — no word on public hearings or opening up the interviews to the victims’ families or taking any other steps to make this process more transparent.
But the information I’ve received so far from various sources is that this is the plan:
– MSHA will continue its general practice of conducting investigation interviews behind closed doors.
– The United Mine Workers union — designed as miners’ representative under the Mine Act by several Upper Big Branch workers — will not be allowed in the room for interviews unless the specific miner being questioned has designated the union as his representative.
– Miners and mine employees being questioned will be allowed a “personal representative” in the room with them for their interviews — meaning if miners are convinced to appoint the company lawyers as their representatives, the company lawyers get in the room.
– Family members of the miners killed in the disaster will not be allowed into the interviews — and neither will their lawyers.
– Investigators from the state Office of Miners’ Health, Safety and Training will be allowed in the room, as will officials from special investigator Davitt McAteer’s team.
– At some point later, MSHA will conduct a “public hearing” in which company officials, miners and inspectors chosen by MSHA will answer questions in a public setting. Apparently, only agency investigators will do the questioning. Unlike McAteer’s public hearing on the Sago Mine disaster, family members of the victims will not be allowed to ask questions.
– There is no plan currently for making public any of the transcripts of the interviews until after the entire investigation is completed — and even then, some of these documents might be withheld if releasing them would conflict with any ongoing criminal investigation.
I’m told last night’s meeting between MSHA and family members of the miners did not go especially well, and got pretty heated … perhaps we’ll be hearing more about all of this — and getting some announcement from MSHA — later today.
Ken Ward, Jr. is a a reporter for the Charleston Gazette (since 1991), has won numerous awards for his investigative writing on worker safety and health, and is the chairman of the Society of Environmental Journalist’s First Amendment Taskforce.
The Pump Handle 
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 7, 2010 at 5:19 pm
David Harrington
A recent NY Times front page story dated April 23rd and entitled, Dealing with the Dangers of Coal, examined safe and unsafe mines. However they never made any mention of the word “union”. Nor was there any discussion of whether or not having a union in any workplace is going to mean a more hazardous workplace but particularly in the coal mines. Seems like not very good journalism to not even look at a union mine and make some comparison of past and present health and safety records of union vs. non-union mines? I’m waiting for the next article to appear above the fold?
Now comes word from Ken Ward, that MSHA is going to hold their Upper Big Branch Mine hearings behind closed doors without the miner’s families and the UMWA in the room? If Joe Main thinks his job is to follow form over function (purpose) then he got the job of MSHA head because he was a veteran and not because he had any vision for what MSHA should be. Joe you need to remember it was the UMWA and coal miners and their families and Tony Mazzocchi and OCAW (and Tony Boyle praising Consol at the Mannington Mine) that got the MSHA Act passed. The role of the MSHA head is to ensure that this process is transparent, factual and respectful toward the miner’s families. Passage of the Protecting America’s Workers Act will help to codify this approach and not be dependent on the rule of men.
Some lessons from the Upper Big Branch mine.
Having a strong and present UMWA meant that miners on a section could keep that section boss and the mine superintendent more compliant with the safety regulations. The worst job in a union mine was the section boss because he was under pressure to run coal from the superintendent and yet he knew if he pushed his section crew too hard or cut safety corners the crew would be on him and they might just might make a trip to the dinner hole or even throw their water out and walk off the job. To be a section boss was to have ulcers. Those days pretty much don’t exist anymore and the unregulated, unrepentant coal company is an ugly, nasty thing to experience. The very idea that there would a non-union mine in West Virginia says a lot about how far things have gone down hill. Today, union mines are surrounded by non-union mines. The union was broken in Kentucky decades ago. All these miners want is to make a living at something that’s in their blood, but do it with self-respect and with courage and in solidarity with each other. When they witness the outspoken miners being sent to shovel along the belt line or sent down the road and know the only job alternative is flipping burgers, a painful silence sets in. People like Don Blankenship are experts at exploiting that fear.
Even in its best days the MSHA never exercised its authority to stop the coal from running throughout a mine. (Okay just this past week they finally closed 6 mines in Kentucky.) The mine inspector might order the section boss to stop mining coal temporarily and have the crew correct a hazard but that was not typical. More likely they would keep running coal as the section boss and the red hats corrected that ventilation curtain or rock dusted some area. Keep in mind that many of these inspectors are former rank-and-file coal miners and mining management who live in these communities and face tremendous pressure not to stop a mine from running coal. Unless MSHA upper management had their backs and they were somehow immune from loosing their jobs or being marginalized it wouldn’t happen. Joe Main and the Obama Administration need to enforce the MSHA regulations they currently have while they work on a long-term strategy of MSHA reform. To do that they need to let the committed MSHA inspectors know that they have their backs if they do their job accordingly. They need to exercise their authority to close a mine. They need to let the cynical, blame the miners, too friendly to management inspectors know that their jobs are in jeopardy if they fail to act like enforcers. Of course you need upper and district management commitment to make that happen, not just White House speeches.
Praying can help people get through the pain which will continue for a long time, but now that the miners are buried let’s cut out the pious, fatalistic speeches and see some action! Start with OSHA and MSHA enforcing current regulations and continue with passage of the Protecting America’s Workers Act!
David Harrington
dpharring@aol.com
August 8, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Bonnie Rawson
It is a disgrace, what happened at Upper Big Branch, Sago et al – Management’s view that production/the bottom line are more important than the lives of workers and their families; that workers are expendable – that you can use and abuse them, and once they’re spent, they can be cast aside like you would a used paper towel – Don Blankenship is one( in a multitude) of examples of a CEO devoid of any humanity – I hope that he’s not the first one in the church pew on Sunday mornings, professing his piety. I am hoping we can mobilize the will in the public, that just because it did not happen to them and their family, that what happens when it is your family – will it still be o.k. not to have passage of safety laws and enforcement of said laws then – will they still be making the argument, “well, that’s somebody else, elsewhere” – they need to ask themselves one question – which side are you on
February 20, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Jay Turner
With regards to the Upper Big Branch Mine secrecy, our prayers in Jesus’ name for the peace of families involved there.
Please HELP MINERS SAFETY read link TWEET http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/2009/05/mshas-office-of-circumlocution.php
My MSHA – ALJ experience (docket WEST 2006-568-DM) has also impressed me with a reality that instead of finding MINE ACT provisioned justice & encouragement, you get HARD earned crumbs.
This Miner (and Miners’ Representative) challenges the fairness of MSHA & FMSHRC’s existing application of the Mine Act as it is unfolded upon the miner (representative of non-support of other miners). As was the case of MSHA’s denial temporary reinstatement of me during investigation of non-frivolous 105C investigation, the elimination of possibility of legal assistance to a Pro Se Miner due to the historically pitiful potential Remedy, MSHA’s denial of safety hazard investigation reports to a Miner’s Representative, FMSHRC-ALJ’s refusal to penalization of Operator for making false claims & refusing to provide timely discovery, MSHA’s denial of FOIA requested Mine Act provisioned discovery (directly related to 105C case “protected activity” claims), and the licensing of the ALJ to circumvent published Miners’ discovery & court proceeding provisions as stated in the Mine Act ).
Far from the intentions of the Mine Act, I’ve experienced extremely discouraging behavior by MSHA and FMSHRC-ALJ in their lack of consideration for the Mine Act “rights” of miners.
Although there is the historically cumbersome legalese expected from the established Operator, political pressures to grease the wheels of commerce (under-enforcement by & under-staffing of Courts caused caseload chopping), and the plain disrespect of Miners’ rights exhibited by some prosperous individuals in authority, the aim of the Mine Act (encouragement of Miners to participate in Mine safety; through Operator compliance with it’s protective provisions) can still be achieved through fast & brief mine closures & MSHA’s losing some of their self imposed “action” limitations. Such a change in MSHA behavior would be an encouragement to Miners (that MSHA has their back) and would only result in improved mine efficiency.
Please explain if the “False Claims Act”, or cooperation with a Miner’s 105C Discovery provisions are enforceable against a legally cumbersome (rich) Operator.Please fully answer; pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2700.69(a).
I also request procedural advice concerning Miner’s(Representative of Miners) available recourse in getting the Government to address pro-operator activities & non-enforcement of miners’ Mine Act provisions by MSHA and FMSHRC-ALJs ( outside of Docket WEST 2006-568-DM) as a “class action” type activity.
Jayson Turner (Miner / Miners Representative)
661 242-3000 jturner@calneva.org P.O.Box C, Pine Mountain ,CA 93222
Reference:
Appeal of ALJ decision under review by FMSHRC.
Refer. also: “open meeting” discussion on Oct.7th,2010 (at: http://www.fmshrc.gov/new/meetings.html website reference: Docket #. WEST 2006-568-DM, “October 7th, 2010”, “Audio
Please HELP MINERS SAFETY read link TWEET http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/2009/05/mshas-office-of-circumlocution.php
March 18, 2013 at 12:13 pm
pompa
Far from the intentions of the Mine Act, I’ve experienced extremely discouraging behavior by MSHA and FMSHRC-ALJ in their lack of consideration for the Mine Act “rights” of miners.