closure plus justice plus restitution equals dollars?

You forgot that dollars in significant fines to the company can mean changing ways.

No only that, but under the Canadian Criminal Code the company as well as individual could be found criminally negligent and end up with jail terms.

If this does not happen, then the enforcement part is too lax.

I know we are not China, but lack of diligence in China could end up with the ultimate price of death to the individual responsible.

So, this is not even a slap on the wrist.

Good for the Wet’suwet’en. Sad that we have to rely on their capacity to take the appropriate action.

I’m confused here. Are they not part owners of the mill?

This isn’t the first time, and it won’t be the last, that we rely on First Nations to protect our collective interests.

@ Loki; yes it probably equals dollars, although money will always come up short! Look in the mirror as ask yourself how much your nose is worth, our your ears, the skin on your face, or your fingers, or your hair that can no longer grow back on a badly burned scalp. Blast and fire survivors don’t take any of these body parts for granted. And as for the families of the dead, they would trade any monetary compensation provided to them if it would bring their loved ones back.

@ axman; the answer to your question is yes… in a very limited, junior, junior partnership way. Along with a number of other local First Nations, Wet’suwet’en First Nation is a member of the Burns Lake Native Development Corporation (BLNDC) which is a junior partner (10%) in Babine Forest Products.

USA based Hampton and Affiliates is by far and away the largest partner (90%), primary owner, and operator of that sawmill.

The company is a separate entity similar to a person. The majority shareholder is Hampton. The Burns Lake Native Development Corp. holds a minority stake.

It is the Board of Directors that is in charge of the Company. The CEO as well as the Chair of the Board, its executive and each director individually could be in the line of fire. Most importantly, who is it that actually hold the most accountability based on how close they were to setting direction regarding safety and actually had to implement strategies in order to have as safe an operation as required under law and under the direction of the Board.

Until that is put to the test, we will never know who did not do everything any reasonable person in that kind of industrial would have taken.

I do not buy the excuse that they did not know the beetle killed sawdust is “explosive”. Anyone working with a lot of fine particulates in the air in an enclosed situation ought to know that. There have been enough such explosions, even in sawmills.

I tend to support the First Nation POV on most things including environment and family culture. I can’t go there this time because I see their position on this as a call for vengeance.
I remember when the wind chill factor inside sawmills was a safety hazard. Slowly, over the years, we’ve closed up the mills for the comfort of employees and, inadvertently, created the conditions for dust explosion. No one saw this coming. Not WSBC, not the companies and not the employees. Fire, yes, that’s a common occurrence in mills. Explosion, no.
Sometimes the worst happens and there’s no one to blame.

So they are part owners.. then are they not partly at fault for the explosion ?

Did they not worry about the safety of the employees ? Did they do any safety audits ?

Did they bring up any safety concerns they had if they did do audits ?

Or did they not have any because they never cared about it as such a limited or where just interested in profiting ?

Furbink, you are wrong. You and others that keep on insisting that fine particulates in an enclosed situation do not “explode” need to undertand that such common products as coal, grain dust, flour, sawdust (not only MPB dry dust) and other particles from the processing of materials can cause explosions and have caused explosions for over a century.

There is nothing exotic to that. Any engineer who designs plants which produce such fine particulates as well as operators of such plants should know that. If they do not, then they should not be practicing their profession.

WorkSafeBC inspectors should know that as well. When you change the systems, such as enclosing a space, shrouding machinery, etc. one needs to consult with people who know how to do that safely. Plant operators should not make decisions like that without consultation with someone who knows what they are talking about.

I have no way of excusing those who are in charge of the lives of people and major industrial processes. This is the 21st century not the 18th or 19th.

I want to see the records of the safety meetings at both the firms that had dust explosions in the north. As I understand it, workers in at least one mill were concerned about the lack of cleanup.

So the Burns Lake Native Development Corporations (BLNDC) is a junior 10% partner in Babine Forest Products, and Wet’suwet’en First Nation is just one of six (6)First Nations that make up BLNDC.

So Wet’suwet’en’s theoretical share in the saw mill would be 10% divided by 6 = 1.7 %. So P Val’s questions are targeted at a First Nation that theoretically owns only 1.7% of a sawmill. Do you really think that any person or entity that owns 1.7% of any business would actually have any kind of say in that businesses day to day operations?

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner here, someone who intentionally ignores the obvious culpability of the principle owner and operator of the saw mill ( Hampton & Affiliates) to zero in on an entity that theoretically owns 1.7% of that saw mill. Yup ignore any potential culpability of the majority 98.3 % of the saw mill’s owners!

This is like someone complaining about the smallest of pimples on the left cheek of their a$$, while having a baseball size festering boil on the left cheek of their a$$!

P Val.

They have a minority share. What part of that do you not understand? A minority share n something does not give you access to the way business is conducted. Look at City Hall. As a taxpayer, what is our ability to make a change? Unless we band up together into a significantly large group, we have no clout.

Same thing with any other organization. If you really do not like it, the easiest thing is to remove yourself … sell your shares and go public with why you are doing it. But first you have to try other ways of finding out whether you can make a difference.

The worker is another way to do it. Workers have the right and the duty to refuse to do unsafe work. But how many actually do that. How often does an industrial worker refuse to do work because they feel unsafe? Very rarely.

So, do not take the argument to the little guy that has to struggle to make change … like pushing on the rope …. when you should be going to the guys and gals who have the pencil to make change …. the people who have pull, to pull on the rope…….

Your argument is disingenuous.

oops… that last part should read; “right” cheek!

That is more info than I need to know. ;-)

I said . . .
I remember when the wind chill factor inside sawmills was a safety hazard. Slowly, over the years, we’ve closed up the mills for the comfort of employees and, inadvertently, created the conditions for dust explosion.
To which Gus said . . .
Furbink, you are wrong. You and others that keep on insisting that fine particulates in an enclosed situation do not “explode” need to undertand that such common products as coal, grain dust, flour, sawdust (not only MPB dry dust) and other particles from the processing of materials can cause explosions and have caused explosions for over a century.
Ya, I can’t figure it out either.

For those who think that it is the dry sawdust of pine beetle killed wood that caused the explosion, it appears they are wrong.

From FPInnovations comes this information about the study conducted to determine whether moist wood particles are less explosive than dry wood particles.

The answer is no.

Misting has the effect of causing particles suspended in the air to precipitate to lower surfaces. But if there is no misting, and particles are suspended in the air in great enough concentration, they will explode whether dry or wet.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/sawmill+study+makes+surprise+finding+using+moisture+prevent+deadly+explosions/8831217/story.html

Let’s not forget the wives and the kids these two men left behind and their families.. That’s what this is about.

Furbink .. when you build something thatr meets requirements at the time it is built, and then at some later day a new condition arises such as the requirement to provide the workers a warmer environment, one has to go back to looking at THE WHOLE built environment before making changes.

In this case, someone who is an expert in building such buildings in the first place should have been consulted so that they pass the suggested changes to the entire filter requirement for what will become an ENCLOSED environment.

Sort of like making changes to any mechanical device such as a car, for instance. If one makes certain changes on the mechanics and structure of a car, one needs an engineer’s or mechanic’s certification that it meets the laws covering governing vehicles which travel the public highways.

What part of that you and some others do not understand is beyond my comprehension of reasonableness.

I think those left behind do get monetary compensation rom WSBC. The typical monetary cost of a workplace death is in the range of $1million.

This is not the USA, where punitive damages can go into the 10s of millions at the least.

We have to remember that WSBC is a no fault insurance. Punitive damages in the form of fines are minimal.

One might find more money in taking it through civil courts rather than criminal courts, but it will not be anywhere near where it would go in the USA.

What??????? One million??? WHERE did you get this from??? WorkSafe is like EI… CHEAP>>> They try not paying anymore than is necessary.

So basically the answer to my questions is no :)

P Val…. was somebody talking to you??

And when we’ve done as Gus suggests, and had ‘experts’ assess any and every positive change to a sawmill as to the remotest possible negative effect such a change may have on overall workplace safety, and something unforeseen still happens, then what?

Who is at fault then?

You can rest assured that the contract between the mill owner and the ‘expert’ will have the same kind of “escape clauses” in it that are present already when dealing with other ‘experts’. Such as professional accountants, for instance.

No professional is ever going to put their neck in a noose like that, and have the ultimate responsibility for unforeseen disasters fall back on them.

If they did the fee they’d have to charge to make the risk worth the reward would be astronomical.

Added to all the other costs of trying to produce lumber out of timber whose condition has deteriorated since the mill was built, keep a trained workforce employed so they can be retained, even when the market for the product doesn’t support a level of profitability that allows for the adequate replacement of depreciated equipment, let alone securing additional funds through borrowing to make improvements to it, it’s a wonder more mill operators just haven’t given up completely. It could come to that yet if the kind of attitude some exhibit on these boards ever becomes more widespread. It might be a good thing if it did. If they just let the ’employees’, or the ‘government’, run the mills ~ the School of Hard Knocks is a great teacher, and both could sure use some lessons.

While you’re all so quick to try to affix blame to a management for ‘negligence’, consider this ~ what really determines what can or cannot be done in regards to workplace safety, or even continuing to operate a business, is that business’s ability to continue to access CREDIT.

Go tell your banker you need to put in a larger dust exhaust system that’s going to require a complete renovation of your whole electrical service, and you have to shut down to do this, and it isn’t going to add one dollar to your ‘bottom line’, which is pretty thin already; and with the additional power the new system’s going to take at BC Hydro’s new rate structure, is going to be thinner still; and tell him he HAS to lend you the money, because you don’t want to be on the wrong side of WorksafeBC and the general public if there’s a dust explosion, and see what he says.

Where’s the public outcry if he says, “No.”?

Where will the workers be when they have to dip into their own pockets to add the latest improvements in workplace safety for ‘their’ mill? Willing contributors, ready and willing to all take a cut in pay to put in devices that have miniscule, if any, payback?

I think an inquiry is nessessary for the deceased, the injured and their families. Faith has been lost in BCWS and the Provincial Government.
The entire experience has been demoralizing, beyond comprehension.
We have two bodies of the same government arguing over legalities. Lives were lost, families destroyed. Why and How the investigation was botched needs to be addressed.
The rebuild of Babine was held hostage by Hampton until the provincial government insured a guarenteed timber supply. Which they received.
There is something important that is missing from this entire mess of a puzzle. Where is USW ?. I am curious why local 1-424 has been so very quiet.
At the time Hampton was seeking timber for a rebuild. They were also requiring a resonable working arrangement with the union. I would like to know what if any changes were made that will have an effect on workers with the new mill and employees that no longer have a job to go back to at babine.

socredible presents an excellent case for being a Bangladeshi Garment Factory owner.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2316028/Bangladesh-factory-collapse-Owner-arrested-survivors-pulled-wreckage.html

At least the owner of that collapsed garment factory in Bangladesh got arrested, in BC wood factories (saw mills) can blow up and no one gets arrested. Why?

Because, during it’s incompetent investigation, WorksafeBC collected valuable evidence in an improper manner, which rendered that evidence inadmissible in court. Without that evidence charges could not be laid.

I am glad Wet’suwet’en First Nation is calling for a, public independent inquiry, into the failed management of the WorksafeBC investigation into the BFP mill explosion.

There needs to be accountability and change, without that, these WorksafeBC investigation mistakes could happen again!

Socredible, when you are not writing about your favourite economic theory your lack of understanding of matters outside that field can be astounding.

There are standards for workplace safety, some are handled by those who design the facilities, others are handled by those who design the process, and finally others implemented the process and maintenance during the operation of both the facilities and the process.

Notwithstanding what you wrote, this is how the industrial world works these days. Those who have the credentials and experience to direct such work have errors and omissions insurance as well as liability insurance. Such insurance cost is based on the risk. It could very well be that the engineer, if there was one involved, who designed the closure of the building, could be named in any suit filed by the company or the workers.

In the case linked below the Court stated that, where appropriate, companies can be fined into bankruptcy.

Subject to the outcome of any appeal of this decision, employers can likely expect that fines for criminal negligence will often be higher than those for OHSA offences.

Ontario’s highest court has reminded employers that the actions of lower level management can result in criminal liability for the entire corporation, and can jeopardize corporate viability. The case therefore applies to many industries beyond construction, where the modern reality is that responsibility is often diffuse throughout a corporation.

http://www.kmblaw.com/court-sends-a-clear-750000-message-to-employers-on-corporate-criminal-liability

When no one is allowed, through ‘backdoor’ impositions of personal liability, to own or operate any private business, what then, Gus?

Are the coal mines of China operated at a safety standard that mines everywhere should be emulating, just because the ‘government’ owns them? Are they regularly de-dusted to prevent any build up of potentially harmful explosive dust? If so, why do they blow up? What would happen to a mine manager there who didn’t meet his quota for coal production because he was spending most of the workforce’s time de-dusting the mine? Well, they wouldn’t shoot him, like they would if the mine exploded, but he wouldn’t be mine manager very long either, would he?

Was Soviet Russia a paragon of virtue in maintaining environmental purity and perfectly safe working conditions that they’d truly created that Worker’s Paradise so many in organised labor here used to fervently call for? Where’s the evidence, the positive evidence, that they did?

What about the factories in Argentina, that the owners simply walked away from when conditions there deteriorated to the point financially they couldn’t operate them any more? The ones the workers then occupied, and tried to put back into operation? And in some cases even got them working again? Did they do everything ‘safely’ when they had no more boss demanding more production and supposedly waxing fat off the sweat of their brows? Or were they very quickly subjected to exactly the same kind of economic situation the previous owners faced, only with no one but themselves to try to resolve it?

Why, if the ‘profits’ were no longer being siphoned off by those awful owners, and were now available to be shared by all, were all those workers so anxious for the ‘government’ to take over the plants they’d taken over?

You who have had no experience in actually running a business can pontificate all you want about who is ‘negligent’ (in your mind), and who is not. Go and try to run a business like the Babine mill, under the very real economic conditions its owners and their workers face. You might learn something. You might even begin to understand what I’ve long tried to explain, obviously unsuccessfully, about the role of FINANCE. And how it DICTATES, not REFLECTS, physical reality.

Gus, something that is not contained cannot ‘explode’, it can ‘ignite’ but will not ‘explode’. Definitely not an explosion that can be heard miles away and rattle windows on the other side of town. An explosion in one part of a mill can cause deflagration in another part if ignition happens, the dust on the floor and around machinery can become airborne in a shock wave and cause additional deflagration, it does not have to be in the air at the time of the explosion.

Grain storage for example would not require a ‘explosion vent’ to divert pressure if they were not indeed ‘enclosed’. The flour mill disaster was inside an… you guessed it, enclosed building.

Why do you think they drill holes for explosives? To contain the blast otherwise it will be just a large firecracker in open air. Or pouring gas on a fire, it does not explode even though it is explosive, even misted in the air it does not explode. Put a small amount in a container and toss it in a fire and you have a different result.