Achmad Faizal Azmi (361160)

Case: Death at Massey Energy Company

1. In your judgement, and given only the facts described in the case above, should the
management of Masey Energy Company be held morally responsible for the deaths of
the 29 miners? Explain your answer.
In my judgement, the management of Massey Energy Company should be held for
the deaths of 29 miners, because many violations that have been done by Massey
Company such as safety violation, which creates unsafe working condition due to
they won't follow the safety regulation. The company only make significant change in
order for their mines not to be totally closed but not make a major safety changes in
order to follow the guidelines of MSHA. Employee rights also violated due they cant
provide the Upper branch miners an adequate working condition. Safety inspections
of non union mines which is Massey Energy Company was much different in the
union mines. Moreover, Workers are forced to accept the job risks to avoid
unemployment. Hence, job risk is unjustified upper branch mine is clearly unsafe
which results in 29 unnecessary and avoidable deaths.
2. Suppose nothing more is learned about the explosion other than what is described in
the case above. Do you think Don Blakenship should be held morally responsible for
the deaths of 29 miners?
Yes I do, because Don Blakenship violates some ethical principles. First, Don
Blakenship violates the Utilitarianism; he acted to maximize personal benefits rather
than his employees, and his company also caused bad effect to society such as lost of
clean water source. Moreover, he also violates moral rights, He insisted to keep on
producing coal and not to waste time to responding request to fix problems, this
shows that he prioritized profit rather than human life. He must provide a safety
wokplace for his workers, otherwise he will put his workers in dangerous situation.
3. Given only the facts described in the case above, should the MSHA be held morally
responsible (at least in part) for the deaths of 29 miners?
As stated in the case, MSHA has the Authority to closed down the mine if the mine
had a substantial number of citation. But then, MSHA had never forced the entire
mine to shut down in order to make significant changes. However, it is not necessarily
the fault of MSHA, since when the MSHA inspector came to the mine, there is no
coal worker that accompany them, only Masseys employee. Therefore, MSHA also
morally responsible for the deaths of 29 miners, but only in a part.
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?

Yes I do think the miners should be held the partially responsible for their own deaths.
This is because they know they will face the great risks by working in the Upper Big
Branch Mine. Moreover, they tend to ignore some violations that company had done
before. one of the most important consideration why they are doing that because
simply they dont want to lose their job.
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?
Yes because there are several benefits for employee if their company have union,
according to unionplus.org, union employees make an average of 30% more than nonunion workers. 92% of union workers have job-related health coverage versus 68% of
non-union workers. Union workers are more likely to have guaranteed pensions than
non-union employees. Therefore, all mines should be forced to have a union.
6. Miners in the Upper Big Branch mine were paid about $60000 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 schol education. The average salary for all
jobs in the united states is about $43000. In light of the chapters discussion job risk,
would you say that the company was handling job risk in an ethically appropriate
manner?
From the perspective of utilitarianism, which the priciples that holds that action
should be evaluated on the basis of cost-benefit analysis, it is still considered ethical.
Why? Because the company pay more than the average salary. Therefore, it
compensate the high risk by paying higher salary. However, from the perspective of
right, it considered unethical action, because every miners has right to work in the
safe environment, but the reality is on the other way around.
7. List all the ethical obligations that you belive the management of Massey Energy
company did NOT fulfill. Explain the ethical basis of each of the obligations on your
list.
- As stated in the case, the company create the environment problem to the nature
and bring the bad impact to society such as lost of clean water sources for their
own benefit. In terms of utilitarianism, which holds that action should be
evaluated on the basis of cost-benefit analysis, it is considered unethical, since
their action harms society a lot.
- The company violated the moral right of employee by lying about the condition of
the mine and creates unsafe working condition due to they won't follow the safety
regulation. Moreover, the company workers are forced to accept the job risks to
avoid unemployment.
Case: Who Should Pay?
1. In your judgement, and from ethical point of view, should Turner Construction and/or
B&C Steel pay for all part of the $2.28.000 (if part, indicate which part)? Explain
your view.

In my opinion, Turner Construction and B&C steel should partly responsible for this
settlement. Turner was not fair to Elliot because the different of compensation
accident just because Elliot was just a lessors employee, it is considered unethical
from the perspective of justice. Moreover, In terms of distributive justice, B & C Steel
has failed to fulfill its obligations in creating safe working conditions with a lack of
preparation in the placement of the bridge, the construction process which didnt a
fence or a safety net, and the negligence of workers from B & C Steel who do not
practice the principles of safety.
2. In your judgement, and from an ethical point of view, should Elliot be held wholly or
partially responsible for his injuries and left to shoulder all part of the $2.428.000 cost
of his injuries (if part, indicate which part)? Explain.
We can held someone morally responsible for an injury only when the person caused
or help cause it, the person did so knowing what he or she was doing, and the person
did so of his own free will. By looking at that definition, Elliot was also partly
responsible for his injuries. He was there to help during the construction process.
However, he gave late intruction of OSHA all stop due to false judgement during the
construction process
3. In your judgement, is the colorados worker compensation law to which Turner
Construction appealed fair? Explain your view.
No, because eventhough Elliot only as a temporary worker or Turner as its statutory
employer, Turner has an obligation to provide all the rights of their employees decent
wages as appropriate, provide good working conditions, and provide fair
compensantory in any cases of work accident. Moreover, the objective of colorados
worker compensation law that injured employees must get compensation from the
employer, without regard to fault. As we know, fault is part of a job, we cant certainly
avoid that, and this law violates the justice approach of ethics.