Overlooked American Tragedies

The barrage of paper violations received by the Sago mine since February of 2004 totaled 271. Despite the fact that two dozen workers were injured in the mine during that period, leading up to the disaster that claimed the lives of 12 miners on January 2^nd, no changes took place to improve the safety of the mine. The citations issued by the Mining Safety and Health Administration presented, at worst, nominal fines, the largest of which for $440 to the International Coal Group, Inc which boasted net profits of $110 million last year alone.

The MSHA almost never uses the more serious and substantial sanctions in its power, such as issuing large fines or closing down operations. When inspectors do seek to issue substantial fines they often see the numbers gutted by judges and agency negotiators. The initial fine to a Brookwood, Ala where 12 miners were killed in 2001 was $435,000. The final number was reduced to $3,000.

This is a tendency symptomatic of the Bush administration which pledged to bolster new ties between the Mining industry and regulatory agencies (a promise almost identical to the administrations rhetoric on environmental regulation). In the last five years the number of mines referred to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution has decreased alarmingly – from 36 in 2001 to merely 12 in 2005. As a result of this trend, continuing to operate mines with literally hundreds of violations on the books has become a commonplace practice.

The lax enforcement of the mining industry would lead one to believe that fatal accidents in that industry were extremely, perhaps exceptionally, rare. In fact miners are killed in the United States with disturbing frequency. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a chilling 152 workers were killed in the Mining industry in 2004. In 2003 that number was 141. Mining also presents the second highest rate of workplace fatalities of any industry (behind Hunting and Agriculture) at 28 of every 100,000 employed.

Mine disasters like Sago have drawn sporadic public attention across the country for years: in Utah in 1984; Kentucky in 1989; Virginia in 1992; Arizona in 1993; and Alabama in 2001. Indeed, on January 10^th, scarcely one week after the Sago incident, Cornelius Yates was crushed by a falling bolder and killed in another West Virginia mine.

The problem is a classic case of “industry capture.” The outcries that follow the isolated and scattered – though frequent – mining deaths has failed to translate into an increase in public awareness of the problem. The presence of active pressure encouraging mining safety has been only sporadic. The industry, however, is always there - pressuring the government to look the other way. Indeed legislatures have cut or relaxed the responsibilities of employers to their workforce across the United States.

The only real solution lies in a greater public awareness of the dangerous lot of American workers today – dangers not limited to those working in the mines. A sense of urgency needs to be built around the overlooked fact that over five thousand workers are killed on the job in America every single year (a number that shows no signs of consistent decline). Calling the Sago incident a “disaster” is misleading. Fatal events in mines are not the exception. They are the rule. Only when this reality is acknowledged in the rhetoric of our politicians and the content of our media will it be possible to work towards a solution.

Senate Hearings Begin Tomorrow on Alito Nomination

The controversy currently raging around the Bush administration’s use of domestic spying is just one of many symptoms of the growing risk to Americans’ civil liberties posed by the war on terror. A recent debate over the use of torture which a few years ago would have been considered politically and morally untenable, has prevented the passage of legislation to ban “cruel” and “inhuman” treatment of detainees. The administration is also working this month to secure reauthorization of the Patriot Act, a piece of legislation that greatly weakens the importance of warrants in police proceedings and gives the government unprecedented access to the private records of individuals. In short, it is a dangerous time in America for personal freedom.

Next week the Senate will begin confirmation hearings on Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court. At this crucial juncture for the future of civil liberties in America, the President has selected a nominee who’s approach to constitutional interpretation is informed not by evenhanded legal scholarship, but rather by a conservative political ideology. A careful examination of Mr. Alito’s 15 year judicial record yields one undeniable common thread: on every significant issue, when a conclusion was not obviously mandated by Supreme Court precedent, the result has been conservative. When given the chance, Mr. Alito has consistently voted to push the law to the right. In several cases these opinions, had they not been overruled by his judicial peers, would have resulted in extreme and unacceptable results.

Mr. Alito’s record on workers’ rights is deplorable; time and time again his decisions to protect corporations and employers have been outvoted or overruled. Alito has consistently ruled to limit the rights of American workers who feel they have been victims of discrimination. In Bray v. Marriott Hotels, Judge Alito unsuccessfully tried to keep a worker’s claim of race discrimination from being heard by the jury. The overruling majority’s opinion asserted that, under Alito’s interpretation, anti-discrimination statues “would be eviscerated.” In a similar decision on sexual harassment, Sheraton v. E.I. Dupont, Alito was outvoted 10 to 1.

In 1997 Alito also attempted to limit the rights of individuals to sue corporations for producing toxic emissions, established by congress in the Clean Water Act. In that decision he argued that Congress lacked the authority to protect the environment through such lawsuits. His reasoning was later overturned by the Supreme Court.

The case of Doe v. Groody is a particularly troubling example of Mr. Alito’s disregard for individual liberties. In that case, Alito opined that police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they strip searched a mother and her ten year old daughter – who were not criminal suspects – while executing a warrant that only authorized the search of targeted suspects. Even the Bush Administration’s Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has asserted that Alito’s theory regarding warrants would turn the process into “little more than the cliché ‘rubber stamp.’”

Judge Alito’s conservative agenda does not represent the will of a majority of the American people. His nomination was a divisive and irresponsible act by a President with a history of division and irresponsibility, and it comes at a critical time in this nation’s history. Alito’s nomination hearings this week will test our Senators’ resolve to protect our civil liberties. It will be a great day for the United States if he is unequivocally rejected, and if the Bush administration puts in his place a moderate, responsible judge who can be trusted to protect the rights of Americans during a time in which our protections seem exceptionally fragile.