Centralia Mine

Another possible path of action that Scanlan could have taken was to make his concerns public. Scanlan’s job is to serve as a public official. Therefore, in my opinion, it is all right in certain instances to make the public aware of potential dangers that may affect them and/or their loved ones. Scanlan had a lot of information and notes stating that the mine had hazardous conditions, were unsafe, and could possibly explode if the correct actions were not taken. This is the type of information I feel like the public needs to be made aware of. This could have possibly caused an outcry from the public to correct these conditions, as they are concerned about the well being of the people in the community and its workers.

In his book, “Killing for Coal: America’s Deadliest Labor War”, Thomas G. Andrews construes the trajectory of a unique labor movement of the southern Colorado coal workers. The labor movement is unique as it integrates the social, ecological and industrial context of the strike for a captivating narration of the Ludlow massacre. Andrew’s account is valuable as he insists that credible conclusions must be grounded in complete and sophisticated provenance as opposed to oversimplified explanations. The intent of this response paper is to analyze the burdensome nature of obtaining coal, substandard pay and the treacherous working conditions. Secondly, the paper discusses the ways which helped employees to achieve autonomy and solidarity.

By having knowledge of the chromium in the water supply, PG&E should have been required to let the people know that were affected by it. By not telling the citizens, they were withholding information that affected these people’s lives. Because a risk was created, consequences came, and nothing was done to prevent such injuries that did occur, PG&E should have been considered negligent.

During the novel Denise Giardina expresses that there were approximately ten thousand coal miners who took arms against the companies who continually abused them but were detained by the companies with the help of hired thugs, corrupt law enforcement, and the United States army and by this detainment they suffered a

Once this does happen we will ask everyone to limit your communications to positive and reassuring feedback in the attempt to keep our miners calm and not anymore frightened than they already are.

Scanlan's decision not to close down the mine is a reflection of what happens when "mock bureaucracies" become the norm. Scanlan's based his decision not to close down the mine on the assumption that the Director would reopen the mine and fire or replace him with a more "reasonable inspector".

The owners of the mines preyed on immigrants from outside of the United States with promises of bringing them to the United States, bringing them to Colorado, setting them up with a job and housing and

First, the “un-engineered” dam violated two laws; second, Pittston knew the dam was not safe; third, Pittston did not have a warning system in place to alert residents in case of disaster; fourth, by convincing the deputies to discontinue their warning efforts, Pittston negated the last-ditch effort that could have saved 125 people (Nugent 183). The most tragic finding from the multiple investigations and studies is that Pittston could have built a safe dam for less than 200,000 thousand dollars, an amount that was a mere “one-half of one percent of its 1971 profits” (Nugent 184), a small sacrifice that could have saved many lives. Pittston’s culpability lies in its reckless greed. One of saddest reminders of the horror of Pittston’s wanton disregard is a tombstone that reads: “This Tiny Trio / Boy-Girl-Boy / Who were the Victims of the Feb. 26, 1972 Buffalo Creek Disaster are unknown to us by name but to Our Heavenly Father they are known as three little angels” (Stern 47). The article Remembering Buffalo Creek, 40 Years Later commemorates the tragedy saying: “We have a responsibility to teach each future generation what happened and why, so that they cannot only reverently remember but make certain that history does not repeat itself” (1). One can hope all companies have this etched in their minds and hearts and souls when they think of sacrificing safety for a

According to information recently gathered by historians, the men charged were by no means absolutely guilty, although it cannot be proved they were completely innocent. Throughout labor history, there were many strike, as well as many acts of violence committed by both the miners and the mine owners and bosses. Interestingly enough, none of this history is taught in many schools across the country.

In 1854 the miners farewelled one of their most well known and well respected miner, James Scobie. James Bently the one who murdered James Scobbie out side his hotel after there was a fight between some people and once Bentlys hotel was burnt he murdered James scobie. After the miners lost one of their most respected miners they didn’t stop fighting they faught against the government and made the governments job harder then it already was.

Secondly I believe Scanlan could have organized a strike for the workers of the mine. Inspector Scanlan was a former mine working who understood exactly what the mines workers were experiencing. Inspector Scanlan was a very honest man who did not seek to gain favoritism by hierarchy. Inspector Scanlan was focused on doing his job the correct way. Inspector Scanlan was not interested in bribes or becoming wealthy. I believe Inspector Scanlan had the mine workers interest at heart. Inspector Scanlan knew nothing was going to be done due to how corrupt the system was. Scanlan should have informed the workers to strike due to how dangerous the conditions of the mines were. A strike would have created headlines. A strike would have kept the workers out the mine until changes were made to ensure their safety. The owners of the mine would make changes because they needed the workers to operate the mine and

To employees of Compania Minera San Esteban Primera, we have suffered a terrible accident today August 05, 2010. Thirty-three of our fellow employees have been trapped as a result of collapse of our mining tunnel. We do not yet know the fate of our dearest co-workers but we have begun the emergency rescue process.

In an article written by Peg Seminario, Safety and Health Director for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, she explains that “In 1968, after an explosion at Consol No. 9 coal mine trapped and killed 78 miners, the coal miners in West Virginia went on strike, shut down the mines, demanding stronger safety and health protections. This action led to the passage of the Federal Coal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1969, followed the next year by enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970” (Seminario). The coal miners’ strike expressed their feeling of being ignored by the public and by protesting, the miners were able to get the attention of the people around them. This, evidently, led to the enforcement of laws that would prevent another occurrence like the explosion from happening again. After the Holocaust ended, many changes were made around the world.

There was a legitimate conflict that arose from conflicting agendas and responsibilities. The Springfield project was clearly a higher priority than the Johnsonville audit and Sands should have told Palmer, that although he is valuable to the audit, he would be more successful for the Springfield project. Palmer could have pulled another resource to take Olds place or hire a contractor to fill in the time when Olds would not be available. Olds was caught in a stressful situation where he was working in an environment in which he was being told to do two different tasks and had two different agendas by two different managers. This all led to infighting over Olds being shared across both projects and the two managers competing over for one resource. Palmer and Crosby were only concerned about their respective projects and Crosby knew what his end game was all along. Palmer was not clever enough to outwit Crosby and therefor he lost out on Olds.

He was placed into a situation where he had to decide between his own reputation and the safety of other people. He had to assess the good consequences (a safe skyscraper) and the bad consequences (a potential harm to his reputation by admitting that the tower was faulty), and weigh the outcomes. He acknowledged his errors in engineering the Citicorp Tower and he acted as a faithful agent to his employer by telling them this. He ultimately fixed the tower and kept the public safe, which according to the first fundamental canon of the NSPE code of ethics is the most important rule of practice for