From National Public Radio (emphasis added):
Ten ranking Democrats on key Senate and House committees are urging the Labor Department to respond to a "pattern of detrimental changes in state workers' compensation laws" that have reduced protections and benefits for injured workers over the past decade. ...
The letter also referred to NPR/ProPublica stories last week that detailed an emerging trend that permits employers to dump out of state-regulated workers' comp programs, write their own injury plans and limit benefits on their own. ...
The Center for Economic and Policy Research is releasing a study Wednesday that estimates that more than 20 percent of the increase in federal disability cases is due to cuts in workers' comp programs. ...
A 2007 study by J. Paul Leigh, a health economist at the University of California, Davis, estimated that workplace injuries not covered by workers' comp cost government programs about $30 billion a year.
Federal intervention may also come as the result of the "opt out" movement in Texas and Oklahoma, in which employers shun heavily-regulated workers' comp and are permitted to write and administer their own largely-unregulated workplace injury plans. South Carolina and Tennessee are considering opt-out laws now and proponents are aiming for a dozen states by the end of the decade. ...
4 comments:
It's good to see at least a few people in Congress standing up for the American taxpayer. It sounds like these opt out schemes try to make us all pay for things that should be the employer's responsibility.
What employers have to understand is that workers' compensation laws are designed to protect employers, not workers. These laws provide insurance. Without insurance, employers will be open to lawsuits from their injured employees which could bankrupt the business. Once again, penny wise, pound foolish.
When considering this issue, the history of WC benefits should be examined. When I started law school, the first 2 weeks consisted of a research/legal writing class. Our topic was the development of workers' remedies for injuries which began with the English/American tort system. The initial remedy for workers was through courts--after incurring debts for treatment and loss of income. The EMPLOYERS wanted the WC system to avoid juries filled with wage-earning workers. To sell it to workers, the worker was to receive a living stipend during recovery and to have immediate access to medical care for waiving access to the courts. Since then, employers have been trying to nickel and dime away at the WC system. Okay, then, let's take the system back to juries filled with many workers to provide a remedy. Will employers like that?
@Anon 12:13
Agreed, your point is good and I wouldn't mind seeing that. Currently however, the most offensive companies use the rigged "opt out" system AND force employees to sign agreements for other claims to be decided by company-friendly arbitrators. The company avoids their "no fault" responsibility to the injured worker, and avoids juries. The company goal is always to shirk as much responsibility as possible.
When individuals shirk major responsibilities that result in people getting hurt, they are subject to derision. They are legally liable and our society holds them accountable. When companies do the same thing it's business as usual, the shareholders reward them and there is little accountability. In my opinion, that's messed up and needs to change. Outlaw the arbitration agreements. Make companies responsible for their obligations. Liberally apply punitive damages until they realize its cheaper to change their behavior than not to.
Post a Comment