What should be the punishment meted out for the CEO of a company where safety violations took the lives of 29 men? Is one year sufficient, too much, or not nearly enough? Was ethical balance achieved at Massey?
Pete Williams, in an article he wrote for NBC News (April 6, 2016) entitled: “Former Coal Mine Executive Sentenced to One Year in Prison After Explosion Killed 29,” states:
“Don Blankenship, former CEO of Massey Energy, was sentenced Wednesday to one year in federal prison for safety lapses connected to a deadly West Virginia coal mine explosion.
A jury in federal court convicted Don Blankenship in December of conspiring to willfully violate mine safety standards, connected to an explosion at the Upper Big Branch mine in 2010 that killed 29 men. One year in prison was the maximum sentence for the misdemeanor charge.
U.S. District Judge Irene Berger also imposed the maximum fine, $250,000.”
After sentencing, it was said that Don Blankenship turned to the families assembled in the courtroom and said he was not guilty of committing a crime.
“Blankenship has claimed that the explosion was caused by a buildup of natural gas in the mine. But federal investigators found that faulty equipment created a spark that ignited a mixture of coal dust and methane gas in the poorly ventilated mine. The investigators found that broken and clogged water sprinklers failed to put out the resulting fire.”
What makes the case ethically confounding is that the parade of witnesses were clear that Don Blankenship didn’t tell anyone to specifically violate safety regulations, but prosecutors argued that he was “…well aware of the risks he was taking by ignoring mine safety laws, especially those requiring adequate ventilation.”
The equipment and the ethics
Not surprisingly, the witnesses (most likely managers and foremen) answered exactly as they were asked: “No, I was not told to violate safety regulations.” This fact provided me with little comfort. If in fact, there were broken water sprinklers and a fire was created by faulty equipment, perhaps the important question that should have been asked is: “Ethically, did you feel that everything had been done to protect the miners from harm?”
The two lines of questions are entirely different.
No one, in their right mind, would have intentionally tried to violate safety regulations. For example, no one would have been foolhardy enough to tell a subordinate to intentionally ignore a faulty sprinkler.
From an ethical standpoint, if an employee was asked if everything had been done to make certain that no faulty or old pieces of equipment was in use that could have killed all of those miners, the answer might have turned out differently, though the defense might have raised the issue of conjecture, ethical questions needed to be asked.
I have known coal miners. It is a hard, physical and extremely dangerous way of life. I have learned the executives running coal mining operations have always walked a fine line between “safety” and “violation.” In an effort to save money they will do what is necessary to walk the line, but in this case, did they do everything ethically possible to protect the miners? I submit not and that is where the tough issues come into play.
Witnesses protecting themselves
We have seen numerous examples across dozens of industries where supervisors, foremen and company representatives have more of a loyalty to their bosses than to the truth. There is the perception that somehow if they protect their bosses and their company, they will be “rewarded.” There is also fear involved about going against the grain, and perhaps worries about retribution. It is human nature, but ethically, 29 men are dead and the truth must be achieved.
So the questions asked of the witnesses were easily and comfortably answered, but they were never ethically examined. A cross-examination produced predictable outcomes; ethical questioning might have revealed admissions that while no safety regulations were intentionally ignored, there were deep seated fears that the equipment in place was old, or needed better maintenance or replacement.
Is one year in jail enough? I don’t know given the questioning. However, if ethical questions were asked that probed more deeply, the penalty might have been much more severe. If there is any good outcome at all, it is that the CEO must suffer some consequence for his choices. That result alone, points out a need for ethical training of all executives in that industry.
YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!
Great example of maybe being legal but so unethical!Everyone preaches the value of ethics,but…….. I wonder how those miners’ families feel about “justice?” Thanks Chuck for “ethics example” or lack thereof,