Good Honest Dollar $$

I have a question for you.

How and when do you think the world might have found out about a massive explosion which killed thirty-five workers at an illegal Chinese mine on July 14 last year?

Immediate reports from grief-stricken relatives? No. The mine owner acted very swiftly to purchase their silence.

Local officials? Not likely. They issued a false report after pretending to investigate.

Journalists? Nope – bribed also.

The mine owner? Naturally, no.

So how and when did the world find out? Two months later via some brave soul in an internet chat room, according to a report in the International Herald Tribune.

As a result of this brave soul, twenty-five local officials were fired, twenty-two of them now under criminal investigation.

The debacle described above highlights two important points:

• continuing problems in China with respect to accountability; and
• the constructive role which online media can play in terms of whistle-blowing.

 
China’s never-ending accountability problems
The fact that an incident like this was exposed only through an internet chat room shows just how diabolical the situation really is with respect to accountability and worker safety in Chinese coal mines.

Even at the official rate, according to the article, the average death toll rate for Chinese coal miners stands at nine per day – a staggering forty times more than America. The problem is most acute in small mines, many of which are illegal, operate in more dangerous areas and have little apparent incentive to invest in safety. Apparently account for three quarters of the deaths but only one-third of production.

And even then, these are only the official figures. They do not take into account the scores of deaths which go unreported because local officials and journalists are so easily paid off.

The situation is completely unacceptable and international governments and unions should continue to apply pressure on China to undertake some form of meaningful action to address this downright awful situation.

 
The whistle-blowing role of online media
But on the bright side, the episode also highlights the constructive role which online forms of media can play in terms of corporate accountability.

As access to online media expands, so too will the capacity of individuals to blow the whistle on cover ups. It is one thing to lock in the loyalty of local officials and media (using handsome financial incentives), but persuading every single person who has access to a blog or some other form of online media to do the same would be extremely difficult.

In the new world, online media provides a wonderful mechanism to support whistle-blowing, and in many cases it, is only a matter of time before someone exploits this capability to expose even the most intricately planned conspiracy.

Of course, online media can also be a platform to spread misinformation, perhaps with malicious intent.

And unfortunately, the sad reality is that some firms will continue to attempt cover-ups of various kinds in spite of the increase risk of being exposed due to online media. Cover ups are a reality today, and will continue to be a reality throughout the foreseeable future.

But even so, the benefits of online media in terms of a whistle-blowing mechanism cannot be underestimated, and I would think that these benefits would far outweigh any associated drawbacks.

Where other mechanisms of accountability fail, it is wonderful that the online media provides those who wish to blow the whistle with an effective medium to do so.

Especially with respect to a grave tragedy like this.  

 
Over to you
Do you think online media helps to promote better practices in terms of corporate governance? Why/Why not?

Should owners of pubs, bars and nightclubs who are unable to control the behavior of their patrons be provided with a free, taxpayer funded security service?

Most people would probably say no, yet this would appear to be exactly what happens whenever a taxpayer-funded police force is required to respond to incidents which occur on or around the premises of such establishments.

To be sure, security staff employed by the establishment are usually able to handle the majority of incidents, say a couple of blokes getting into a bit of push and shove, without too much difficulty.

Nevertheless, where matters escalate out of control, police are left to clean up the mess, necessitating the use of a taxpayer funded service and costing the taxpayer money.

This is of little concern to owners of the establishments concerned, as they do not have to pay a dime even if their security procedures are lax and/or police involvement is required on a frequent basis.

This should not be the case, according to Rolf Gerritsen, a researcher the Charles Darwin University in Australia. Mr. Gerritsen, who has proposed that nightclub owners be charged a fee whenever police assistance is required at their venues.

Under Mr. Gerrison’s plan, owners of nightclubs, pubs or bars, would be would be required to pay a set fee any time police have to be called as a result of disturbances which occur within a ‘buffer zone’ around the immediate vicinity of their establishments.

 
Pro’s and Con’s
Rather than express a definitive viewpoint with respect to such a proposal, I would like to throw open the floor and see what you, the readers, think.

For starters, here are a few of my ideas about the advantages and disadvantages of the idea:

 
Pro’s:
(1) Financial incentive to improve security.

Charging a fee whenever police assistance becomes necessary provides an incentive for owners of drinking establishments to adopt a more diligent approach with respect to security measures. These could include, for example, use of metal detectors for purposes of locating concealed weapons, or denial of entry to patrons who had been involved in security incidents in the past.

These types of incentives could lead to safer environments for the majority of patrons who wish to enjoy a harmless social event in a sensible fashion.

 
(2) Fairness.

It would seem to be fair enough that owners of establishments, rather than taxpayers, should foot the bill for their use of the police force as a public resource.

The principle of ‘user pays,’ which operates in many other areas of public service, is generally considered to be fair, and it could be well argued that owners of drinking establishments, not taxpayers, should assume the financial responsibility for the public safety risks which are inherent within their business activities.

In addition, it would also seem fair that owners who are able to maintain a reasonably safe environment should be entitled to enjoy a cost advantage over competitors with less safe environments, as they would if owners were charged for use of police on a per visit basis.

 
Con’s
(1) Reluctance to call police.

Charging owners of drinking venues for police assistance may result in an undue level of reluctance on behalf of some venues to call the police, potentially placing the safety of patrons and staff in undue jeopardy in the event that a serious incident does occur.

The police force is better equipped than internal security staff to deal with incidents where patrons are placed under severe threat of serious injury.

 
(2) Patrons, not establishments or their staff, cause the trouble.

This is a pretty weak argument in my view, but some may feel that it is the conduct of patrons, rather than staff, that result in the need for police involvement, and that it is unfair that venue owners should be punished for the conduct of those who merely use their premises and consume the services which they provide.

Drinking venues, some would argue, should be held accountable for the actions of their staff – not for their customers.

 
Over to you
What do you think? Do you support the charging of fees where drinking venues require police assistance?