Sixth miner dies while advisory committee fails to meet because of gender quotas

[Metaphor]

No. I didn't say they weren't qualified nor did I say people who are not miners wouldn't be qualified.

Apparently your position is "Quotas are bad". Which is different than the OP which is "This quota caused the deaths of miners" because the OP claim is an unsubstantiated claim that is belied by the OP cited article.

I do believe quotas are bad, and they'd be bad whether or not in this particular situation, some deaths may have been prevented but for a quota requirement on a board.

The article implies that the board didn't meet because it couldn't meet without having the gender quota filled. If that's the reason it didn't meet, that is also bad, because boards are supposed to do things.

 

[laughing dog]

No. I didn't say they weren't qualified nor did I say people who are not miners wouldn't be qualified.

Apparently your position is "Quotas are bad". Which is different than the OP which is "This quota caused the deaths of miners" because the OP claim is an unsubstantiated claim that is belied by the OP cited article.

I do believe quotas are bad, and they'd be bad whether or not in this particular situation, some deaths may have been prevented but for a quota requirement on a board.

The article implies that the board didn't meet because it couldn't meet without having the gender quota filled. If that's the reason it didn't meet, that is also bad, because boards are supposed to do things.

And the article also indicated that the reason was not because there were no nominees. Women were nominated and the gov't had yet to act. If the deaths are to be tied to the lack of board meetings (which there is no evidence that they are), the lack of board meetings is due to the lack of diligence on the part of the gov't, not the quota.

 

[Metaphor]

I do believe quotas are bad, and they'd be bad whether or not in this particular situation, some deaths may have been prevented but for a quota requirement on a board.

The article implies that the board didn't meet because it couldn't meet without having the gender quota filled. If that's the reason it didn't meet, that is also bad, because boards are supposed to do things.

And the article also indicated that the reason was not because there were no nominees. Women were nominated and the gov't had yet to act. If the deaths are to be tied to the lack of board meetings (which there is no evidence that they are), the lack of board meetings is due to the lack of diligence on the part of the gov't, not the quota.

No. You don't know if the government was lazy and didn't bother. You don't know if the government found the nominees lacking and that's why they were not appointed. You are insisting that gender quotas could have had no role to play.

 

[laughing dog]

I do believe quotas are bad, and they'd be bad whether or not in this particular situation, some deaths may have been prevented but for a quota requirement on a board.

The article implies that the board didn't meet because it couldn't meet without having the gender quota filled. If that's the reason it didn't meet, that is also bad, because boards are supposed to do things.

And the article also indicated that the reason was not because there were no nominees. Women were nominated and the gov't had yet to act. If the deaths are to be tied to the lack of board meetings (which there is no evidence that they are), the lack of board meetings is due to the lack of diligence on the part of the gov't, not the quota.

No. You don't know if the government was lazy and didn't bother. You don't know if the government found the nominees lacking and that's why they were not appointed. You are insisting that gender quotas could have had no role to play.

There is no evidence the gov't found the nominees lacking, because there is no evidence that the nominees were rejected.

Nonetheless, since you have no evidence that the nominees were not lacking, you cannot claim the quotas played a role.

 

[Metaphor]

No. You don't know if the government was lazy and didn't bother. You don't know if the government found the nominees lacking and that's why they were not appointed. You are insisting that gender quotas could have had no role to play.

There is no evidence the gov't found the nominees lacking, because there is no evidence that the nominees were rejected.

Nonetheless, since you have no evidence that the nominees were not lacking, you cannot claim the quotas played a role.

The evidence for the hypothesis that the nominees being rejected (that is, they weren't appointed) is at least as consistent with that hypothesis as your speculation that government was incompetent/lazy (that is, they weren't appointed).

 

[bilby]

No. I didn't say they weren't qualified nor did I say people who are not miners wouldn't be qualified.

Apparently your position is "Quotas are bad". Which is different than the OP which is "This quota caused the deaths of miners" because the OP claim is an unsubstantiated claim that is belied by the OP cited article.

If miners died, it is because the mining industry did not take miner's safety as an important priority. There should be no need of a government miner safety advisory board in the mining industry cared about miner safety. Does the mining industry really sit around twiddling its thumbs waiting for government agency to guide them on miner safety to avoid unnecessary deaths?

Why no criticism of the mining industry for its glaring failure?

Actually, it's most likely a statistical glitch.

Mining is inherently dangerous; And by world standards, mining in Queensland is very safe indeed. We have a LOT of mines, employing a LOT of miners, and they range from one-man gem mining operations in the gem fields of the Capricornia hinterland, to huge polymetallic deep mining projects such as the Mount Isa Copper, Zinc, Lead and Silver mining complex.

We have an excellent safety record across this diverse industry, and it has improved to the point where deaths are counted in single digits per annum across the many tens of thousands of miners in the state. A sixfold increase from one death in 2018 to six in 2019 might indicate some kind of issue - but it equally well might just be an indication that the current 'expected number of deaths' with current regulations is four per year, plus or minus three.

It's important to look closely at each incident to determine whether it was avoidable by either changes to regulations, to training, or to the licensing process; or any combination of these three; or through some other solution.

But if we are going to have mining, we can probably expect a few deaths per year per ten thousand mine workers. And that implies several deaths per year in Queensland.

Working underground is dangerous. Working with heavy machinery is dangerous. Working with explosives is dangerous. Doing all of these things, in Queensland mines, is about as safe as it's reasonable to expect.

This situation can only be maintained by taking every fatal accident; every non fatal accident; and every 'near miss' where people could have been hurt (but fortunately weren't), very seriously, and trying to learn as much as possible from each incident.

It's likely not going to be improved by getting all hot and bothered about gender quotas on a board that has no day-to-day operational influence on mine working, inspired by a handful more deaths in one year compared to the last.

I don't know whether six deaths is an outlier; Or whether last year's single death was an outlier; Or what the actual history of figures for deaths per ten thousand workers is in the state is. But then, nor (I am prepared to bet) does the Brisbane Times; Or the OP.

I do know that it's very unlikely that the safety regulations that were so effective last year are suddenly being ignored or disdained by the managers or workers at the mines, because of the failure of some committee to sit in an office in Brisbane, while they await a suitable appointee who meets whatever criteria (whether sexist or not) have been set by the State Government.

I mean, it seems implausible to me that there's a supervisor 1.9km underground and 1,800km northwest of Brisbane who is saying "OK, normally I would give you a safety briefing, and ensure that all the appropriate procedures were being followed before I let you start placing explosive charges; But I heard on the radio this morning that the QRC Advisory Committee hasn't sat for six months, so fuck it, let's have a fireworks party".

These committees are important to the long term management of, and improvement in, mine safety. But they don't have any real impact on day-to-day, or even year-to-year safety. Despite the desire of those with a political agenda to use the unfortunate deaths of mine workers as a way to advance their various hobby-horse agendas.

 

[laughing dog]

No. You don't know if the government was lazy and didn't bother. You don't know if the government found the nominees lacking and that's why they were not appointed. You are insisting that gender quotas could have had no role to play.

There is no evidence the gov't found the nominees lacking, because there is no evidence that the nominees were rejected.

Nonetheless, since you have no evidence that the nominees were not lacking, you cannot claim the quotas played a role.

The evidence for the hypothesis that the nominees being rejected (that is, they weren't appointed) is at least as consistent with that hypothesis as your speculation that government was incompetent/lazy (that is, they weren't appointed).

Not really, since the article could have mentioned the nominees were rejected. Nonetheless, even it is the same, that still means the OP jumped to conclusions. Moreover, as I and others have pointed out, and as bilby eloquently expanded on, it is highly doubtful that the board's lack of meetings had nothing to do with the miner's deaths. All in all, the OP is long on conjecture and short on facts and reasoning.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The point is, troglodytes are now blaming quotes for deaths. If Australia has a good record on miner's deaths, then that nasty little claim goes down in flames. If that is the problem, that indicates the mining agency needs a baby sitter to make sure mines are operated to be safe and can't do it on their own. I doubt the mine owners and operators have a quota system.

Any way you slice it, the wingnuts complaining about the evils of quotas are idiots.

 

[Metaphor]

Not really, since the article could have mentioned the nominees were rejected.

The article says they weren't appointed. There's no reason to believe the writer knows why they weren't appointed. If they knew, they'd have said so, I would think.

Nonetheless, even it is the same, that still means the OP jumped to conclusions.

I don't recall making any conclusions in the original post. I posted a news article and paraphrased the headline as the topic.

 

[Metaphor]

The point is, troglodytes are now blaming quotes for deaths. If Australia has a good record on miner's deaths, then that nasty little claim goes down in flames. If that is the problem, that indicates the mining agency needs a baby sitter to make sure mines are operated to be safe and can't do it on their own. I doubt the mine owners and operators have a quota system.

Any way you slice it, the wingnuts complaining about the evils of quotas are idiots.

Quotas are stupid, but I'm surprised you dislike boards so much. Maybe you think they do nothing and need to be abolished?

 

[Metaphor]

These committees are important to the long term management of, and improvement in, mine safety. But they don't have any real impact on day-to-day, or even year-to-year safety. Despite the desire of those with a political agenda to use the unfortunate deaths of mine workers as a way to advance their various hobby-horse agendas.

Only other people's concerns are hobby horses, aye. A letter to the editor cited the same deaths as evidence that mining wasn't good for Australia, so Australia should reconsider its mining industry. These environmentalists and their hobby horses!

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't recall making any conclusions in the original post. I posted a news article and paraphrased the headline as the topic.

Quite frankly, what you did is try to imply that sexism killed the miners with no proof that is true.

 

[bilby]

These committees are important to the long term management of, and improvement in, mine safety. But they don't have any real impact on day-to-day, or even year-to-year safety. Despite the desire of those with a political agenda to use the unfortunate deaths of mine workers as a way to advance their various hobby-horse agendas.

Only other people's concerns are hobby horses, aye. A letter to the editor cited the same deaths as evidence that mining wasn't good for Australia, so Australia should reconsider its mining industry. These environmentalists and their hobby horses!

Quite.

Oh, wait, you didn't mean to agree with me, did you?

But both you, and the environmentalist you mentioned, appear to be hobby-horsing; The deaths of these miners in no way constitutes solid support for the causes you espouse, so your attempt to shoe-horn them into a discussion of your favourite topic is unwarranted; but you are going to pretend that they are evidence for your preferred argument anyway.

If you are usually the first person to bring up a given topic, or you frequently jump in to conversations about it with a strong opinion, or you try to make unrelated discussions or news into discussions about that topic, then you are hobby-horsing.

Environmentalists who think entire industries should be shut down; Nuclear power enthusiasts who want to see fission replace coal and gas; Homosexual men who have no use for women; Feminists who want everything to be about women. All potential hobby-horses. Whether they are, depends on relevance. The deaths of miners in Queensland isn't relevant to the question of quotas on some oversight committee. So when someone who consistently posts about how awful it is that women are getting special treatment or benefits, posts an OP that conflates the two, he is hobby-horsing.

That's not an insult; It's a description of what you are doing.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't recall making any conclusions in the original post. I posted a news article and paraphrased the headline as the topic.

Quite frankly, what you did is try to imply that sexism killed the miners with no proof that is true.

No, not 'sexism'. Gender quotas are not 'sexism'.

The article I posted had an implication in its headline that the mining deaths might be related to the lack of the advisory board meeting. I discussed the possibility that the lack of an advisory board meeting might have implications, because either boards do something useful or they don't.

I think it's a bad thing that a board doesn't meet because it lacks a 50:50 split between men and women on the board. I think that's a very stupid reason not to have board meetings.

 

[Metaphor]

But both you, and the environmentalist you mentioned, appear to be hobby-horsing; The deaths of these miners in no way constitutes solid support for the causes you espouse, so your attempt to shoe-horn them into a discussion of your favourite topic is unwarranted; but you are going to pretend that they are evidence for your preferred argument anyway.

It's quite the opposite. I didn't start a discussion about gender quotas on boards and use the mining deaths as evidence. I found an article and wanted to discuss the implications of a board not meeting due to gender quotas. The headline of the article does make an implication that the gender quota prevented the board meeting and this lack of board meeting could be implied in the mining deaths.

If you are usually the first person to bring up a given topic, or you frequently jump in to conversations about it with a strong opinion, or you try to make unrelated discussions or news into discussions about that topic, then you are hobby-horsing.

The first two behaviours you describe are nothing negative. If that's what hobby horsing is, then I've no objection to saying I hobby horse.

The third is problematic, and if I've made implications where the evidence is unjustified, then I should correct that.

The deaths of miners in Queensland isn't relevant to the question of quotas on some oversight committee. So when someone who consistently posts about how awful it is that women are getting special treatment or benefits, posts an OP that conflates the two, he is hobby-horsing.

I didn't make any arguments in the OP, though obviously by posting it I wanted to discuss it. There were several things that could be discussed from the content, such as whether the lack of board meeting contributed to what appears to be an unusual number of deaths this year. You made it clear in your post that your answer to that is 'no'. Your last line in your response did not contribute anything to the discussion, except as a naked insult. So be it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The point is, troglodytes are now blaming quotes for deaths. If Australia has a good record on miner's deaths, then that nasty little claim goes down in flames. If that is the problem, that indicates the mining agency needs a baby sitter to make sure mines are operated to be safe and can't do it on their own. I doubt the mine owners and operators have a quota system.

Any way you slice it, the wingnuts complaining about the evils of quotas are idiots.

Quotas are stupid, but I'm surprised you dislike boards so much. Maybe you think they do nothing and need to be abolished?

I dislike industries that need such boards to make them do the right and competent things. That cannot operate without baby sitters.

 

[bilby]

The article linked in the OP is a very obvious political hatchet job with no factual merits whatsoever.

A reputable newspaper wouldn't have published such an article, but as there are no reputable newspapers anymore in Australia, and certainly none in Queensland, that's no barrier at all.

The Brisbane Times is slightly less awful than the Courier Mail. As such, it's not the worst newspaper in Queensland; But that's faint praise indeed.

How fortunate we are in Queensland, that we have a Liberal supporting newspaper to balance the National supporting Courier Snail. Let nobody say that our media is biased. (No, seriously, don't let anyone say it; They could get arrested next time the LNP wins power).

 

[dismal]

I don't recall making any conclusions in the original post. I posted a news article and paraphrased the headline as the topic.

Quite frankly, what you did is try to imply that sexism killed the miners with no proof that is true.

No, not 'sexism'. Gender quotas are not 'sexism'.

The article I posted had an implication in its headline that the mining deaths might be related to the lack of the advisory board meeting. I discussed the possibility that the lack of an advisory board meeting might have implications, because either boards do something useful or they don't.

I think it's a bad thing that a board doesn't meet because it lacks a 50:50 split between men and women on the board. I think that's a very stupid reason not to have board meetings.

Try to think of it like this:

1) Government boards like this are the only thing that protect the safety of the people from rapacious greed of the greedy profiteering miners.
2) Despite the fact this gender rule is causing this board not to function, this gender rule could not possibly be causing harm.
3) Pause. Pause. Pause. See #1.

The trick lies in letting what you want to believe overwhelm any logical contradictions.

 

[Arctish]

No, not 'sexism'. Gender quotas are not 'sexism'.

The article I posted had an implication in its headline that the mining deaths might be related to the lack of the advisory board meeting. I discussed the possibility that the lack of an advisory board meeting might have implications, because either boards do something useful or they don't.

I think it's a bad thing that a board doesn't meet because it lacks a 50:50 split between men and women on the board. I think that's a very stupid reason not to have board meetings.

Try to think of it like this:

1) Government boards like this are the only thing that protect the safety of the people from rapacious greed of the greedy profiteering miners.
2) Despite the fact this gender rule is causing this board not to function, this gender rule could not possibly be causing harm.
3) Pause. Pause. Pause. See #1.

The trick lies in letting what you want to believe overwhelm any logical contradictions.

1) Regulations designed to ensure workplace safety, proper enforcement of those regulations, conscientious management, engineering and planning, and the professionalism of miners themselves are the things that protect the safety of people working in the mining industry.

2) Mining safety advisory boards examine mining operations and recommend improvements in operations and equipment to further improve safety.

3) The recommendations of such boards are not binding and not immediately adopted across the industry; it can be years before they are implemented if they are implemented at all.

4) When a mining safety advisory board doesn't meet, the improvements and recommendations it might suggest may be delayed, but that doesn't mean the existing regulations, practices, and safety measures cease to exist, therefore

5) linking a mining accident to the failure of a board to meet in the previous 6 months is stupid.

The trick to avoiding logical contradictions lies in being logical in the first place.

 

[prideandfall]

Try to think of it like this:

1) Government boards like this are the only thing that protect the safety of the people from rapacious greed of the greedy profiteering miners.
2) Despite the fact this gender rule is causing this board not to function, this gender rule could not possibly be causing harm.
3) Pause. Pause. Pause. See #1.

The trick lies in letting what you want to believe overwhelm any logical contradictions.

there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that your #2 is true, and i spent a good 30 minutes trying to find some evidence that it WAS true for the sake of thoroughness.
the actual known facts are these:
1. a mining lobbying group submitted several candidates for the position(s).
2. it is unknown how many other people may have also applied for the position.
3. there is no evidence suggesting that placement on this committee is by election, the logical conclusion being that it's an appointment, likely by either the head of the overseeing governmental department, or by a sub-committee.

given these facts there are two possible reasons that the position(s) wasn't filled and the safety board never assembled:
1. the mining safety department is such an austere institution of classical governmental purity that it couldn't possibly deign to sully its good reputation and the integrity of the execution of its duties as to allow the appointment of persons who are either ill qualified for the job, or else potentially agents of third parties with notions of influence outside the strictest adherence to public safety.
2. somewhere in the command chain of this department is a bigoted fuckwit in the mold of several posters in this thread who shall remain nameless who knows that stupid whores should keep their mouths shut because they don't know anything about mines and by god no uppity bitch is going to get a governmental job if they can help it, so stonewalled the appointment to satisfy their ego rather than just put some women on the safety committee to keep it going and in a worse case scenario ignore their input.

now, given the history of governments on this planet and the natural inclinations of the human race, i find one of those two possibilities rather stupendously more likely than the other.