1.

In your judgment, and given only the fact described in the case above, should the
management of Massey Energy Company be held morally responsible for the death of the 29
miners? Explain your answer.

Massey Energy Company has repeatedly accused to have worst safety record for the industry. Its rate of
injuries is between 4.49 and 9.78 injuries per 200,000 workers (twice the national range). The mines
operator only calibrating its methane monitors only once every three months, poor ventilation of coal
dust and methane gas, improper escape way, etc.

Thus, it can be said that the management also contributes to the accident. How the company acts and
conduct its business are based and done by the management. The management are aware of those
violation and the potential risk it has yet they still conduct the business just the way it was.

The top management decision can be opposed as long as it violates the law, therefore the management
actually can do something to correct the violation.
Based on those considerations, we believe that the management of Massey Energy Company is
responsible for the death case.

2. Suppose nothing more is learned about the explosion other than what is described in
the case above. Do you think Don Blankenship should be held morally responsible for the deaths
of the 29 miners?

If any of you have been asked by your group presidents, your supervisors, engineers, or anyone else
to do anything other than run coal you need to ignore them and run coal. This memo is necessary
only because we seem not to understand that the coal pays the bills. -CEO Blankenship- (Velasquez,
2012)

By looking at the memo above, it is clear that Don, CEO at the moment, value profits instead of safety. It
is also stated in the case that he refuses to react on several reports regarding safety violations. Although
it is not 100% his fault (we believe that companys culture also contribute to the accident by taking into
account that it is not the first time they had issues with safety), we do believe that his role as the head of
the company plays important part in the accident.
If and only if he reacts to the reports, perhaps the possibility of such accident to occur can be reduced.

According to the ethics by virtue, as a CEO, he should takes the responsibility in how its company run
the business. As a CEO, he should not close his eyes and be more concern on company related issue. If
he is only a worker, he can act like nothing happen and let it slide like what other workers did according
to the case.

The fact that he did nothing while he knows there is a problem in his companys operation make him
morally responsible for the death of those people.

3. Given only the facts described in the case above, should the MSHA be held morally
responsible for the death of the 29 miners?

The U.S. Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) works to prevent death,
illness, and injury from mining and promote safe and healthful workplaces for U.S. miners. This federal
agency is supposed to develop and enforce safety and health rules for all U.S mines regardless of size,
number of employees, commodity mined, or method of extraction. MHSA is also supposed to provide
technical, educational and other types of assistance to mine operators with working cooperatively with
industry, labor and other federal and state agencies to improve safety and health conditions for all miners
in the United States.

Unfortunately, MSHA had some problems within the agency itself. The first problem is that the agency did
not have enough staff to efficiently run the operations and to continue working to prevent and reduce
injuries, illnesses and death in the mining industry. In fact, to put strong enforcement as well as active
outreach, education and training, and technical support to the mining industry, to protect miners as the
primary objective, it needs many staffs and workers. For example, because there were only a few
numbers of inspectors in the agency, just to do an inspection of the mines owned by the Massey Energy
Company, the existed inspectors were overworked. The second problem is there seemed no enough
control over the few workers. More than half of the inspectors failed to attend required training courses,
the agency did just let it past because they thought it was understandable because of what aroused from
the first problem, they were overworked. The agency did not keep track of their attendance and did not
sanction them either. These two problems are problems within the agency, but it still contributed to how
the agency did its job.

Despite of the problems above, MSHA still did its job in investigating and doing inspection towards
Massey Energy Company. However, when an MSHA inspector comes onto a Massey mine property, the
workers in the mine were all indirectly told by an announcement via radio from the guard gates to correct
any deficiencies or direct the inspectors attention away from any deficiencies. Moreover, the only people
who were allowed to accompany the MSHA inspectors are Massey company people, so no coal miner at
the mine can point out areas of concern to the MSHA inspectors. This made the MSHA inspectors could
not really see what was really happening at the mine, even though they may have put all the best effort
the had but the resources where they get the information from were not trustworthy and did not point the
actual concerns.

From that, we think that MSHA should not be fully held responsible for the death of the 29 miners.
Although MSHA has the authority to close down the mine and actually had closed some sections of the
mine, it had not been able to and never forced to closed the entire mine to shut down in order to force it
to make significant changes. It was because Massey Energy Company always had challenged several of
citations and corrected enough of the significant and substantial violations given by MSHA and again
Massey Energy Company did not let MSHA to see what was really happening.

4. The miners seem to have had some idea of the risks of working in the Upper Big
Branch Mine. Should they be held at least partially responsible for their own deaths?

In one hand, it can be said that these miners held responsible for their own deaths because they actually
knew that they would face the great risks by working in the Upper Big Branch Mine or maybe they just
realized those risks when they have started working for the company. Because Massey Energy
Company, especially CEO Blankenship, was aggressively anti-union with only 79 out of 5,851 workers
were still unionized in 2009. For the un-unionized workers, although they knew the risks, it was not like
they had any other option beside continuing to work and to obey their superiors and ignoring the risks.
They have no right to refuse to do work they think is unsafe. Being threaten that they would lose their job
if they refused to work, they had no other option but to continue working and operating even with a lack
of air or in unsafe condition, because in the end they all need the job to make a living.

So, rather saying the miners are responsible for their own deaths. It is more wisely said that they are the
victims of all of this with the caged pressure feeling. The company kind of created a cage for the miners.

5. In light of the differences between mines without unions like the Massey mines, and
other mines that had unions, do you think all mines should be forced to have a union?
Labor union practically gives the workforce safety concerns and provides them the right to refuse
working in unsafe conditions without fear of losing the job. The workers also feel at ease and comfort by
their rights. Meanwhile, the workers who work in the mines without unions like the Massey mines, do not
feel that comfort even if they have to operate with a lack of air or in unsafe conditions. According to Leo
Longs statement, whose a grandson that was killed in the Upper Big Branch mine at Massey, he said,
The company had a way to bridge [the wiring of the methane monitors on] the continuous miner [a
machine that continuously digs for coal] to keep it working [even] if the methane got so [high], when the
methane gets so high, it [the monitor] is supposed to shut everything down. But Massey had a way to
keep the continuous miner working, bringing coal out. Money come before the men did. You was only a
number. (Velasquez, 2012)
Therefore, all mines should be forced to have a union because the benefits of working in the company
with union are workers would get higher pay, wider medical coverage, well defined hours and job duties,
and safe working conditions.

6. Miners in the Upper Big Branch mine were paid about $60,000 a year (in some cases
less, and in other cases more, depending on seniority and several other factors) for work that
required no more than a high school education. The average salary for all jobs in the United
States is about $43,000. In light of the chapters discussion of job risks, would you say that the
company was handling job risk in an ethically appropriate manner?

It is true that Massey Energy Company pays their workers at about $60,000, which is more than the
average salary at around $43,000. However, this is not an extraordinary thing, because the risks bear by
the workers are also great, it is equivalent with the high salary. One of the problems here is that the
company thinks the risks are unforeseeable and unpreventable, and they did not do something to control
the risks. The company did not let the workers to have a right to work in comfort and in safe conditions.
The company even threatened the workers with dismissal if they complained of safety risks.

7. Lists all the ethical obligations that you believe the management of Massey Energy
Company didnt fulfill. Explain the ethical basis of each of the obligations on your list

Rights:
Massey energy company didnt fulfill the right of the worker to be safety at work. The worker has the right
to be safe from injury, or even safe from death at work. Don utilizes the worker only to achieve the
desired ends, and he disregards the safety regulation within the organization. Don also didnt allow their
workers to join the union. Even though he knows that labor union can make the workplace more safety.

Utilitarianism:
Under utilitarianism, an action can be measured using cost-and-benefit analysis that can maximize the
utility of the society. The action taken by Don wasnt giving any benefit to the society. He neglects the
safety workplace just because he wants to push the coal production process. His business operation
also caused million gallons of coal slurry when they produce coal. The coal slurry contaminates the
ground aquifer, which is used by the surrounding citizen as the drinking water reserve. Because of this
event, the company had to pay the fines imposed to the organization. The cost absolutely exceeds the
benefit.

Justice:
There must be equal distribution of burden and benefit, under justice ethical approach. In the case of
Massey, the one that receives the highest benefit is Don; he got a lot of money from the reckless
business operation. While the entity that receives, the burden is the company, the worker, and the
workers relative. Because of Don, the company paid a lot of fines, the worker loss their life and the
current workers life is in jeopardy, and the workers relative lose their beloved ones.