What does this ultimately say about the worker’s position relative to the company? It says that the worker may not avail him/herself of things even during times when they are not “on the clock” and in which time the said substances have no effect or impact on the worker’s paid time on the job. It means, in short, that the company owns the worker for every hour of every day, whether being paid or not. Suffice to say, this is a potential step backward on the order of something approaching a century in terms of how we view work life vs. the rest of a worker’s life.

Ultimately, the drug testing requirement appears to be a diversionary tactic to avoid offending the coal industry regarding the still-too-persistent hazards of the business. As you note, UBB didn’t happen because somebody was free-basing on the mantrip.

but I can understand where that mindset would come from.

Where?

To be honest I came across the site on a random google about layoff, but from where I am sitting it is always an issue, not just in some posts. I think that moving coal workers to other, more stable power industries is a better answer. I’m not saying it will be easy, or inexpensive, but that it is worth while for all parties.

Kate

You need to read the NMA’s comments that I linked to a little more closely.

It may indeed be that most policies include rehab – but the point of this post is that the NMA specifically opposed language in the Bush administration proposal that would have required coal operators to give employees a chance to get clean after a first-time positive test … this wasn’t my proposal, it was the Bush administration’s.

So, the coal industry thought that a Republican administration’s proposal to give workers who develop a problem a second chance was too wimpy …

And not for nothing, but lawmakers shouldn’t be deciding this based on what’s in the employer’s best interests — they should be serving the public interest. I don’t see how simply throwing someone on the street, with no help, when they develop a drug or alcohol addiction is in the PUBLIC’S interest.

Ken.

Virtually any employer in the industry can tell you how rampant a problem it is. The UMW knows this, as well as any regulatory agency. Most companies have pre-employment screening, random tests and post incident testing. Virtually all have very specific rules which include rehab but also include discharge from employment for on-the-job drug use. There is plenty of precedence for what is allowed and what is not allowed as far as indiscriminate termination for drug use.

This egg has been in the nest too long. Just because it had nothing to do with UBB doesn’t mean it shouldn’t come forth. It would simply provide minimum guidelines for employers (and employees) to meet, leveling the field somewhat. Some would see more strict policies and others may see somewhat less punitive policies.

“The goal is to strike a balance between the safety needs of the employer, and the health and well-being of the employee.” Most agree in rehabilitation for “first time offenders” but the argument begins with who shall pay for it.

Once again, thanks Ken and everyone who is interested in this. As Ken stated earlier, the uncertainty and the ‘hurry up and wait’ can be a very difficult thing to work through, but we do it the best we can. But I know very well that the truth is all we need because it is bad enough on its own, we need to just figure out as best we can the situation. We’re working hard on this.

Perhaps this is helpful in answering your question:

“The remaining Peats Branch highwall is approximately 5,500 feet in length. The highwall defines a road that is constructed at the base of the highwall. This road contains remnants of a disassembled belt line. The belt line is being removed so that it can be used at another Arch mine site. Hobet will reach the final stage of bond release when reclamation of the remaining highwall at Peats Branch is complete. Hobet does not intend to reclaim the remaining highwall in the foreseeable future. Reclamation eventually will be accomplished with earthen material removed from the Bumbo property.”

That’s an interesting little section from a Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission ruling about a contractor fatality on the old Dal-Tex property a number of years ago, http://www.fmshrc.gov/decisions/alj/wv2004-64.html

Ken.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/81118658

I am still trying to figure out where they are blasting exactly at on Bumbo 2. The blast notice says 1.2 miles southeast of Lake.

BUmbo No 2 blast notice: http://www.scribd.com/doc/81118658

Their closure of the first six plants is expected to “boost” profits to the tune of $216M, or more. http://online.wsj.com/article/APeac2ff6600674a1180f9b9d42b03f27f.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

It will be interesting to hear what comes out of the other, shareholder, side of FirstEnergy’s collective mouth during their next earnings call at the end of this month.

It’s all about the money, boys….

here’s an additional update I just received from the WVDEP’s Kathy Cosco:

“There is some blasting associated with the Left Fork permit, which was not part of the lands unsuitable petition. The company is doing road maintenance and laying gravel on Brumbo No. 2. An inspector was going out to Adkins either late yesterday or today, but I have not heard back from anyone regarding that site visit. ”

Ken.

here’s an additional update I just received from the WVDEP’s Kathy Cosco:

“There is some blasting associated with the Left Fork permit, which was not part of the lands unsuitable petition. The company is doing road maintenance and laying gravel on Brumbo No. 2. An inspector was going out to Adkins either late yesterday or today, but I have not heard back from anyone regarding that site visit. ”

Ken.