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

Tag Archives: Why or Why not?

November 19, 2025
November 19, 2025

Beowulf Film Comparison

Does the 2005 adaptation Beowulf & Grendel depict the same themes/motifs and symbols as the original epic poem? Why or why not? How does it do this? How does it visually represent good vs. evil?

  • Does the 2005 adaptation Beowulf & Grendel depict the same themes/motifs and symbols as the original epic poem?,

  • Why or why not?,

  • How does it do this?,

  • How does it visually represent good vs. evil?,

    Beowulf Film Comparison


Comprehensive General Answers

The 2005 film Beowulf & Grendel does portray several of the same themes, motifs, and symbols found in the original epic poem, but it also reshapes them to fit a more modern, humanized interpretation. While the poem emphasizes heroic glory, fate, supernatural forces, and the clear divide between good and evil, the film shifts toward themes of moral ambiguity, revenge, cultural conflict, and the consequences of violence. Because of this, the film both preserves and reinterprets the themes and symbols of the original text, creating a version that feels grounded in realism rather than myth.

The film does not depict the same themes in the same way because it avoids portraying Grendel as a purely supernatural monster. Instead, it presents him as a misunderstood outcast motivated by trauma and vengeance. This approach changes the symbolism associated with Grendel—from representing pure evil or the embodiment of chaos, as he does in the poem, to a symbol of injustice and the failures of human society. Likewise, while Beowulf is a near-flawless hero in the epic, the film portrays him as conflicted, morally reflective, and conscious of the consequences of his actions. This difference indicates a thematic shift toward human complexity rather than legendary heroism.

Although the film diverges in interpretation, it still maintains connections to the original through motifs such as revenge, loyalty, and the clash between civilizations. It uses Beowulf’s journey, the mead hall setting, and the ongoing cycle of violence to echo key elements of the poem. The film also represents fate and honor indirectly by showing how characters attempt to uphold cultural codes, even when those codes lead to tragedy. The landscape—harsh, cold, and unforgiving—serves as a symbolic reflection of the world portrayed in the poem, reinforcing themes of struggle and survival.

Visually, Beowulf & Grendel represents good versus evil in a more nuanced manner than the poem. Rather than relying on supernatural imagery, the film uses color, environment, and characterization to show moral contrasts. The Geats and Danes are often shown in organized settings—longhouses, communal gatherings, and structured warfare—symbolizing order and social unity. Grendel, on the other hand, is filmed in the wilderness, caves, and isolated cliffs, visually suggesting alienation and exclusion. The muted colors, rugged terrain, and bleak atmosphere reinforce the idea that the boundaries between good and evil are not absolute. Instead of depicting evil through monstrous appearance, the film suggests that cruelty, vengeance, and fear can exist on all sides, making morality a complex landscape rather than a clear division.

Overall, the film adapts the themes and symbols of Beowulf but reshapes them to support a more human-centered narrative. While it maintains the foundational elements of conflict, heroism, and cultural tension, it challenges the poem’s stark moral divisions and replaces them with a visual and narrative emphasis on ambiguity, empathy, and the human capacity for both harm and redemption.

November 18, 2025
November 18, 2025

Evidence-Based Practice

What are the three components of evidence-based practice (EBP)?  Why is each component important from a health promotion standpoint?  Do you feel any components should be weighted more heavily than others?  Why or why not?

Have you ever witnessed a time when EBP was not used and should have been?  What could have been done differently?

Evidence-Based Practice
  • • What are the three components of evidence-based practice (EBP)?,

  • • Why is each component important from a health promotion standpoint?,

  • • Do you feel any components should be weighted more heavily than others?,

  • • Why or why not?,

  • • Have you ever witnessed a time when EBP was not used and should have been? What could have been done differently?


Comprehensive General Response

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a foundational approach in modern nursing, integrating multiple forms of knowledge to guide high-quality clinical decision-making. EBP consists of three essential components: best current evidence, clinical expertise, and patient preferences and values. Together, these elements promote safe, effective, and holistic care that supports health promotion across diverse settings.

The **first component—best current evidence—**is derived from research, scientific literature, quality improvement data, and practice guidelines. From a health promotion standpoint, this ensures that interventions are grounded in proven outcomes rather than tradition or habit. Evidence-based interventions are more likely to improve population health, reduce preventable disease, and address emerging public health risks by relying on current data rather than outdated assumptions.

The **second component—clinical expertise—**reflects the provider’s accumulated knowledge, skills, and judgment. While evidence provides direction, clinical expertise determines how to apply that evidence to the unique needs of each patient. In health promotion, clinical expertise is critical for tailoring screening strategies, identifying early signs of health decline, and applying motivational techniques that align with the patient’s readiness for change. Expertise helps translate general evidence into personalized, actionable care.

The **third component—patient preferences and values—**ensures care remains person-centered. Health promotion depends on patient engagement, shared decision-making, and respect for cultural, spiritual, and personal beliefs. Even the most evidence-based intervention will fail if it does not align with what patients find acceptable, meaningful, or feasible. Including patient values increases adherence, strengthens trust, and promotes autonomy in managing one’s own health.

Whether any component should be weighted more heavily is often debated. In general, all three components should be balanced because each plays a distinct and essential role in promoting optimal outcomes. Evidence alone cannot replace clinical judgment, and neither can override the patient’s right to participate in care decisions. However, certain situations may require a temporary shift in emphasis. For instance, during a public health emergency, such as an emerging infectious disease outbreak, best current evidence may take precedence as rapid, standardized responses are needed. Conversely, in chronic disease management, patient preferences may carry greater weight because long-term adherence depends heavily on motivation and lifestyle compatibility. Despite these situational differences, maintaining balance across all elements strengthens the integrity and effectiveness of the EBP model.

A time when EBP was not used, and should have been, involved a situation where outdated wound care practices were continued despite newer guidelines recommending evidence-based alternatives. Traditional wet-to-dry dressings were being applied routinely, even though research had shown that they can damage healthy tissue and delay healing. An evidence-based approach would have involved transitioning to moisture-retentive dressings supported by current research. What could have been done differently included reviewing updated clinical guidelines, providing staff education on evidence-supported wound care modalities, and implementing a policy change to ensure consistent use of best practices. Integrating EBP would likely have improved healing time, reduced patient discomfort, and prevented complications associated with suboptimal wound management.

November 11, 2025
November 11, 2025

Salary Negotiation & Ethics

Jake is interviewing for a marketing coordinator position at TechCorp, a growing software company. He is currently earning $38,000 at his small nonprofit job but knows that similar positions at tech companies typically pay between $55,000 and $65,000. During the interview, everything is going well until the hiring manager, Ms. Chen, asks:

“So, Jake, what’s your current salary?”

Salary Negotiation & Ethics

Jake hesitates, realizing he’s in a tough spot. He knows that if he tells the truth about his current $38,000 salary, TechCorp might offer him something like $42,000-$45,000, thinking that he will be happy with an offer of a higher wage than he currently makes. The position should pay closer to $60,000, based on market rates and the actual earnings of other marketing coordinators at TechCorp. However, he does not want to lie during the interview process.

Jake knows that his nonprofit salary does not match his skills or market value, and he is concerned that revealing it could lead to a lowball offer and hurt his long-term earning potential.

Two bills were submitted to Congress in March 2025 that would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938. H.R. 2007 would require employers to disclose the pay range of a position to applicants. H.R. 2219 would prohibit hiring companies to ask an applicant what their current salary and benefits are.

Please discuss the following with your peers:

  • In your opinion, what should Jake do in this situation?
  • Is it fair and ethical for employers to base new salary offers on previous wages? Why or why not?
  • How might this practice perpetuate pay inequalities across different industries or demographics?
  • In your opinion, what should Jake do in this situation?,

  • Is it fair and ethical for employers to base new salary offers on previous wages?, Why or why not?,

  • How might this practice perpetuate pay inequalities across different industries or demographics?

June 26, 2025
June 26, 2025

NASW Ethics & Policy Negotiation

How does the NASW Code of Ethics (linked in Resources) relate to the negotiation skills needed to effect policy change with stakeholders who disagree? Does it provide ideas for the needed skills? Why or why not? What is missing from the Code that would support the development of these skills? What skills do you need to develop and how might the Code help you with that?

NASW Ethics & Policy Negotiation

https://www.socialworkers.org/

  1. How does the NASW Code of Ethics relate to negotiation skills?,

  2. Does the Code provide guidance for these skills?,

  3. Why or why not?,

  4. What is missing from the Code that could help build negotiation skills?,

  5. What negotiation skills do you need to develop, and how can the Code support that?

NASW Ethics & Policy Negotiation

✅ Comprehensive Answer:

The NASW Code of Ethics is foundational to social work practice, and while it doesn’t explicitly outline negotiation techniques, it strongly informs the values and interpersonal skills needed to engage in effective policy negotiation—especially with stakeholders who may disagree. Negotiation in policy contexts often involves bridging ideological divides, advocating for vulnerable populations, and seeking collaborative solutions, all of which are aligned with the Code’s core values: service, social justice, dignity and worth of the person, importance of human relationships, integrity, and competence.

The Code supports the development of core negotiation-related skills like empathy, active listening, cultural awareness, ethical decision-making, and respectful dialogue. These interpersonal competencies are essential when navigating conflict or opposition in policy environments. For example, the commitment to social justice encourages social workers to challenge social injustice through advocacy, which requires communicating effectively even with stakeholders who resist change. The value placed on the importance of human relationships aligns well with interest-based negotiation approaches that prioritize mutual respect and long-term collaboration.

However, the Code does not explicitly teach or describe concrete negotiation methods such as framing, consensus-building, persuasive communication, or handling power imbalances in stakeholder dynamics. It also doesn’t provide guidance on strategic planning, policy mapping, or coalition-building—practical tools often needed to influence systemic change. These areas are vital for navigating opposition and strategically aligning with partners to effect policy shifts.

Personally, I recognize a need to strengthen skills in interest-based negotiation, particularly in managing power differentials and framing arguments in ways that appeal to diverse stakeholder values. I also need to develop greater confidence in high-conflict discussions while maintaining ethical professionalism. The Code helps by reinforcing the ethical foundation for these efforts—it reminds me to remain client-focused, equity-driven, and relationship-centered, even when tensions rise.

To fill the gaps, I would combine the NASW Code with negotiation frameworks from fields like organizational leadership and public policy. Integrating ethical grounding with practical skillsets can make a social worker a more effective advocate, negotiator, and policy influencer.

NASW Ethics & Policy Negotiation

April 30, 2025
April 30, 2025

Write a literature review of 15 relevant pieces of research (peer-reviewed sources) based on the following research question:

ARE GOVERNMENT-FUNDED ADMINISTRATIVE EFFORTS IN AIDING THE HOMELESS MORE OR LESS EFFECTIVE THAN THOSE OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS?

Most Literature reviews should be able to answer questions such as:,

1) Who are the main players/authors, and what have they concluded?,

2)  How did these scholars arrive at those conclusions? ,(Discuss which research design methods were used),

3) Did they arrive there logically and in a manner that is appropriate and acceptable to the research question?, Why or why not?,

Literature review

Literature Review: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Government-Funded vs. Nonprofit Interventions in Addressing Homelessness

Introduction

The persistent issue of homelessness has prompted various interventions, primarily spearheaded by government agencies and nonprofit organizations. This literature review examines 15 peer-reviewed studies to assess the relative effectiveness of these two sectors in mitigating homelessness. The analysis focuses on the methodologies employed, the logical coherence of conclusions drawn, and the implications for policy and practice.


1. Key Contributors and Their Conclusions

Government-Funded Initiatives:

  • California State Audit (2023): An audit revealed that despite a $24 billion investment over five years, California lacked consistent tracking mechanisms to evaluate the effectiveness of its homelessness programs. Only two out of five major programs were deemed likely cost-effective, highlighting issues in data collection and program assessment.AP News

  • Deloitte Access Economics Report (2025): Commissioned by Brisbane Common Ground, this report found that providing supported housing could save the state government up to $455,800 per individual over a decade. The “housing-first” model demonstrated significant cost savings by reducing health, safety, and social cohesion costs.

  • Nonprofit-Led Interventions:

    • Pathways to Housing (Tsemberis, 1992): This nonprofit pioneered the “housing-first” approach, emphasizing immediate access to housing without preconditions. The model has been credited with reducing chronic homelessness by 30% over eight years in the U.S., demonstrating the efficacy of nonprofit-led initiatives.Time

    • Greater Change (UK Trial, 2024): In collaboration with King’s College London, this nonprofit initiated a trial providing direct cash assistance to homeless individuals. The study aims to assess whether financial support is more effective than traditional aid methods, indicating a proactive approach by nonprofits in exploring innovative solutions.The Guardian

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 18, 2025
April 18, 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.

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

The Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster

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 Upper Big Branch Mine

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

 

The Upper Big Branch Mine

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

March 16, 2025
March 16, 2025

Nursing Job

Assignment Instructions

To complete the assignment, follow this required format:

Title Page

Please include a title page in APA format. You can find the guidelines using Academic Writer or the Library and APA Resources tab.

 

Nursing Job

 

Part 1: Salary Research

Research several potential job roles in your desired geographical area. Provide a summary of your research including the location of the job, job title, and salary information. To research your starting salary, consider using the information provided at Salary.com and Payscale.com.

Local government hospitals may also publish this information on their websites. You should find a minimum of two sources that contain salaries to compare to help you make a judgment about a reasonable starting average salary for this position.

Consider degrees, certifications, and the number of years of experience that you have when determining what positions, you qualify for and what your salary may be.

You must include in-text citations using APA format when comparing your salaries.

Nursing Job

Part 2: Calculations and Table of Expenses

After you have found your potential salary, set up your monthly budget using only 2/3 income to account for taxes and other deductions (called your net salary). You need to include your work for your calculations.

For example, if you anticipate making $45,000/year, then 2/3

times 45,000 = 30,000. $30,000 / 12 = $2500 and that is

what you want to use for setting up a monthly budget.

Use the table provided to fill in your monthly budget. You may add any extra categories/rows to the table needed to complete your budget.

When creating your budget, be sure to consider the following categories:

  • Housing and living expenses (e.g., rent/mortgage, utilities, maintenance, etc.)
  • Food
  • Student loan payments
  • Transportation
  • Childcare (if applicable)
  • Credit Card or other debt
  • Car loans
  • Continuous medical expenses
  • Emergency savings
  • Retirement savings
  • Long term goal savings (e.g., buying a home, new car, education, etc.)
  • Discretionary spending (e.g., eating out, entertainment, etc)

The total amount and net amount will be included in your table so you can see your balance each month. The table must be copied into your Word document. Please refer to the video directions provided in the module.

Nursing Job

Part 3: Graphical Representation of Your Budget

Display your table of expenses as a graphical representation.

You may choose to use a pie chart or bar graph to represent your expenses. The table and graphical representation must be copied into your Word document. Do not submit an Excel file. Please refer to the video directions provided in the module.

Part 4: Reflection

In this reflection, you should reflect on your findings. This reflection section should be a minimum of 200 words.

Please address the following prompts in your reflection:

  • Why did you pick this location and job?,
  • Were you surprised by your expected salary and income after taxes and other deductions were taken?,
  • Why or why not?,
  • What were some challenges in creating your budget?,
    What surprised you?,
  • Were you able to set up an emergency/savings fund?,
    Why or why not?,
  • How can you prepare for unexpected expenses?,
  • How can you apply these budgeting tools to your current situation?

Be sure to put in-text citations in APA format. Academic Writer is the recommended guide for formatting resources.

Part 5: References

All references should be in APA format. Academic Writer is the recommended guide for formatting resources. There should be a minimum of two references.

January 7, 2025
January 7, 2025

Protecting Human Research Participants

Review the Frequently Asked Questions on Requirements for Education at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) : https://humansubjects.nih.gov/requirement-education

Protecting Human Research Participants

Read the detailed document by the NIH:

https://grants.nih.gov/sites/default/files/PHRP_Archived_Course_Materials_English.pdf

Reflect on what you learned from the NIH materials about protecting the rights of human research participants.

Discuss at least two of the following:

  • Describe the circumstances that influenced the need for a policy to protect human research subjects., Give examples of specific ways human research subjects can be harmed by researchers., Protecting Human Research Participants
  • Identify three vulnerable populations and the special restrictions associated with human research among these groups., Evaluate the requirements and restrictions., Do you think they are adequate?, Why or why not?,
  • The Belmont Report summarizes the ethical principles and guidelines for research involving human subjects. Three core principles are identified: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Even though these principles are considered equal, prioritize them in order of importance to you. Explain your decisions.
  • Although you are not implementing a change project at this time, and you may not be directly involved in research as part of your professional responsibilities, explain the reasons why it is important for you to know about these rights and protections.

Your reflection should be two pages and written in current APA Style. Protecting Human Research Participants

Review the Frequently Asked Questions on Requirements for Education at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) : https://humansubjects.nih.gov/requirement-education

Read the detailed document by the NIH: Protecting Human Research Participants

https://grants.nih.gov/sites/default/files/PHRP_Archived_Course_Materials_English.pdf

Reflect on what you learned from the NIH materials about protecting the rights of human research participants.

Discuss at least two of the following:

  • Describe the circumstances that influenced the need for a policy to protect human research subjects. Give examples of specific ways human research subjects can be harmed by researchers.
  • Identify three vulnerable populations and the special restrictions associated with human research among these groups. Evaluate the requirements and restrictions. Do you think they are adequate? Why or why not?
  • The Belmont Report summarizes the ethical principles and guidelines for research involving human subjects. Three core principles are identified: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Even though these principles are considered equal, prioritize them in order of importance to you. Explain your decisions.
  • Although you are not implementing a change project at this time, and you may not be directly involved in research as part of your professional responsibilities, explain the reasons why it is important for you to know about these rights and protections.

Your reflection should be two pages and written in current APA Style.

October 8, 2024
October 8, 2024

Case Study Jenkins Goes Abroad

Jenkins Consulting is a national firm that helps companies improve their performance and effectiveness by advising on all aspects of business management and operations. Companies hire consultants from Jenkins Consulting for a variety of projects such as assisting with company-wide cost reduction initiatives or revenue growth initiatives, improving supply-chain management, and/or improving individual departments such as information technology. Jenkins employs consultants in 200 offices across the United States and will soon expand its operations internationally.

 

Case Study Jenkins Goes Abroad

A company located in the United Kingdom has hired Jenkins for a major project that will be based at the company’s headquarters in London. Jenkins will assist the company with an organization-wide effort to restructure and reposition the company to succeed in a more competitive market. To complete this project, Jenkins will assign five full-time consultants for a period of approximately two years. Because of the significant time commitment, Jenkins has decided to relocate the selected consultants to the United Kingdom for the duration of the project. Case Study Jenkins Goes Abroad

Dale Kugar, the human resource director at Jenkins, must prepare to transition the consultants to the new assignment. This is the company’s first exposure to expatriate management, and Dale needs to ensure that the consultants who move to the United Kingdom for the project are compensated appropriately. His intention is to have the consultants maintain their current benefits, including health care insurance, retirement savings, and paid time off. However, he must make a recommendation on any changes to each consultant’s salary.

Dale has a few concerns as he prepares his recommendation. First, the United Kingdom is currently experiencing a high level of inflation. The value of the American dollar compared to the British pound is low. That is, the consultant’s U.S. salary will not have the same purchasing power in the United Kingdom as it does at home. He is also concerned about the consultants’ interest in taking on the international assignment. Some of the consultants he spoke to about the assignment are concerned about the impact the assignment will have on their career. Because this is Jenkins’ first international experience, the consultants are concerned that being out of the country for two years may affect their future career opportunities because they will not have regular interactions with the firm partners who make decisions on promotions. These concerns weigh heavily on Dale’s mind as he starts to draft his recommendation.Case Study Jenkins Goes Abroad

 Please answer the following questions regarding the above case study.

  1. 13-6. How should Dale approach the determination of the consultant’s salaries as expatriates?,
  2. 13-7. Should Jenkins offer any incentive compensation or additional benefits to the expatriates?, Why or why not?,

Please cite textbook author : Martocchio, J. (2020). Strategic Compensation: A Human Resource Management Approach (10th ed.) Pearson. and outside sources.,

 This is a Turnitin.com assisgnment.