No, the opposite is true.
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/5813/fatalities_higher...
The last paragraph even in your link is this;
"Tougher enforcement of laws, with higher penalties, and stronger safety standards are essential. But unionized miners have the power to enforce those standards before there's an accident, and they can prevent the speed-ups, overwork, and shortcuts that are common in non-union mines, like Upper Big Branch, and that contribute to the dangers of the job.
If Congress and Obama want to do something to save miners' lives, they should first of all protect and strengthen their right to organize."
No, it's evidence that unions help make laborers safer.
When toyota released the Camry they probably thought that the software was good enough and the risk was "low". Typically people that put their children and loved ones in these kinds of situations though want the risk to be "as absolutely close to zero as possible". The market alone cannot enforce that kind of behaviour is all I was trying to say - that and unions may play a role in promoting this kind of best practice.
"Looking at these data, only in 2001 were there disproportionately more fatalities (39 percent) in union mines (unions represented 30 percent of coal miners that year) than in non-union mines. Recent figures are more typical. In 2006 through 2009 union mines accounted for 10, 6, 10 and 5 percent, respectively, of all coal mine deaths, but over that period unions represented 15 to 22 percent of coal miners. For those years unionized miners appear to have been one-fourth to one-half as likely to be killed in mine incidents as their non-union peers."