I agree that the regulations should be enforced, but I don't believe a third party (unions) are required to make that happen. My experience with another federal regulating agency is that they are more than willing and able to enforce regulations, impose civil penalties, shut down facilities, and (in rare cases) cause criminal charges to be brought against individuals. My experience is in an industry with very large owners and a very significant lobbying budget. This industry also has very strong whistleblower protections.

My point was that regulators can do their jobs without union involvement. I suspect that the mining industry has problems that are unrelated to labor unions.

there was no union at that mine.

and that industry is? nuclear power, which is "run" by the nrc, which is hardly a regulatory agency, more like a cheerleader? or coal? oil? certainly you are ashamed of your industry?

Are you trying to say that a union is needed for existing safety regulations to be enforced? In that case, it is a failure of the regulator to do his job. Mining unions have been lobbying forever, have they brought about effective regulation of mine safety?

Look at the safety record of mining and tell me if any other industry could get away with killing that many people on a regular basis. Unions are not the solution, they have tried and failed.

gee, do i need to draw you a picture? people with no job security aren't about to report problems to regulators, nor do they have any leverage against management.

and yes, there are corrupt unions. however, there are corrupt corporations, and we certainly don't see anyone (absurdly) saying that "the time for corporations has passed, they have outlived their effectiveness."

anyway, you are mgmt., and will continue to spout the party line; i thought this section was about discussion, not promulgation of rigid ideologies. silly me.

According to this study of the most dangerous jobs, miners come in 8th.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-08/the-20-most-dangerous-jobs/

A union job takes an employee worth maybe $15,000 a year, and transforms their wage into a $50,000 a year job. This becomes evident when laid off union laborers cannot get anywhere near that in the free market.

There is no union job that cannot be done better for way less cost in the free market. That's obsolescence.

Union mines have a much better safety record than non-union mines. I don't think pay is the issue.

In other words, a labor market controlled by capital pays less than a labor market controlled by labor. Hmmm? Is this any surprise? Isn't this exactly one of the central purposes of unions?

You got the picture - a $15,000 a year job becomes a $50,000 a year job, under a union.

There is no job anywhere that cannot be done better, for less cost by non-union labor. Really simple concept....it's called the free market.

yes, and it's very shortsighted thinking. people who make $15,000 a year aren't going to buy much, and keep the economy going. even henry ford -no friend to labor, he - paid higher wages, for two reasons. first, he got better workers; second, they could afford to buy his product. but the greedy short term capitalist will kill the golden goose... and then wonder where the eggs (and goslings) went.

Ironic that a Coloradan would be making this case:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_14940770

oh, kerry, you with that "history" thing. :D don't confuse anyone here with the facts, you bolshevik. :D

"History" is the important word in that story.

those that fail to understand the past....

but keep that cato institute driven b.s. coming.