Mines, Memories and Disasters

The sad and tragic story of the explosion and deaths at the Massey mine in West Virginia this week ignited powerful memories of my growing-up years in southwestern Pennsylvania in the 1960s, when mining accidents were a routine occurrence.

The Washington Post has characterized the deaths of the 29 miners as "the worst U.S. mining disaster in a generation." In one sense, the paper's observation is an unspoken statement to the improvement in mine safety. In another sense, it is also a reminder that some things really have not changed in over 50 years.

The Post's columnist, E.J. Dionne, wrote earlier this week that there is a "heartbreaking sameness to how we respond to mining disasters." Indeed, yes, there is a heartbreaking sameness to how we respond...to any disaster.

The explosion at Massey's Upper Big Branch mine is considered by most who have examined the company's practices and safety record to have been avoidable. The company was cited multiple times for safety violations by the board that oversees miner safety for the industry. The sad fact is that that same board, although it had the authority to do so, did not suspend mining operations until the violations were corrected.

Now, of course, the requisite finger-pointing has begun, and it will be followed by the requisite congressional hearings and concomitant outrage, which will result in either more regulations on the books or some piece of legislation to be fought over by the lobbyists for the mining industry. More likely, the end result will be nothing but that sameness that Dionne refers to: inertia.

We tend to react most strongly when human life is needlessly lost, as in the case of this mining disaster. We react somewhat similarly when family's finances are needlessly lost, as has been the case in this last year and a half during the severe economic downturn that has cost many families their homes and retirees their pensions.

Like mining, there is an oversight board for the financial industry. In fact, there are multiple oversight boards: the SEC that exists to regulate activities in the stock market; the Federal Reserve that oversees banking activity; the FDIC that insures bank customers' deposits. And yet, just as is the case with Massey, there were signs of violations of regulations and evidence that the rules were stretched beyond their normal elasticity. Little, if anything, in the way of suspicious activity in the financial sector was brought to a halt by regulators before disaster struck.

And, so, we reacted with heartbreaking sameness. Finger-pointing. Blame. Congressional hearings. Proposed legislation. New regulations. And...wait for it...yes, as signs of economic improvement emerge, we can fully expect the resumption of inertia.

In early 2009, reports surfaced about the possibility of salmonella occurring in peanut paste being produced by Peanut Corporation of America, and shipped from its facility in Georgia. The company had been cited previously for various violations, including sanitation and rodent control issues. Regulators failed to shut the Georgia plant down until the conditions were corrected.

And, so, salmonella entered the food supply through the paste, a common ingredient in a variety of foods, including snack crackers, granola bars and cereals. We reacted with heartbreaking sameness as news of disease caused by the contamination was made public. Finger-pointing. Blame. Congressional hearings. New regulations. Proposed legislation.

There is a point at which this sameness, which is heartbreaking because it does not lead to real and lasting change, needs to stop. We need to take a holistic look at how we respond to disasters, regardless of their origin. The knee-jerk reaction is to heap regulation upon regulation as each new permutation of human behavior is revealed at the expense of innocent people.

But, as the adage says, rules are made to be broken. It is in the nature of human beings to find ways around those things which constrict their desired outcomes. New regulations on the books, be it for mines or for banks or for food, may assuage an anxious public. It might make good stump speech fodder for legislators, but it won't change basic motivation. Just as soon as a new regulation is on the books, business owners who find the rule too restrictive for their tastes, or for their profitability, will pay lawyers to find a way to bend the law without breaking it.

How, then, do we create a society which reduces needless and senseless loss? Consumer demand for more transparency in how companies conduct their businesses is one approach - let consumers vote with their dollars. Removal of government contracts for chronic violators is another step. Why use taxpayer money to reward companies that don't play by the rules?

Perhaps the simplest, and easiest, approach is to examine the rules already in place and address the reasons enforcement is spotty, and in many cases, just plain lax. That means beefing up the investigative staffs of the regulatory agencies, putting teeth into the enforcement side and rewarding inspectors who actually do their jobs.

More rules only creates more burden - on the law-abiding businesses that play by the rules, and on the regulators who are overwhelmed by their workloads. Scaling back would be a step in the right direction. In fact,, scaling back would be a nice change from reacting with mind-numbing sameness to a disaster.