Home | Institute | Product | FAQ | E-Mails
Actual E-mail 11/18/04
|
Hi Frank, Just read the article from the Charleston West Virginia Gazette on your web site. The irony is that MSHA paid more than $400,000 to get an outside company to tell them what the Mining Community has been saying for years for free. If MSHA really wanted to work with the mining industry it would recognize the value in advice from the professionals who work in the industry. Hard to be a "partner" when you never get the chance to lead and the lout you're with does nothing more than step on your toes. Andy , CMSP Regional Safety Manager
|
Actual E-Mail 9/20/04
|
Dear Frank, Re: FOIA Editorial: I think that the message is clear, MSHA is trying to get away with a knowing and willful violation of constitutional law. I also think that our trade associations should be picking up the banner and take the agency to task for this activity. Unfortunately, they may be hesitant to do so because they have signed these “safety partnerships” with the enforcement agency. That being said, safety and FOIA requests are completely unrelated…I hope our associations have that POV. Safety Officer
|
Actual E-Mail
|
Frank, In regard to the editorial on 7/21/04, it is our responsibility as production managers to maintain a safe workplace and to comply with safety laws. It is also our responsibility to give our employee's the proper training they need to maintain a safe workplace and to comply with the law. Once Industry managers commit themselves to doing the right thing, our employee's will follow the lead, and we will have great confidence in them to maintain a safe and healthy workplace. I am a firm believer that it all starts at the top, and we should lead by example, I have also seen with this commitment that accidents, injuries and citations diminish, while productivity and net-profits sharply increase. Breaking the law is not an option, and doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do is our best defense against the unprofessionalism within MSHA. Brett (Foreman)
|
Actual E-Mail
|
Frank, I completely agree with the content of your July 6 editorial. I am experiencing a lot of the same things from enforcement people here in Ohio, especially the confused part. A couple of incidents have happened in the last year that really trouble me. One, after contesting a citation, inspectors showed up at two of our plants at the same time. One of them was accompanied by the Field Office Supervisor under the guise of "required observation" of a new inspector. Since she is a "newby", that is plausible. Of course the supervisor took the opportunity to "discuss" the contested citation once again. He also took the opportunity to mention (jokingly, over lunch) that he "had enough inspectors in his office, that he could visit every one of our plants on the same day"! Frankly, I was somewhat flattered! On the other hand this smacks of retaliation for exercising our rights under The Act. I should mention the affected plant only received two citations and the supervisor pointed both of them out to the inspector! The other is somewhat more troubling. I formally contested a citation dealing with Part 50 reporting requirements. I also held an informal conference with a CLR. Both the CLR and the DOL attorney that they would have to "get back to the District to see what they wanted to do with this"! I had hoped that someone in this process would have the authority (or guts) to read The Law and respond accordingly. Apparently not. We'll see what the judge has to say! Contesting more citations has had a positive impact I believe. Even though I haven't had any vacated, I have been successful having such things as negligence etc. reduced. And, the AR's don't seem to want to take a chance on questionable citations. Our “citations-per-inspection” has been halved this year and I think contesting the citations has played a part in this. Of course, our managers are much more focused on Safety and I can't say enough good things about VP of Production, Brian Wheelers' influence in that regard. My job has been much easier with the upper level management support I am now receiving. I think a certain $afepro president's discussions with them has had a lot to do with that!! Thank you! Thanks for letting me "vent". I see we are sending at least a couple of managers to Savannah in October and I'm still trying to come up with a really good reason to convince my boss that I should go too!! I had a great time there!
Kevin Kitzler
|
Actual E-Mail
|
Frank, I enjoyed your editorial. The fact that an MSHA Disrict Office has also recently refused to release the inspector's field notes under FOIA reinforces your position. If MSHA's goal was to partnership with industry in matters of safety, then they should not be afraid of releasing these documents. They seem to be concentrating at the "GOTCHA" game. Since most companies are reluctant to spend a lot of time contesting citations, they are playing a numbers game. What a terrible misuse of taxpayer dollars and industry profits. They no longer work for the people, but for themselves. John Adams is rolling over in his grave.
-----Original Message-----
Dear Safety Officer, Our responses to the 7/6/04 website Editorial indicate confused and uneven MSHA enforcement across the country. Please e-mail us your response to the editorial. The "street talk" is that regardless of the Nov. election results, David Laurisky will not serve another term. If you have a recommendation for the new Asst. Sec. of Labor, MS&H please pass it on to me and your professional organizations. We are now taking registrations for the Oct. Savannah MS&H Institute. All indications are that the more trained personnel you have aboard next year, the less Agency hassle you will have. You can read the Editorial and register your people on our website: http://www.safeproinc.com. Yours for $afe Production, Frank Adkins
|
Actual E-Mail
|
This has been my experience as well in the NE District. Steve
-----Original Message----- Dear Steve, $afepro has received several calls from Production and Safety officers who were dissatisfied with the Informal Citation Contestment process they were experiencing. They report very slow response to the citations they are lucky enough to have heard in a timely manner and in some instances were scheduled or responded to after the mandated 30 day Contestment period had passed. If the informal ruling was unsatisfactory, they had no further opportunity to pursue a fair resolution. We rearranged the homepage to make it easier to get info on how to solve this problem. Go to http://www.safeproinc.com and click on the link that reads Click for Vital Information on Conferencing Citations/Orders. This will provide you with a mandated solution entitlement that eliminates the “whimsical” manner in which some contestments are treated for the convenience of the Agency. Yours for $afe Production, Frank Adkins
|
Actual E-Mail
|
In response to “Formal Contestment” website info July 2004 Frank I totally agree with this. It lets MSHA inspectors know that you are not going to take “off the wall crap” that they want to make up as they are inspecting. I also like to ask for a formal hearing because it not only lets the company be heard, but also the miner himself. As I was taught in the Safepro Inst. the miner himself is the expert at the job he is doing, not that inspector. What is your best defense against MSHA? A well trained miner that knows the laws as well as the inspector. Ted Stark Environmental & Safety Officer
|
This
E-mail was received by $afepro, inc. and is an example of how the $afe Production
process allows your employees to contribute more professionally to their jobs.
The difference in the cost between an S&S and a non-S&S citation for
this firm is almost $200.00. This foreman put nearly $200.00 in net profit
without producing another ounce of product. He did it by using his resources and
knowledge of his rights and the rights of his company under the Mine Act.
Frank Sawyer, Foreman, is a graduate of the MS&H Institute as is Safety
Manager Miller. Both men are to be commended for their professionalism.
Actual E-Mail
Dear
Frank:
You
are not going to believe this but during our closing conference, Frank Sawyer,
a shift foreman from the dry side of the Mill, got The
MSHA Inspector (name deleted to protect the unprofessional from embarrassment)to
change a citation from S&S to Non S&S. When you go in with your
information and speak sensibly and rationally to this
inspector(name
deleted to protect the unprofessional from embarrassment), he
sometimes listens. When I asked him to change the citation to non S&S, I
thought he would refer me to the Regional
Supervisory inspector (name deleted to protect the unprofessional from
embarrassment) as usual, but he said he would change it. I am still
in shock.
Thanks
again for the ammo and we are maintaining course and speed, sir. Full Speed
ahead and damn MSHA’s unprofessionalism in ignoring the Law!!
Life
is good! Only 9 citations as compared to 27 last inspection.
"Anticipate
A Safe Day !!"
D.
Howell Miller CSP CMSP MSOS CPEA
Manager,
Health
& Safety
If this situation has
not caught your attention, here is another example of how $afe Production works on the West Coast. It is obvious that neither of
these results occurred by accident.
Knowledge of the Law and the
Agency’s and the Industry’s rights allowed both firms to establish
themselves as firms of excellence who are managing their businesses in all
aspects utilizing their trained people from top to bottom.
This process results in a reputation
as an exceptionally responsible company which must be approached with respect
from governmental Agencies, competitors and the community.
During this process the workforce
stabilizes and becomes part of “something good”. Hazards are eliminated and
accidents and citations cease to be a concern, ergo, net profit increases.
Production and Quality improve with
no additional investment in either, ergo, net
profit increases.
Actual E-mail
I am pleased to report that we prevailed in our attempts to have the "battery box" citation, issued at Eagle Valley a few months ago, vacated. We presented our case and argued our position to all appropriate parties at each legal step afforded us through the MSHA "legal system". When the Health and Safety Conference held in Redlands, CA. with the Field Office Supervisor failed to achieve the desire result, the formal civil proceeding paper work was filed with the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.
On Friday, the District Office heard our case and this morning it was argued again with our brief in their hands. It was reviewed at the District level and they subsequently vacated the citation this afternoon. Basically, it was a "take nothing" on the part of the agency.
Thanks for all the good work that took place at Eagle Valley...Rick's team did a good job of recording all of the facts and making the original arguments with the inspector. Our training in this regard paid off, grandly. It was then taken to the MSHA "higher ups" using the information gathered at the time of the inspection. Without it, we couldn't have won our case...good work, guys.
It
should be noted that although this was a relatively minor citation, we all
viewed this on the principle that no hazard existed and finally
clearer minds heard our collective voices and agreed. What's
more, no legal fees were paid to an attorney...this was done in-house.
Thanks again for the good work and assistance...
Terry L. Tyson
Regional Director of Safety
We still have limited seats available for our High Point, NC MS&H Institute Jan. 17-21, 2005. You can get the info and register from our website http://www.safeproinc.com. Click on the Institute link.
Yours for $afe Production,
Frank Adkins