Hi, How Can We Help You?
  • Address: 1251 Lake Forest Drive New York
  • Email Address: assignmenthelpcentral@gmail.com

Blog

April 19, 2025
April 19, 2025

Romans 4, keeping the theme of Abraham as the Grand Unifier in focus.,

  • Identify the author’s message to his original audience. In doing so take the context into consideration (surrounding passages overall theme of the gospel). Provide references citations and/or brief quotations from the gospel to support your points.,
  • Identify any keywords (and their meanings) that contribute to the overall message of the passage.,
  • Briefly suggest how this message can be applied to the message of the Kingdom of God today.,

Abraham as the Grand Unifier

 

 

You should consult three to five commentaries, journal articles, Bible dictionaries, etc., to complete this assignment. Include footnotes and bibliography in Turabian format. No cover page is required.

Romans 4, keeping the theme of Abraham as the Grand Unifier in focus.

  • Identify the author’s message to his original audience. In doing so, take the context into consideration (surrounding passages, overall theme of the gospel). Provide references, citations, and/or brief quotations from the gospel to support your points.
  • Identify any keywords (and their meanings) that contribute to the overall message of the passage.
  • Briefly suggest how this message can be applied to the message of the Kingdom of God today.

You should consult three to five commentaries, journal articles, Bible dictionaries, etc., to complete this assignment. Include footnotes and bibliography in Turabian format. No cover page is required.

Romans 4, keeping the theme of Abraham as the Grand Unifier in focus.

  • Identify the author’s message to his original audience. In doing so, take the context into consideration (surrounding passages, overall theme of the gospel). Provide references, citations, and/or brief quotations from the gospel to support your points.
  • Identify any keywords (and their meanings) that contribute to the overall message of the passage.
  • Briefly suggest how this message can be applied to the message of the Kingdom of God today.

You should consult three to five commentaries, journal articles, Bible dictionaries, etc., to complete this assignment. Include footnotes and bibliography in Turabian format. No cover page is required.

April 19, 2025
April 19, 2025

According to the Institutes of Internal Auditors, the goals of a CSR audit are:

Gain an understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) influences and initiatives.
Understand CSR stakeholders and their needs.
Understand the economic value proposition and reputation drivers.
Examine how organizations approach: climate change challenges, health and safety issues, and supply chain imperatives.
Review emerging practices in social responsibility and sustainable development.
Examine CSR links to governance and risk management.
Consider reporting and assurance challenges. Determine the proper role for internal audit.
Network with your peers on this emerging area of internal audit focus.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

 

 

This  assignment provides you an opportunity to explore and select an  appropriate audit instrument for your organization and consider what you  would have to do to implement the tool.

Complete the following:

Research information about  Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) audits instruments and process., Use the following resources as a starting point:,

Accountability especially the AA1000 Assurance Standards.,
Federation des Experts Compatibles Europeans for several CSR assurance standards papers.,
Social Accountability International, especially the SA 8000 standards.,
Evaluate the auditing instruments and select an appropriate method for your organization.,

Develop  a plan to complete a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) audit including an explanation of your  selected tool, the components of the audit, and the process you would  use.

Integrate the unit readings and your research articles to support your assessment.

Readings:  Boulouta, I. (2013). Hidden connections: The link between board gender  diversity and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics,  113(2), 185–197. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1293-7
Bouvain,  P., Baumann, C., & Lundmark, E. (2013). Corporate social  responsibility in financial services. The International Journal of Bank  Marketing, 31(6), 420–439. doi:10.1108/IJBM-05-2012-0054
Chiu,  S.-C., & Sharfman, M. (2011). Legitimacy, visibility, and the  antecedents of corporate social performance: An investigation of the  instrumental perspective. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1558–1585.  doi:10.1177/0149206309347958

Wood,  D. J. (2010). Measuring Corporate Social Performance: A Review.  International Journal of Management Reviews.DOI:  10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00274.x

April 19, 2025
April 19, 2025

Dissertation

Instructions

Background

Your signature assignment asks you to synthesize the thinking you have done in the

course. For this class, we have focused on preparing you for your dissertation

coursework. It is helpful to reflect deeply on the area of interest you bring into the

program from the very start. This assignment asks you to write about that passion and

how you see it, informing your journey ahead.

Dissertation

Instructions

This week you will write a paper integrating the learning you have done in this class

about becoming a scholar-practitioner. ,Your paper should include the following

components:,

An introduction that guides the reader into your paper (1 to 2 pages),

Introduction to topics or areas of interest (2 to 4 pages),

Review the three topics you discussed in your module two assignment. Are these still

interesting or have your thinking evolved into new areas?, Briefly outline the three

current topics or areas of interest you want to continue investigating as you begin your

coursework.,

Topic One (2 to 5 pages)

Utilize the sources you have accumulated in the course to discuss this topic more

deeply. You can share ideas you have for why this might be an area of interest for you.

You might also see a specific problem or concept you want to investigate. Support these

ideas with the literature you have read in the class.

Topic Two (2 to 5 pages)

Follow the same direction as for topic one above.

Topic Three (2 to 5 pages)

Follow the same directions as for topic one above.

Conclusion (1 to 2 pages)

Summarize your paper findings and leave the reader with a sense of what the paper

was about.

Length: 15 – 25 pages (approximately 250 words per page), not including the title and

reference pages.

References: Include 10 scholarly resources.

April 19, 2025
April 19, 2025

Assessment Task

Create an Advocacy plan to describe the activities you would like to undertake that address the

community social justice issue you identified in Assessment 1., Elaborate on this plan with a 15-

minute audio-visual presentation that includes your written advocacy plan., You will need to design

your audio-visual presentation using a digital program such as PowerPoint Canva or Google Slides.,

You will submit a recording of your presentation via the LMS portal. ,Please refer to the Instructions

section for details on how to complete this task.,

Advocacy plan

 

Context

Whether you’re considering carrying out advocacy activities as part of a large social justice campaign

or on a smaller scale in a community or organisation, it is important to do your due diligence and

planning beforehand. This is particularly the case if the issue involves multiple stakeholders and

activities, relates to a sensitive topic, is not within your own lived experience, or you’re not part of

the affected community or lack experience with advocacy or the issue.

Advocacy planning helps you to be organised and informed and to have the best chance of success.

It also helps to ensure you have considered all the possibilities, risks and issues related to your

chosen activities before acting so you can make informed decisions. Importantly, plans also include

metrics and evaluation guidelines to help you assess the success of activities so you can continuously

learn and improve as an advocate as well.

By completing this assessment, you will gain knowledge, tools, and insights that will assist you in

planning advocacy activities in your personal and professional life. Although not the case in this

assessment, you may also choose to use advocacy plans when collaborating with others on social

justice activities in the future.

This assessment builds on Assessment 1, where you were required to research a community issue.

Assessment 2 will enable you to take those findings and create a plan of advocacy informed by them.

Instructions

To complete this assessment, you will follow the steps outlined below.

1) Confirm your ask

After reviewing the current advocacy campaigns, their ask, activities, initiatives and

policies, clarify what you are asking for or want changed in relation to the current

situation of the issue in your chosen community. Remember, this should be informed

by your Assessment 1.

2) Research the issue further and gather relevant information to support your advocacy plan

Gather information on the following:

• Research existing plans to deliver changes to policies, or for new policies, projects or

programs that address this issue. If so, where are they up to?

• Complete your stakeholder identification and analysis, including current policies,

campaigns and initiatives.

• Did anyone else ask for it in the past? If so, what was successful and what not?

• How many people would benefit from your action?

• What media has this issue covered locally, nationally and globally? And what agenda-

setting and framing can you identify?

• Any other pertinent information relating to your ask? Review and update the key

research and information from Assessment 1.

3) Create an advocacy plan

Write your advocacy plan using the following structure:

• A clear and concise description of the current situation of the issue, and how it is framed

in the media.

• A current and specific advocacy target and stakeholder analysis outlining who are

involved directly and indirectly in this issue, drawing on your work for Assessment 1

and including each stakeholder group’s activities, interests and perspectives

• Your ask, based on your research findings

• Goals and SMART objectives of your planned advocacy activities in your chosen

community

• Key messages for each stakeholder, talking points to be used in your activities

• Strategies and tactics planned to achieve your goals and objectives

• Timeline in the scope of this assessment

• Evaluation plan (the criteria) to measure the success of your advocacy activities.

• Reference list

Your advocacy plan should be written in clear and concise language and demonstrate your

ability to critically analyse the issue and develop a well-structured plan.

4) Create a recorded presentation of the written advocacy plan

Elucidate your advocacy plan by translating it into an audio-visual presentation that includes

the key information from your written advocacy plan. This could be a recorded slide deck

presentation, a video recording or any other audio-visual means with your face visible.

Please note: The recorded presentation MUST expand on the key points of the written

advocacy plan, but please do not read directly from it. For Assessment 2, you need to submit

the recorded presentation and the written advocacy plan separately.

Find more tips on recording narration in PowerPoint or how to film a video presentation via

the link for Assessment 2 in the LMS portal.

Referencing

It is essential that you use appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research. Please see more

information on referencing in the Academic Skills webpage.

Submission Instructions

Submit the task via the Assessment tasks link in the main navigation menu in EEDUSD400 Social

Justice in Action:

● Submit a recording of your presentation on Blackboard via the Assessment 2, Presentation–

Submission link.

● Please note during the submission process, once your first item has been uploaded, click

Browse Your Computer if you need to attach extra files. Then click the Final Submit button.

● Your assessment will be formally graded via the Grade Centre by your Learning Facilitator

and feedback will be provided through My Grades.

April 19, 2025
April 19, 2025

Crime Investigation

Instructions
The  most serious crime you will be called to investigate will be that  involving the intentional death of a victim—a homicide. The  investigation must be scientifically sound, thorough, and methodical.

Crime Investigation

Crime Investigation

Using the materials from this session describe your approach to the investigation of death.,

Discuss how the death scene should be documented.,
Discuss  the three types of evidence you might encounter ( latent prints  biological fluids etc.), how that evidence should be preserved and  collected.,
Discuss how you might develop an estimate into how long ago the victim may have died.,
Discuss how the cause and manner of death are determined.,

Crime Investigation

Discuss how the death scene should be documented.
Discuss  the three types of evidence you might encounter (e.g., latent prints,  biological fluids, etc.), and how that evidence should be preserved and  collected.
Discuss how you might develop an estimate into how long ago the victim may have died.
Discuss how the cause and manner of death are determined.

Crime Investigation

Discuss how the death scene should be documented.
Discuss  the three types of evidence you might encounter (e.g., latent prints,  biological fluids, etc.), and how that evidence should be preserved and  collected.
Discuss how you might develop an estimate into how long ago the victim may have died.
Discuss how the cause and manner of death are determined.

Crime Investigation

*** Here is a link to reading we have read in class and you could possibly reference, http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/deathinvestigationNIJ.pdfhttps://mycourses.ccu.edu/content/enforced/43841-CRJ-480A-35001-SP25/csfiles/home_dir/courses/CRJ-480A-ON/Linked%20Docs%20%20Images/Crime-Scene-Investigation%20PDF.pdf?ou=43841https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf*****

April 19, 2025
April 19, 2025

Prior to beginning work on this assignment, read Chapter 2 of your textbook.

Financial Analysis

Part 1

Throughout this course, you will examine various financial aspects of Deere & Company. These examinations will culminate in a summative evaluation of the company in your Final Project. Start by reviewing the Final Project instructions in Week 6. Then, download and review the appropriate quarterly and annual report for Deere & Company based on the following instructions.

Financial Analysis

Files to Download

Financial Analysis

Note: Save these files for easy retrieval, as you will be referring to them throughout the course and in your Final Project.

Part 2

As you will explore throughout this course, financial data plays a critical role when it comes to making business decisions for an organization. There are three primary financial statements: Income Statement, Balance Sheet, and the Statement of Cash Flows. For this assignment, assess the characteristics of each financial statement by addressing the following components:

  • List the primary sections found in each of the financial statements.,
  • Explain how each financial statement provides useful information that is not available in the other financial statements.,
  • Explain how each financial statement provides unique information that can be useful when making business decisions.,
  • Looking at the statement of cash flows you downloaded for Deere & Company in Part 1 ,identify the major inflows and outflows of cash for each section of the statement of cash flows.,

Financial Analysis

The Analyzing Financial Statements assignment

April 19, 2025
April 19, 2025

 

Case Study Six: The Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster

On Monday, April 5, 2010, just before 3:00 in the afternoon, miners at Massey Energy Corporation’s Upper Big Branch coal mine in southern West Virginia were in the process of a routine shift change. Workers on the evening shift were climbing aboard “mantrips,” low-slung electric railcars that would carry them into the sprawling, three-mile-wide drift mine, cut horizontally into the side of a mountain. Many day shift workers inside the mine had begun packing up and were preparing to leave, and some were already on their way to the portals. At one of the mine’s main “longwalls,” one thousand feet below the surface, a team of four highly experienced miners was operating a shearer, a massive machine that cut coal from the face with huge rotating blades. The shearer had been shut down for part of the day because of mechanical difficulties, and the miners were making one last pass before the evening shift arrived to take their places.

 

Big Branch Mine Disaster

The Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster

 

Suddenly, a spark thrown off as the shearer’s blades cut into hard sandstone ignited a small pocket of flammable methane gas. One of the operators immediately switched off the high-voltage power to the machine. Seconds later, the flame reached a larger pocket of methane, creating a small fireball. Apparently recognizing the danger, the four miners on the longwall crew began running for the exit opposite the fire. They had traveled no more than 400 feet when coal dust on the ground and in the air ignited violently, setting off a wave of powerful explosions that raced through the mine’s seven miles of underground tunnels. When it was over three minutes later, 29 miners (including all four members of the longwall crew) were dead, and two were seriously injured. Some had died from injuries caused by the blast itself, others from carbon monoxide suffocation as the explosion sucked the oxygen out of the mine. It was the worse mining disaster in the United States in almost 40 years.

 

An evening shift miner who had just entered the mine and boarded a mantrip for the ride to the coal face later told investigators what he had experienced:

 

All of a sudden you heard this big roar, and that’s when the air picked up. I’d say it was probably 60-some miles per hour. Instantly black. It took my hardhat and ripped it off my head, it was so powerful.

 

This miner and the rest of his group abandoned the mantrip and ran for the entrance, clutching each other in the darkness. On the outside, stunned and shaken, they turned to the most senior member of their crew for an explanation. “Boys …, I’ve been in the mines a long time,” the veteran miner said “That [was] no [roof] fall…. The place blew up.”1

The Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster

 

(page 489)

 

Massey Energy Corporation

At the time of the explosion, Massey Energy Corporation, the owner and operator of the Upper Big Branch mine, was one of the leading coal producers in the United States. The company, which specialized in the production of high-grade metallurgical coal, described itself as “the most enduring and successful coal company in central Appalachia,” where it owned one-third of the known coal reserves. Massey extracted 37 million tons of coal a year, ranking it sixth among U.S. producers in tonnage. The company sold its coal to more than a hundred utility, metallurgical, and industrial customers (mostly on long-term contracts) and exported to 13 countries. In 2009, Massey earned $227 million on revenue of $2.7 billion. The company and its subsidiaries employed 5,800 people in 42 underground and 14 surface mines and several coal processing facilities in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia.

 

Massey maintained that it brought many benefits to the nation as a whole and to the Appalachian region. The coal industry in the United States, of which Massey was an important part, provided the fuel for about half of the electricity generated in the United States, lessening the country’s reliance on imported oil. The company provided thousands of relatively well-paying jobs in a region that had long been marked by poverty and unemployment. Economists estimated that for every job in the coal industry, around three and a half jobs were created elsewhere. The company donated to scholarship programs, partnered with local schools, and provided emergency support during natural disasters, such as severe flooding in West Virginia in May 2009. “We recognize that it takes healthy and viable communities for our company to continue to grow and succeed,” Massey declared in its 2009 report to shareholders.

The Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster

 

But critics saw a darker side of Massey. The company was one of the leading practitioners of mountaintop removal mining, in which explosives were used to blast away the tops of mountains to expose valuable seams of coal. The resulting waste was frequently dumped into adjacent valleys, polluting streams, harming wildlife, and contaminating drinking water. In 2008, Massey paid $20 million to resolve violations of the Clean Water Act, the largest-ever settlement under that law. In an earlier incident, toxic mine sludge spilled from an impoundment operated by the company in Martin County, Kentucky, contaminating hundreds of miles of the Big Sandy and Ohio rivers, necessitating a $50 million cleanup. Worker safety was also a concern. An independent study found that Massey had the worst fatality rate of any coal company in the United States. For example, in the decade leading up to the Upper Big Branch disaster, Peabody Coal (the industry leader in tons produced) had one fatality for every 296 million tons of coal mined; Massey’s rate was one fatality per 18 million tons—more than 16 times as high.

 

Donald L. Blankenship

At the time of the Upper Big Branch mine disaster, the chief executive officer and undisputed boss of Massey Energy was Don Blankenship. A descendant of the McCoy family of the famous warring clans the Hatfields and the McCoys, Blankenship was raised by a single mother in a trailer in Delorme, a railroad depot in the coalfields of West Virginia. His mother supported the family by working 6 days a week, 16 hours a day, running a convenience store and gas station. Michael Shnayerson, who wrote about Blankenship in his book, Coal River, reported that the executive had absorbed from his mother the value of hard work—as well as contempt for others who might be less fortunate. “Anyone who didn’t work as hard as she did deserved to fail,” Shnayerson wrote. “Sympathy appeared to play no part in her reckonings.”2

 

(page 490)

 

Blankenship graduated from Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia, with a degree in accounting. As a college student, he worked briefly in a coal mine to earn money for tuition. In 1982, at age 32, he returned to the coalfields to join Massey Energy, taking a job as an office manager for a subsidiary called Rawls. Soon after, Massey announced it intended to spin off its subsidiaries as separate companies and re-open them as nonunion operations. The United Mine Workers, the union that then represented many Massey workers, struck the company. Jeff Goodell, a journalist who profiled Blankenship in Rolling Stone, described the young manager’s technique for defeating the union at Rawls:

The Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster

 

Blankenship erected two miles of chain link fence around the facility, brought in dogs and armed guards, and ferried nonunion workers through the union’s blockades. The strike, which lasted more than a year, grew increasingly violent—strikers took up baseball bats against the workers trying to take their jobs, and a few even fired shots at the scabs. A volley of bullets zinged into Blankenship’s office and smashed into an old TV…. For years afterward, Blankenship kept the TV with a bullet hole through it in his office as a souvenir.3

 

The union’s defeat at Massey (by 2010, only about 1 percent of Massey’s workers were union members, all of them in coal preparation plants rather than mines) contributed to the overall decline of the United Mine Workers in the coalfields. In the 1960s, unions represented nearly 90 percent of the nation’s mine workers; by 2010, they represented just 19 percent.

 

Blankenship quickly moved through the management ranks. In 1990, only eight years after he joined the company, he became president and chief operating officer of the Massey Coal Company and in 1992 was promoted to CEO and chairman. (The company was renamed Massey Energy in 2000 when it separated from its parent, Fluor Corp.) By some measures, he was a successful CEO. Between 2001, the first full year of Massey’s in-dependent operation, and 2009, annual revenue increased from $1.2 billion to $2.7 billion. During this period, employment rose from around 3,700 to 5,800. Blankenship more than doubled the company’s coal reserves, mainly through acquisitions of smaller firms. Massey shareholders, like all investors, were buffeted by the extreme volatility of the stock market during the 2000s. Nevertheless, an investor who purchased $10,000 worth of Massey stock in December 2004 would have a holding valued at $12,800 in December 2010—a rate of return close to that of the coal industry as a whole during this period.4

 

As CEO, Blankenship developed a reputation as a hands-on, detail-oriented manager. He lived in the coalfields and ran the company out of a double-wide trailer in Belfry, Kentucky, just over the West Virginia line. He signed off on all hires, all the way down to janitors. One manager expressed amazement when he learned that the CEO would have to approve a tankful of gasoline for his truck. Managers were required to fax production figures to Blankenship every half hour. Red phones connected mine managers directly to the CEO. “If the report was late or the numbers weren’t good, or the mine was shut down for any reason,” Shnayerson reported, “the red phone would ring. The terrified manager would pick it up to hear Mr. B demanding to know why the numbers weren’t right.”5 Blankenship told an interviewer, “People talk about character being what you do when no one else is looking. But the truth of the matter is character is doing that which is unpopular if it’s right, even if it causes you to be vilified.”6

 

(page 491)

 

As CEO, Blankenship maintained a laser focus on productivity. In 2005, he sent a memo titled “RUNNING COAL” to all Massey underground mine superintendents that stated:

 

If any of you have been asked by your group presidents, your supervisors, engineers, or anyone else to do anything other than run coal (i.e., build overcasts, do construction jobs, or whatever) you need to ignore them and run coal. This memo is necessary only because we seem not to understand that coal pays the bills.

 

A week later, after this memo had been widely circulated, he followed up with another one which referred to the company’s S-1, P-2 (safety first, production second) program. He wrote: “By now each of you should know that safety and S-1 is our first responsibility. Productivity and P-2 are second.”

The Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster

 

Executive Compensation

Blankenship was well compensated for running Massey. As shown in Exhibit A, his total compensation in 2009 was almost $18 million; this was up from $11 million in 2008 and $9 million in 2007. Blankenship’s base salary in all three years was close to $1 million. By far the greatest proportion of his total pay came from a performance-based incentive system established by Massey’s board of directors. In its filings with the SEC, the board described its philosophy of compensation this way:7

 

We compensate our named executive officers in a manner that is meant to attract and retain highly qualified and gifted individuals and to appropriately incentivize and motivate the named executive officers to achieve continuous improvements in company-wide performance for the benefit of our stockholders.8

 

Exhibit A Don Blankenship, Total Compensation 2007–2009, in Dollars

 

Note: “Other” includes personal use of company cars, aircraft (Challenger 601 corporate jet), housing, and related costs and services.

 

Source: Massey Energy 2010 Proxy, “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” and “Compensation of Named Executive Officers.”

 

(page 492)

 

Accordingly, the compensation committee of the board established an incentive plan for Massey’s CEO. (Similar plans were in place for other senior executives as well.) The plan set specific performance measures for “areas over which Mr. Blankenship was responsible and positioned to directly influence outcome.” These areas, and the proportion of his incentive compensation based on them, are shown in Exhibit B.

The Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster

 

Exhibit B Incentive Compensation Plan for Massey Energy’s CEO, 2009

The calculation of incentive plan compensation was based on achievement of specific targets in these areas:

 

EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes) -15%

Produced tons – 15%

Continuous miner productivity (feet/shift) – 5%

Surface mining productivity (tons/man-hour) – 5%

Environmental violations (% reduction) – 10%

Fulfillment of contracts – 15%

Nonfatal days lost due to injury and accident (% reduction) – 10%

Identification of successor – 5%

Employee retention – 15%

Diversity of members – 5%

 

Source: Massey Energy 2010 Proxy.

Note: A “continuous miner” is a large machine that extracts coal underground.

 

The Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster

 

 

By one estimate, in the 10 years leading up to the disaster Blankenship received a total of $129 million in compensation from Massey.9 “I don’t care what people think,” he once said during a talk to a gathering of Republican Party leaders in West Virginia, speaking of himself in the third person. “At the end of the day, Don Blankenship is going to die with more money than he needs.”10

 

Government Regulation of Mining Safety and Health

Coal mining had always been a hazardous occupation. Methane gas, an odorless and colorless by-product of decomposing organic matter that was often present alongside coal, was highly flammable. Methane explosions had contributed to the deaths of more than 10,000 miners in the United States since 1920. To mine safely, methane levels had to be constantly monitored, and ventilation systems had to be effective enough to remove it from the mine. Coal dust itself—whether on the floor or other surfaces, or suspended in the air—was also highly flammable. The standard practice was to apply layers of rock dust (crushed limestone) over the coal dust to render it inert. In addition to the ever-present danger of fire, miners had long contended with the threat of collapsing roofs and walls, dangerous mechanical equipment, and suffocation. Miners often developed coal workers’ pneumoconiosis, commonly called black lung, a chronic, irreversible disease caused by breathing coal dust. (Black lung was preventable with proper coal dust control.)

 

(page 493)

 

Health and safety in the mining industry had long been regulated at both the federal and state levels. Over the years, lawmakers have periodically strengthened government regulatory control, mostly in response to mining disasters.

 

· In 1910, following an explosion at the Monongah mine in West Virginia in which 362 men died, Congress established the U.S. Bureau of Mines to conduct research on the safety and health of miners.

 

· The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, known as the Coal Act—which passed in 1969 after the death of 78 miners at the Consol Number 9 mine in Farmington, West Virginia—greatly increased federal enforcement powers. This law established fines for violations and criminal penalties for “knowing and willful” violations. It also provided compensation for miners disabled by black lung disease.

The Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster

 

· The 1977 Mine Act further strengthened the rights of miners and established the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA (pronounced “Em-shah”) to carry out its regulatory mandates. The law required at least four full inspections of underground mines annually.

 

· Then in 2006, after yet another string of mine tragedies focused public attention on the dangers of mining, Congress passed the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, known at the MINER Act. This law created new rules to help miners survive underground explosions and accidents.11

States like West Virginia that had significant mining industries also had their own regulatory rules and agencies.

Although MSHA was empowered to inspect mines unannounced and to fine operators for violations, the agency had limited authority to shut down a mine if a serious problem was present or if the operator refused to pay its fines. Criminal violations of mine safety laws were normally considered misdemeanors rather than felonies.

 

Over time, fatalities in the industry had declined. At the turn of the 20th century, around 300 to 400 miners died every year in the nation’s coal mines; by the 1980s, this number had dropped to less than 50. Injuries and illnesses had also dropped. In part, these declines reflected tougher government regulations. They also reflected the rise of surface mining (mostly in the western United States), which tended to be safer, and the emergence of new technologies that mechanized the process of underground mining. The unionization of the mining industry had also given workers a greater voice and the right to elect safety representatives in many workplaces.

 

The Upper Big Branch Mine

Massey had bought the Upper Big Branch mine in 1993 from Peabody Coal. It was a particularly valuable property because its thick coal seam produced the high-grade metallurgic coal favored by utilities and the steel industry. Two hundred employees worked there on three, round-the-clock shifts. In 2009, Upper Big Branch produced 1.2 million tons of coal, about 3 percent of Massey’s total. The mine, like all of those operated by Massey, was nonunion.

 

The regulatory record revealed a widespread pattern of safety violations at the Upper Big Branch mine and an increasingly contentious relationship between its managers and government regulators. As shown in Exhibit C, government inspectors had issued an increasing number of violations over time, with a sharp spike upward the year before the disaster. These page 494data also showed that around 2006, management had begun to contest regulatory penalties rather than pay them. The state investigation reported the story that at one point Massey’s vice president for safety—an attorney—“took a violation written by an inspector, looked at her people, and said, ‘Don’t worry, we’ll litigate it away.’” Appealing the citations not only allowed the company to delay or avoid paying; it also blocked tougher sanctions, such as shutting down the mine.

 

Exhibit C: Safety and Health Citations, Upper Big Branch Mine, Assessed Penalties and Amount Paid, 2000–2009

Source: MSHA data, reported in the appendices of Industrial Homicide: Report on the Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster.

Miners testified that they were intimidated or disciplined if they complained about safety. When one foreman told his men not to run coal until a ventilation problem was fixed, he was suspended for three days for “poor work performance.” Another miner, who was killed in the blast, had told his wife that a manager had told him when he complained about conditions, “If you can’t go up there and run coal, just bring your [lunch] bucket outside and go home.” The father of a young miner who was still a trainee when he was killed at Upper Big Branch related his son’s experience to investigators. The young man had told his father that when he had expressed concerns about safety to his supervisor, he was told, “If you’re going to be that scared of your job here, you need to rethink your career.”12 Miners who were hurt on the job were told not to report their injuries, so an NFDL (non-fatal day lost) would not be recorded. A former Massey miner who testified before a Senate committee explained, “If you got hurt, you were told not to fill out the lost-time accident paperwork. The company would just pay guys to sit in the bathhouse or to stay at home if they got hurt.”13

Investigators found that the company had kept two sets of books at UBB, one for its own record keeping and the other to show inspectors. “If a coal mine wants to keep two sets of books, that’s their business,” the administrator for MSHA later commented. “They can keep five sets of books if they want. But they’re required to record the hazards in the official set of books.”14 Conditions that were recorded in the company’s own books—but not the official set—included sudden methane spikes, inoperative safety equipment, and other dangers.

 

(page 495)

 

The mine also had a system in place, set up by its chief of security, to warn underground managers that an inspector was on the way—a clear violation of the law. A miner who survived the explosion later told Congress, “The code word would go out we’ve got a man [government inspector] on the property…. When the word goes out, all effort is made to correct the deficiencies.”15 A surviving miner testified:

 

Nobody shuts one of Don Blankenship’s mines down. It has never happened. Everyone knows when mine inspectors are coming, you clean things up for a few minutes, make it look good, then you go back to the business of running coal. That’s how things work at Massey. When inspectors write a violation, the company lawyers challenge it in court. It’s just all a game. Don Blankenship does what he wants.16

 

After the disaster, Blankenship stated, “Violations are unfortunately a normal part of the mining process. There are violations in every coal mine in America, and UBB was a mine that had violations.”

 

Causes of the Disaster

In the months following the tragedy at Upper Big Branch, three separate investigations—conducted by the federal MSHA, a commission established by the governor of West Virginia, and the United Mine Workers—examined the causes of the fatal explosion. All came to the same conclusion: that a spark from the longwall shearer had ignited a pocket of methane, which had then set off a series of explosions of volatile coal dust that had raced through the mine. Such events could only have happened in the presence of serious, systematic safety violations. Among the problems cited by the investigators were these:

 

· Rock Dust. Investigators found that the company had failed to meet government standards for the application of rock dust. As a result, explosive coal dust had built up on surfaces and in the air throughout the mine.

 

The state commission reported that the Upper Big Branch mine had only two workers assigned to rock dusting, and they typically worked at the task only three days a week and were frequently called away to do other jobs. Moreover, their task was often impossible because the mine’s single dusting machine, which was about 30 years old, was broken most of the time. Federal investigators later determined that more than 90 percent of the area of the mine where the explosion occurred was inadequately rock dusted at the time of the explosion. They also found that the area of the longwall where the explosion began had not been rock dusted a single time since production started there in September 2009. The presence of large amounts of floating coal dust in the mine was also suggested by medical evidence. Seventy-one percent of the autopsied victims showed clinical signs of black lung disease, caused by breathing airborne coal dust. Nationally, the rate of black lung disease in underground coal miners was around 3 percent.

 

· Ventilation. Investigators found that the Upper Big Branch Mine did not have sufficient ventilation to provide the miners with fresh, breathable air, and to remove coal dust as well as methane and other dangerous gases.

Upper Big Branch, like many mines, used a so-called push-pull system in which large fans at the portal blew fresh air into the mine, and a fan on the other end pulled air out. The state page 496investigation found that this system did not work very well at Upper Big Branch. The fans were powerful enough, but the plan was not properly engineered.

 

The push-pull ventilation system at Upper Big Branch … had a design flaw: its fans were configured so that air was directed in a straight line even though miners worked in areas away from the horizontal path. As a result, air had to be diverted from its natural flow pattern into the working sections…. Because these sections were located on different sides of the natural flow pattern, multiple diversionary controls had to be constructed and frequently were in competition with one another.17

 

Poor ventilation had likely caused methane to build up near the longwall shearer, providing the fuel for the initial fireball, investigators found.

 

· Equipment Maintenance. Investigators concluded that water sprays on the longwall shearer were not functioning properly, and as a result were unable to extinguish the initial spark.

 

After the disaster, investigators closely studied the longwall shearer where the initial fire had started. They found that several of the cutting teeth on the rotating blades (called “bits”) had worn flat and lost their carbide tips, so they were likely to create sparks when hitting sandstone. The investigators also examined the water nozzles on the shearer, which normally sprayed water onto the coal face during operation to cool the cutting bits, extinguish sparks, and push away any methane that might have leaked into the area. They found that seven of the nozzles were either missing or clogged. Tests found that the longwall shearer did not have adequate water pressure to keep the surface wet and cool. As a result, any small sparks thrown off during the mining process could not be extinguished.

 

In short, a series of interrelated safety violations had combined to produce a preventable tragedy. The United Mine Workers called the disaster “industrial homicide” and called for the criminal prosecution of Massey’s managers.

 

For its part, Massey had a completely different interpretation of the causes of the events of April 5. An investigation commissioned by the company and headed by Bobby R. Inman, its lead independent director, said that the explosion was caused by a sudden, massive inundation of natural gas through a crack in the mine’s floor—an Act of God that the company could not have anticipated or prevented. The company report stated:

 

… the scientific data that [Massey] has painstakingly assembled over the last year with the assistance of a team of nationally renowned experts so far compels at least five conclusions. First, a massive inundation of natural gas caused the UBB explosion and coal dust did not contribute materially to the magnitude or severity of the blast; second, although an ignition source may never be determined, the explosion likely originated in the Tailgate 21 entries, but certainly not as a result of faulty shearer maintenance; third, [the company] adequately rock dusted the mine prior to the explosion such that coal dust could not have played a causal role in the accident; fourth, the mine’s underground ventilation system provided significantly more fresh air than required by law and there is no evidence that ventilation contributed to the explosion; and fifth, MSHA has conducted a deeply flawed accident investigation that has been predicated, in part, upon secrecy, protecting its own self-interest, witness intimidation, obstruction of [company] investigators, and retaliatory citations.18

 

In a conversation with stock analysts six months after the disaster, Blankenship stated that he had a “totally clear conscience” and that he did not believe Massey had “contributed in any way to the accident.”19

 

Discussion Questions

 

1) What were the costs and benefits to stakeholders of the actions taken by Massey Energy and its managers?,

 

2) Applying the four methods of ethical reasoning (utilitarianism rights justice and virtue do you believe Massey Energy behaved in an ethical manner?, Why or why not?,

 

3) Who or what caused the Upper Big Branch mine disaster and why do you think so?,

 

4) Who or what caused the Upper Big Branch mine disaster and why do you think so?,

Reference:

Lawrence, A., & Weber, J. (2022). Business and Society (17th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher

Education (US). https://reader2.yuzu.com/books/9781265914769

image1.png

image2.png

April 19, 2025
April 19, 2025

 

Advising the VP for Human Resources

This exercise is designed to provide you the opportunity to demonstrate your comprehensive knowledge of the course material we have studied this semester — frameworks for decision making from legal perspectives — and to apply your knowledge to a practical scenario.

VP for Human Resources

The parameters for the assignment are designed to match the actual practice of higher education leadership including the following:,

1. You may spend as much time preparing your work product as you would like between the time it is posted and the deadline balanced with your other personal and professional commitments.,

2. While I’ve provided guidance for the length of your final work product it generally takes more time to create a better complete but more concise (shorter) final product.,

3. This assignment depends on your course materials and does not require additional legal research.,

4. You may review course materials and concepts with your classmates at any point (as you would consult colleagues on a difficult issue).,

5. You must produce your own unique final product.,

Advising the VP for Human Resources – A Summative Practice Exercise for Assessment

You have been asked to brief the VP of Human Resources of the institution on the scenario presented below. Because of limited time and other pressing matters, the VP needs to know the important facts and legal and policy issues they raise.

Prepare a a written memo (approx. 2,000-3,000 words) that the VP can digest without doing additional research.

1. Organize your thoughts.

2. Use clear, concise language.

3. Summarize the relevant facts briefly at the beginning. Presume that the VP is familiar with the persons involved and has already heard generally about what happened but needs a refresher of the specific facts that are most relevant to your analysis. Do not allocate more than 20% of your briefing or memo to factual background.

4. Then list and analyze each legal or policy issue separately, including arguments that a plaintiff might make against the institution and how the institution might respond.

1. Remember the IRAC method: for each issue, identify the Issue/question, state the legal Rule, Analysis/Application of the rule to the facts, and Conclusion.

2. Here is an IRAC template

3. Download IRAC template

4. that you might use

5. Download Here is an IRAC template Download IRAC templatethat you might use

6. to work through the IRAC analysis. But, you do not need to use or submit that template (in fact, don’t submit it; your response should be in memo form).

7. Identify the applicable legal rules and name the relevant cases.

8. If the conclusion depends on additional facts that are not included in the scenario, identify what additional facts the institution needs to gather.

9. Identify specific questions that you think the VP should ask legal counsel.

10. Finally, the VP knows that you took this course and has asked you specifically to make a recommendation about the best course of action in case legal counsel is not available to advise. Provide your recommendation.

Advising the VP for Human Resources

Case study

On August 1, 2023, Pat Jones began working as an instructor at Woods Park Community College (WPCC). She was hired as a math instructor shortly before the academic year began. Finding and hiring highly qualified math instructors has been a real challenge at Woods Park, a rural community college that serves significant numbers of low-income students. Pat identifies as female, and all of the other faculty members in the math department are male. The math department has monthly department meetings, and it has been the culture of the math department to go out for drinks socially during happy hour on one Friday afternoon per month. For the first few months working at WPCC, everything was fine for Pat. Work was hard because this was her first full time teaching job in higher education; she had been working as a substitute teacher on a provisional license at a local high school. Pat was eager to be a good instructor, but she was also eager to get along with her colleagues and to make a good impression on the department chairperson, Dr. Rick Wiliams. A few months into her time at WPCC, Pat decided to attend the monthly math department happy hour outing. She knew she would be the only woman there, but she felt it was important to be part of the team and to build camaraderie among the team. Things were going reasonably well, but she did overhear a comment from one of the other faculty members about how “the world was better off when women stayed home with their kids.” She wasn’t involved in that conversation, so she decided to stay silent. A few weeks later, Pat walked into the room where the department meeting was to be held. In that room, one of the male teachers was discussing a new print that Dr. Williams, the department chair, had hung in his office. It was a print of Manet’s Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe, which depicts a nude woman picnicking with two clothed men. That conversation stopped suddenly as soon as Pat sat down at the table for the meeting. Pat began to grow a little concerned that the department wasn’t particularly welcoming to a woman. She decided to talk to Dr. Williams in a one-on-one meeting just to let him know about her growing concern; she wanted to nip it in the bud. Pat was anxious about this meeting and spent the whole evening prior working on exactly what she was going to say. After saying what she wanted to say, Dr. Williams paused for a bit, and then said, “Listen, sweetie, I get it. You’re the only woman. I recognize that, but there’s nothing I can do about that. We’re a strong department and our students do well in our courses. Our DFW rate has dropped dramatically. That’s what matters around here.” Pat left, naturally, demoralized. A few weeks later, at the next math department meeting, one of Pat’s male colleagues asked her about her hair. Pat had shoulder length hair. The male teacher asked her if she ever considered growing it longer. “I think long hair looks nicer on women,” he said. Pat shrugged and said that she was happy with her hair. Conversation then abruptly turned back to discussion about changes to the curriculum in one of the math courses. As the academic year turned to spring, Dr. Williams showed up to workl for the first time wearing a short-sleeved shirt. When Pat saw Dr. Williams on her way into his office, she noticed that he had a small tattoo on his forearm. She couldn’t quite make out what it was, but she was oddly curious. She didn’t want to let her curiosity be too obvious, though, so she didn’t try to look any closer. Later that day, though, while eating lunch in the faculty lounge, Pat got a better glimpse of the tattoo. It was still hard to decipher, but she did notice a fist and the capital letters V and M. That night, Pat did some poking around on Google and ultimately realized that the tattoo was the logo of a group called A Voice For Men. (see image below). That group puts out an online publication and has a podcast. Their focus is “Men’s Human Rights Activism” and they claim to be one of the largest and most influential men’s rights groups. This discovery bothered Pat, particularly given how she had been feeling as the only female member of the department. After a few days and nights with not much sleep, Pat decided to contact you, the Associate VP for Human Relations, and you agreed to a meeting. At that meeting, Pat recounted the facts above. And, then she said that she believes her rights as a woman are being violated. She couldn’t explain exactly what those rights were, nor could she fully articulate what kind of remedy she was seeking. However, she did say that, at the very least, she would like for the WPCC administration to require Dr. Williams to wear long-sleeved shirts or cover the tattoo in some way during official WPCC activities. She would also like the Manet print removed from the wall of Dr. Williams’ office. You thanked Pat for her candor and told Pat that you would share your notes and concerns with Dr. Jones, the VP for Human Resources. After sharing your notes and discussing the situation with Dr. Jones, you were asked to write a memo outlining and discussing all of the potential legal issues in this case. Dr. Jones asked you to be sure to write about ALL of the possible issues, to articulate all sides of the issues, and to offer your considered opinion about how a court might rule on the issues.

Advising the VP for Human Resources

April 18, 2025
April 18, 2025

For reflection notes you are expected to summarize the first half of the

“Causes of Delinquency” By Travis Hirschi. It is important to use your

critical thinking when writing the summary., Usually your reflections

need to be at least 750 words. ,At the end you need to propose some

questions., Your reflection notes need to be elaborated and it is necessary

to include references and citations.,

Causes of Delinquency

 

NO AI PLEASE – WILL RESULT IN ZERO. WILL BE SUBMITTED

TO TURNITIN.COM

 

These are the chapters that were covered:

 

I. Perspectives on Delinquency

II. A Control Theory of Delinquency

Ill. The Sample and the Data

IV. What is Delinquency?

v. The Social Distribution of Delinquency

VI. Attachment to Parents

VII. Attachment to the School

VIII. Attachment to Peers

For reflection notes you are expected to summarize the first half of the

“Causes of Delinquency” By Travis Hirschi. It is important to use your

critical thinking when writing the summary. Usually, your reflections

need to be at least 750 words. At the end, you need to propose some

questions. Your reflection notes need to be elaborated and it is necessary

to include references and citations.

 

NO AI PLEASE – WILL RESULT IN ZERO. WILL BE SUBMITTED

TO TURNITIN.COM

 

These are the chapters that were covered:

 

I. Perspectives on Delinquency

II. A Control Theory of Delinquency

Ill. The Sample and the Data

IV. What is Delinquency?

v. The Social Distribution of Delinquency

VI. Attachment to Parents

VII. Attachment to the School

VIII. Attachment to Peers

For reflection notes you are expected to summarize the first half of the

“Causes of Delinquency” By Travis Hirschi. It is important to use your

critical thinking when writing the summary. Usually, your reflections

need to be at least 750 words. At the end, you need to propose some

questions. Your reflection notes need to be elaborated and it is necessary

to include references and citations.