You sound like WVPATX, scared to read something not put out by Breitbart. Perhaps you could get someone to read the article to you then you'd know.It's from motherjones - how unbiased will it be?
You sound like WVPATX, scared to read something not put out by Breitbart. Perhaps you could get someone to read the article to you then you'd know.
If you're a Blankenship fanboy I'm sure this is a tough time for you.I'd rather read a news piece instead of an op-ed.
I don't think I've ever come out ( on this issue) on one side or the other. Is he a rich guy gone bad or simply bad because he's Rich?If you're a Blankenship fanboy I'm sure this is a tough time for you.
and are making WV a right-to-work state
and are making WV a right-to-work state and attempting to lower the prevailing wage.
Did I say it did?
Thanks for sharing! That's a great article! I remember a lot of what he documents from the 80s. Very tough times. And what is very concerning is we have just put a bunch of numbskulls in the state legislature that are repealing many of those safety regulations and are making WV a right-to-work state and attempting to lower the prevailing wage.
Then why bring it into the discussion?
We can debate the wage scale law (which just had new rates finally published this week) or the right to work laws (which will be proposed this coming sesssion) but they have zero to do with the Blankenship, his criminality and mine safety.
Because it's part of the "let's crush the Unions" mentality. Did you even read the article? Crush the unions, get the safety regs out of the way, lower their wages, treat the miners like dogs... And for those that say there is no need for unions, they are the reason for many safety laws in this country. They are the reason for the 40 hour work week and on and on. You might say, we don't need them now because of these laws. This article provides an example of the corruption and lack of enforcement of those laws.Then why bring it into the discussion?
Because it's part of the "let's crush the Unions" mentality. Did you even read the article? Crush the unions, get the safety regs out of the way, lower their wages, treat the miners like dogs... And for those that say there is no need for unions, they are the reason for many safety laws in this country. They are the reason for the 40 hour work week and on and on. You might say, we don't need them now because of these laws. This article provides an example of the corruption and lack of enforcement of those laws.
Because it's part of the "let's crush the Unions" mentality. Did you even read the article? Crush the unions, get the safety regs out of the way, lower their wages, treat the miners like dogs... And for those that say there is no need for unions, they are the reason for many safety laws in this country. They are the reason for the 40 hour work week and on and on. You might say, we don't need them now because of these laws. This article provides an example of the corruption and lack of enforcement of those laws.
Because it's part of the "let's crush the Unions" mentality. Did you even read the article? Crush the unions, get the safety regs out of the way, lower their wages, treat the miners like dogs... And for those that say there is no need for unions, they are the reason for many safety laws in this country. They are the reason for the 40 hour work week and on and on. You might say, we don't need them now because of these laws. This article provides an example of the corruption and lack of enforcement of those laws.
Support for him still seems to be there. Operators at the time wanted Don to take care of business behind closed doors and not be arrogant and raise opposition to the industry.I'd be curious to know how much private support.....obviously, any form of public support would be a pretty bad (and dumb) strategy for most any mine Operator.....Blankenship maintains among his coal "baron" buddies in and around the State.
I worked UMWA, and accountant/corp officer, and operator in the coal business in WV. This Mother Jones piece is consistent with previous offerings that were pro-union and anti-business. Of course there is some basis for the article, but it definitely has a bias against Don Blankenship.Time has passed you by. Unions are in the shape they are in because of political zealots like you. Refresh my memory, what Union were or are you a member of?
Because it's part of the "let's crush the Unions" mentality. Did you even read the article? Crush the unions, get the safety regs out of the way, lower their wages, treat the miners like dogs... And for those that say there is no need for unions, they are the reason for many safety laws in this country. They are the reason for the 40 hour work week and on and on. You might say, we don't need them now because of these laws. This article provides an example of the corruption and lack of enforcement of those laws.
Support for him still seems to be there. Operators at the time wanted Don to take care of business behind closed doors and not be arrogant and raise opposition to the industry.
Don had accumulated some wealth and he became strong enough to redirect against those politicians who had a personal grudge against him and in absolute support of unionism. The man that, he perceived as the worst enemy to business climate, he confronted directly and had him removed from office was the brother from Pineville. Don was the only one who engineered his removal, and WV is no longer considered pro-union/anti-business. Outside businesses are now at least looking at the state as a potential location. You can make up your own mind whether that is good or bad.
Truthfully, I myself don't have an opinion on that particular subject either way for the purpose of my original question; though I admit to falling out on the side that considers Blankenship.....how should I say this.....to be something other than a "good guy" based on the little I knew about him from a distance. I'd also be a liar if I tried to convince folks my opinion about him was not colored by this tragedy,
Anyway, I appreciate your perspective.....I was not aware he'd become a political power-broker, though I suppose it's hardly surprising given his professional position and comparative power base.
In 1998, Harman Mining Company president Hugh Caperton filed a lawsuit against A.T. Massey Coal Company alleging that Massey fraudulently canceled a coal supply contract with Harman Mining, resulting in its going out of business. In August 2002, a Boone County, West Virginia jury found in favor of Caperton and awarded $50 million in damages.[1]
While the case was awaiting hearing in the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, A.T. Massey's Chief Executive Officer, Don Blankenship, became involved in the election campaign pitting incumbent Supreme Court Justice Warren McGraw against Charleston lawyer Brent Benjamin. Blankenship created a non-profit corporation called "And for the Sake of the Kids" in order to force McGraw off the court and replace him with Benjamin[2] through which he contributed over $3 million in Benjamin's behalf, an amount which, if it had been contributed directly to his campaign, was about 3,000 times the maximum permissible direct contribution to an election campaign.[2] This amounted to more than the total amount spent by all other Benjamin supporters and Benjamin's own campaign committee,[3]
In 2007, when the case came before the West Virginia Supreme Court, Caperton petitioned for Justice Benjamin to recuse himself because of Blankenship's contributions during the campaign. Benjamin declined and was ultimately part of the 3 to 2 majority that overturned the $50 million verdict.
(John Grisham wrote a novel (The Appeal) about this.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caperton_v._A.T._Massey_Coal_Co.
In 1998, Harman Mining Company president Hugh Caperton filed a lawsuit against A.T. Massey Coal Company alleging that Massey fraudulently canceled a coal supply contract with Harman Mining, resulting in its going out of business. In August 2002, a Boone County, West Virginia jury found in favor of Caperton and awarded $50 million in damages.[1]
While the case was awaiting hearing in the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, A.T. Massey's Chief Executive Officer, Don Blankenship, became involved in the election campaign pitting incumbent Supreme Court Justice Warren McGraw against Charleston lawyer Brent Benjamin. Blankenship created a non-profit corporation called "And for the Sake of the Kids" in order to force McGraw off the court and replace him with Benjamin[2] through which he contributed over $3 million in Benjamin's behalf, an amount which, if it had been contributed directly to his campaign, was about 3,000 times the maximum permissible direct contribution to an election campaign.[2] This amounted to more than the total amount spent by all other Benjamin supporters and Benjamin's own campaign committee,[3]
In 2007, when the case came before the West Virginia Supreme Court, Caperton petitioned for Justice Benjamin to recuse himself because of Blankenship's contributions during the campaign. Benjamin declined and was ultimately part of the 3 to 2 majority that overturned the $50 million verdict.
(John Grisham wrote a novel (The Appeal) about this.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caperton_v._A.T._Massey_Coal_Co.
Is there not more to the ending of this story? Like who had jurisdiction to the case? What was the amount Va allowed as a fair settlement? And, I think Don protested. I don't remember how this ended up, but some in the industry thought this might be fair to just put a stop to the ongoing coverage. There may have been a settlement within the past couple years, maybe.In 1998, Harman Mining Company president Hugh Caperton filed a lawsuit against A.T. Massey Coal Company alleging that Massey fraudulently canceled a coal supply contract with Harman Mining, resulting in its going out of business. In August 2002, a Boone County, West Virginia jury found in favor of Caperton and awarded $50 million in damages.[1]
While the case was awaiting hearing in the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, A.T. Massey's Chief Executive Officer, Don Blankenship, became involved in the election campaign pitting incumbent Supreme Court Justice Warren McGraw against Charleston lawyer Brent Benjamin. Blankenship created a non-profit corporation called "And for the Sake of the Kids" in order to force McGraw off the court and replace him with Benjamin[2] through which he contributed over $3 million in Benjamin's behalf, an amount which, if it had been contributed directly to his campaign, was about 3,000 times the maximum permissible direct contribution to an election campaign.[2] This amounted to more than the total amount spent by all other Benjamin supporters and Benjamin's own campaign committee,[3]
In 2007, when the case came before the West Virginia Supreme Court, Caperton petitioned for Justice Benjamin to recuse himself because of Blankenship's contributions during the campaign. Benjamin declined and was ultimately part of the 3 to 2 majority that overturned the $50 million verdict.
(John Grisham wrote a novel (The Appeal) about this.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caperton_v._A.T._Massey_Coal_Co.
Click the link perhapsIs there not more to the ending of this story? Like who had jurisdiction to the case? What was the amount Va allowed as a fair settlement? And, I think Don protested. I don't remember how this ended up, but some in the industry thought this might be fair to just put a stop to the ongoing coverage. There may have been a settlement within the past couple years, maybe.
Clink the lick, I did. Always wanted to show a little humor, and that is a little.Click the link perhaps
Clink the lick, I did. Always wanted to show a little humor, and that is a little.Click the link perhaps