Ah, but safety didn’t become important in America until it became a political issue. And anything that costs money is a political issue.
And I can see why they would want to wait until the study is back. Why enact legislation if you’re just going to have to change it after finding out your assumptions are wrong.
We do need to move quickly to ensure that miners have the protection they need; but we must also move with surety of purpose.
I am for the new legislation – though I’m not a miner. I just think they won’t find any reason to change it based on the results of the investigation.
We should pass a Democrat safty act. All this government control is dangerous to all of our safety. After all these regulations, miners will be very safe because the mines will be going out of business.
well, we don’t always have foresight into safety. sometimes it takes a step back after a disaster to go forward correctly. in this case, it cost a life. but each company has a safety director and should be thinking one step ahead. he/she should have made recommendations and not wait on OSHA to give them, much less have congress pass a bill – that is might still get vetoed.
when our ships go to sea, there is an ombudsman assigned and all information is given to that person to share w/the immediately family. as it should where you have a major company where exposure to hazards are common but safety (supposedly) comes first.
tracking device, would be hard to do especially to ensure everyone had one as they entered. it could have possibly fallen off while working. great idea, but inpractical. at least, they can account for who enters/exits the mine (better personnel accounting).
safety box – one that contains some kind of emergency communications device that can work from underground. extra o2 bottles and rations to survive at least 3-5 days.
it should not have been made to become a political front. the industry itself should have made a better safety standard and have least coordinated it’s efforts with OSHA and emergency crews.
Typical, always acting afterwards instead of having the wherewithall to look at possibilities. Whether it is one life, or fifty, it is too much. But democrats have NO CLUE how to fix anything, only know how to legislate from a perch.
Jeffery, must I remind you that until November 2006 Republicans ran Congress for a decade and did nothing? Must I remind you that we’ve had a Republican president since January 2001 who has not had mine safety on his agenda? It’s not an issue of which party is in power people – it’s a money issue. Safety costs money and if the safety guy can’t convince the check-writers of the ROI the changes don’t get made until somebody dies and/or it gets legislated.
Get your heads out of your partisan rears people – none of this has to do with Republican/Democrat – it’s about money.
your probably correct in the fact it’s the money issue and that would drift into the profit. but is not the profit loss, if an accident occurred – and a loss of life ensues a lawsuit for not providing proper safety? my issue, has always been, think of the worker. did we think ahead to protect him, afterall, did we not train him on his job and that is valued money. like any other industry where training costs. so why not protect that investment. the government stepped in for 2 reasons:
1) to get his/her name listed as providing that legislation (to help w/there re-election). a promise showing we care, when in reality, we did this after the fact.
2) because the business could or did not want to foresee a disaster and the safety concerns.
cost of a life, is priceless. cost of safety to save a life – well, who knows because someone did not think ahead. does this not sound just like the auto industry? where as we have r&d of cars that do not need to burn gas. there is a car at the auto show in detroit showing the value of the hybrid (even though the cost was $85k). eventually that price will come down, because there will be no need for purchasing gasoline.
now back to the issue of safety. the industry needs to put some forethought. we need to remember that as a safety engineer, that it could my own loved one working in the mines. how can i make it better and still keep costs down if possible.
wudchuck, that is what my profession fights with every day – how to make things safer while still keeping costs under control. I could guarantee a zero-injury workplace, but nobody would have a job because it would be too expensive to operate.
There are studies showing the cost of injury to the employer, and that cost is high (not counting the human cost). But then we start looking at likelihood, and we see what kind of gamblers we are. And the longer an employer has been operating without a particular type of incident, the harder it is to prove they need to be proactive in preventing it.
I worked for an employer (I was the Safety Coordinator) that thought they needed to step up their safety program, and were wondering why after a year we were having more injuries reported than the years prior when they didn’t have a Safety Coordinator. They didn’t realize that my emphasis on reporting was showing they had a worse problem than they thought and that we were only then finding out how bad the problem really was.
All of this is why cost justification is included in many of the courses required for a degree in Safety, and why it’s always a topic that gets filled quickly at conferences.
The mines are terribly dangerous in China. The Govt. will just pay survivors $20,000 if their loved one dies in a mining accident, it’s cheaper than making the mines safer
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Why would you have to wait for the Utah mine findings to implement safety. Safety should not be a political issue.
Ah, but safety didn’t become important in America until it became a political issue. And anything that costs money is a political issue.
And I can see why they would want to wait until the study is back. Why enact legislation if you’re just going to have to change it after finding out your assumptions are wrong.
We do need to move quickly to ensure that miners have the protection they need; but we must also move with surety of purpose.
I am for the new legislation – though I’m not a miner. I just think they won’t find any reason to change it based on the results of the investigation.
We should pass a Democrat safty act. All this government control is dangerous to all of our safety. After all these regulations, miners will be very safe because the mines will be going out of business.
Both Democrats and Republicans add to safety regulations. It was Nixon who created OSHA in the first place.
well, we don’t always have foresight into safety. sometimes it takes a step back after a disaster to go forward correctly. in this case, it cost a life. but each company has a safety director and should be thinking one step ahead. he/she should have made recommendations and not wait on OSHA to give them, much less have congress pass a bill – that is might still get vetoed.
when our ships go to sea, there is an ombudsman assigned and all information is given to that person to share w/the immediately family. as it should where you have a major company where exposure to hazards are common but safety (supposedly) comes first.
tracking device, would be hard to do especially to ensure everyone had one as they entered. it could have possibly fallen off while working. great idea, but inpractical. at least, they can account for who enters/exits the mine (better personnel accounting).
safety box – one that contains some kind of emergency communications device that can work from underground. extra o2 bottles and rations to survive at least 3-5 days.
it should not have been made to become a political front. the industry itself should have made a better safety standard and have least coordinated it’s efforts with OSHA and emergency crews.
Typical, always acting afterwards instead of having the wherewithall to look at possibilities. Whether it is one life, or fifty, it is too much. But democrats have NO CLUE how to fix anything, only know how to legislate from a perch.
Jeffery, must I remind you that until November 2006 Republicans ran Congress for a decade and did nothing? Must I remind you that we’ve had a Republican president since January 2001 who has not had mine safety on his agenda? It’s not an issue of which party is in power people – it’s a money issue. Safety costs money and if the safety guy can’t convince the check-writers of the ROI the changes don’t get made until somebody dies and/or it gets legislated.
Get your heads out of your partisan rears people – none of this has to do with Republican/Democrat – it’s about money.
your probably correct in the fact it’s the money issue and that would drift into the profit. but is not the profit loss, if an accident occurred – and a loss of life ensues a lawsuit for not providing proper safety? my issue, has always been, think of the worker. did we think ahead to protect him, afterall, did we not train him on his job and that is valued money. like any other industry where training costs. so why not protect that investment. the government stepped in for 2 reasons:
1) to get his/her name listed as providing that legislation (to help w/there re-election). a promise showing we care, when in reality, we did this after the fact.
2) because the business could or did not want to foresee a disaster and the safety concerns.
cost of a life, is priceless. cost of safety to save a life – well, who knows because someone did not think ahead. does this not sound just like the auto industry? where as we have r&d of cars that do not need to burn gas. there is a car at the auto show in detroit showing the value of the hybrid (even though the cost was $85k). eventually that price will come down, because there will be no need for purchasing gasoline.
now back to the issue of safety. the industry needs to put some forethought. we need to remember that as a safety engineer, that it could my own loved one working in the mines. how can i make it better and still keep costs down if possible.
wudchuck, that is what my profession fights with every day – how to make things safer while still keeping costs under control. I could guarantee a zero-injury workplace, but nobody would have a job because it would be too expensive to operate.
There are studies showing the cost of injury to the employer, and that cost is high (not counting the human cost). But then we start looking at likelihood, and we see what kind of gamblers we are. And the longer an employer has been operating without a particular type of incident, the harder it is to prove they need to be proactive in preventing it.
I worked for an employer (I was the Safety Coordinator) that thought they needed to step up their safety program, and were wondering why after a year we were having more injuries reported than the years prior when they didn’t have a Safety Coordinator. They didn’t realize that my emphasis on reporting was showing they had a worse problem than they thought and that we were only then finding out how bad the problem really was.
All of this is why cost justification is included in many of the courses required for a degree in Safety, and why it’s always a topic that gets filled quickly at conferences.
The mines are terribly dangerous in China. The Govt. will just pay survivors $20,000 if their loved one dies in a mining accident, it’s cheaper than making the mines safer