Mine Safety and Bush [message #57875] |
Sat, 21 January 2006 15:35 |
Manualblock
Messages: 4973 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (13th Degree) |
|
|
The administration and secretary and Bush appointee Chao have forced budget cuts and personell cuts in the Mine Safety Division to appease the corporate mining interests. Safety is now almost non-existant in new mining operations. In Europe they think we are deliberately putting our people at risk to save pennies. They have oxygen stations and location devices as a matter of course as well as inspections. The Bushwacker doesn't like those precautions because they cost several pennies per man-day worked so he let the owners flag those fundamental regulations. Now there are 15 dead in one month.Time for the union movement to rise again for the same reason they did 150 yrs ago; to protect the workers from the owners. And the Bush should hang his useless head in shame.
|
|
|
Re: Mine Safety and Bush [message #57876 is a reply to message #57875] |
Sat, 21 January 2006 20:51 |
PakProtector
Messages: 935 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (2nd Degree) |
|
|
Bush's head is not useless. It has served him and his buddies quite well. It would serve his opponents just as well as the ornament on top of a pike. It is too bad the unions seem bent on getting some set number of minutes for potty breaks on assembly lines, and re-instating serious screw-ups...instead of doing honourable work. Read of John Henry, and play a few ballads to one of the pre-union martyrs. cheers, Douglas
|
|
|
|
Re: Mine Safety and Bush [message #57878 is a reply to message #57877] |
Sun, 22 January 2006 07:19 |
PakProtector
Messages: 935 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (2nd Degree) |
|
|
Part of the union trouble is that they have squandered their power doing foolish things. Protecting those who misbehave and the like. Unfortunately, it is possible to point to as many union atrocities as they have prevented. Just ask your local featherbeder. cheers, Douglas
|
|
|
|
Re: Mine Safety and Bush [message #57880 is a reply to message #57875] |
Sun, 22 January 2006 20:51 |
Steve Eddy
Messages: 28 Registered: May 2009
|
Chancellor |
|
|
The administration and secretary and Bush appointee Chao have forced budget cuts and personell cuts in the Mine Safety Division to appease the corporate mining interests. Safety is now almost non-existant in new mining operations.
Really? Last I looked, we were a federal republic comprising some fifty states which were granted the broadest powers under the Constitution. Powers for example which would allow states to regulate mining operations as they see fit. Has there been a constitutional amendment or convention that I missed? I haven't kept up with politics as much as I used to, but I'd like to think I'd have noticed something like that. se
|
|
|
|
Re: Mine Safety and Bush [message #57882 is a reply to message #57881] |
Mon, 23 January 2006 11:10 |
Steve Eddy
Messages: 28 Registered: May 2009
|
Chancellor |
|
|
Mine Safety issues fall under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. The federal govt. is responsible for policing mine safety issues across the states and the budget for this is under a federal mandate.
So? None of that prohibits states from having and enforcing their own mine safety regulations. So where do you get the notion that if the Feds aren't doing their job (which personally I don't believe it is their job), that "safety is now almost non-existent in new mining operations"? se
|
|
|
|
Re: Mine Safety and Bush [message #57884 is a reply to message #57883] |
Mon, 23 January 2006 11:54 |
Steve Eddy
Messages: 28 Registered: May 2009
|
Chancellor |
|
|
Federal Regulations control Mine Safety Issues.
At the federal level. Mining Comanies are going to abide by those regulations.
They must also abide by state regulations. Are you saying that States have the ability to over-ride the federal Government rules and establish contrary Mining Safety rules and then tax the citizens heavily in order to provide their own oversight agencies that might or would conflict with the federal government agencies?
They certainly do. Which regulations would the companies abide by; the Federal rules that are favorable to them or the state rules that cost them money?
If the state regulations are more strict, they would have to abide by the state regulations, just as automobile makers who sell cars in California must abide by our more strict fuel and emissions standards. And virtually every state which has mining has mining safety regulations. So this notion that because the Feds aren't doing their job (and I don't know that they aren't) that safety is now almost non-existent in new mining operations is just plain nonsense and apparently little more than partisan politics. se
|
|
|