FELA and workers compensation

[gabe]

I was just reading the 4.1 million dollar jury award regarding the Union Pacific engineer--in a St. Louis court, even though the injury occurred in Iowa.

First of all, let me say I hope the employee gets better and I wish him nothing but good.

But, this brings me to something about which I have always wondered. FELA allows various transportation employees to sue their employer in Tort rather than requiring the employees to use the workers compensation board like normal non-railroad employees.

This recent jury award really makes me wonder how much we are hamstringing the rail industry by our insistence with sticking with FELA.

Why are railway workers any different than highway construction workers, equipment operators, welders, etc.? Presumably, the Workers Compensation Act was passed to lower the transaction costs for American businesses when dealing with injured employees. Why don't railroads receive that benefit when other dangerous occupations do?

For all of the railroaders out there who are saying wait a minute!: I am not suggesting that you should be entitled to any less recovery--although you can rationally argue that the Workers Compensation Act does that.

However, what the Workers Compensation Act also does is lower the amount of money that lawyers get paid, precludes lawyers from forum shoping--like bringing a lawsuit to St. Louis when the accident happened in Iowa because lawyers know St. Louis juries award bigger verdicts.

I am not asserting that railroaders should receive less injury recovery. I am just saying that I don't see the difference between railroad workers and other workers.

If the workers compensation act does not provide adequate recovery for railroaders, then it doesn't provide adequate recovery for other workers either and the government should allow all workers to sue in tort like railway workers and do away with the Workers Compensation Act.

If the Workers Compensation Act does provide adequate benefits to injured workers but allows companies to escape excessive transactions costs for attorneys, why shouldn't railroads have the same benefits that other industries have?

I guess what I am asking is why are railroads treated differently now?

When FELA was passed there certainly was a need for it. Railroading was one of the most dangerous industries and various states would pass virtually non-existent worker recovery laws to entice railroads to build in their state. Now, railroading is no more dangerous than many other industries that are not covered by FELA, and I don't think we are going to see too much more track construction.

Gabe

P.S. Once again, I am not saying that rail workers should be deprived of injury compensation benefits, I am wondering what makes them different.

[edblysard]

Just wondering...
When wasn the last time a employee, injured and covered under workmans comp, had a trainmaster and claim agent threaten their job if they( the injured employee) wanted a ambulance.
When did a employee covered under workers comp have their co-workers job threatened along with their own?
How often do a WC covered employee have a trainmaster accompany them to the hospital, (of the trainmasters choice) to be treated by a doctor of the employers choice, follow them into the emergency room, recomend treatment, and advise the attending doctor how to word the emergency room report so as to indicate the treated employees injury was either self inflicted, or the result of the employees own negligence?

How often, under the workers comp system, are the employers allowed to conduct their own internal investigation, alter or remove evidence, exclude law enforcment officers from the scene, deny the injuried employee's attorney access to the same scene, all under the guise and protection of federal regulations?

Switching Operations Fatality Analysis..(SOFA) reports that in 1992, 14 of us died.
'93-15.

Between 1992 and today, in switching operations alone, 129 of us have been killed.

This year has been pretty good, so far, only 5 of us died in switching operations.

By the way, these figures include only switching fatalities, not total railroads deaths.

Between 1992 and today, how many welders have been killed because of their work enviroment and badly maintained equipment, not to mention the number of hours they are required to work?

Dont know of any pool service for welders, no forced double outs.

Cant remember when any construction worker was required to ride the end of , say, a construction crane, in the rain or snow, for several miles.

Dont know how many iron workers work 12 hours straight, then have to be back to work in 12 hours.

FELA exsist because railroading is still one of the most dangerous jobs around.

The FRA is pretty much a joke when it comes to enforcing safety rules, they usually call days in advance when they are going to show up, so the carrier has plenty of time to make sure we know how to act when they are there.

But then, you already know all of this, after all, your work experience included being on both sides of that fence, didnt it?

What passes for safety appliances on railcars would be banned from just about every other industry.

Imagine a welder having to performe his job, two stories up, hanging on the outside of a building, with only a 3/4" thick rung to stand on, and another 3/4" rung to hold on to.
At least he does have the benefit of his work place standing still!

Imagine him out there, minus the safety harness, safety net, hard hat and all the safety devices required by OSHA.

Yet no one seems to mind it when I have to hang on the side of a boxcar for several miles and minutes(Hi Nora) sans harness, chain, belt or net.
All I have is the 3/4" rungs mentioned, and they are held in place by two bolts each.
And it moves around, often up to 10 mph....

I fall, its on rocks, not a safety net.

OSHA dosnt cover us, and the carriers like it that way, its cheaper in their mind.

Ed

[mudchicken]

I am not disagreeing with Ed, however I would like to see something else a little more equitable (Worker's Comp ain't the ticket either).....

Have seen in my career more than one employee get screwed by FELA's adversarial system while a set of lawyers made money hand over fist. (Folks that really needed the help got little or none because of the vagarities of the TORT System)

Also have seen multiple cases of faked injuries with sham doctors, chiropractors and lawyers involved.

There has to be a better system in play somewhere than the jaded, antagonistic one in play now with FELA.

[banghead][banghead][banghead]

[Junctionfan]

I'm not too sure why the American people haven't advocated for the WCB. In Ontario anyways, the WCB was introduced by a conservative right-winged government as a way to save employers a lot of money. I figured since the U.S in general is more capitalist oriented than Canada, why wouldn't employers be more in favour of having a WCB even if it would be a state by state thing and not a national federal legislated program. For an employer it would be cheaper than being sued for millions and cheaper for the taxpayer that would have to spend the taxes on court proceedings of limitless litigation.

[edblysard]

Not totally disagreeing with Gabe...

Just making a example of how some of it works.

And no, Workers Comp will not work, in Texas, which, by the way, now allows employers to opt out of workers comp.

They now can ask new employees to sign a waiver, agreeing not to sue the employeer, in lieu of wage maintaince and some(not all) medical expenses.
Insurance rates and current workers comp fraud has forced some companys to relocate outside of the state.

Currently, FELA is just about the only way the carriers can suffer punitive damages for allowing some of the work practices to continue.

Fact is, I cant sue Trinity Rail car, or AFC, if the hand rail fails and I get hurt.

Cant sue the maker of the rail, ties, or joint bars when the track fails, nor the maker of turnouts and switches.

Cant sue Union Switch and Signal if the signal fails and I get rear ended.

Cant sue Mudchicken, if he does his job badly and the alignment is wrong, (sorry MC) and we derail, and I lose a leg.

So where does that leave me?

What happens if I am injured to the point I can't resume my duties?

I can apply to the Railroad retirement board, but my benifits would be denied, because I dont qualify yet, dont have the years of service in.
And if I did qualify, the amount would be less than minimum wage...

And no matter what they say publicly, the carriers like it being kept in house, with out the oversight of John Q Public.

Which allows them the ability to apply the tremendous amount of pressure on the injured employee that they do.

Its a business decision, just like grade crossing safety, or the lack of.

For the carriers, its cheaper to play the odds that they can force a settlement, instead of addressing the root of the problem.

So....?

Anybody got a workable solution?

[Junctionfan]

I don't really see one. No options really with the current system at least not one that benefits the worker.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

I was just reading the 4.1 million dollar jury award regarding the Union Pacific engineer--in a St. Louis court, even though the injury occurred in Iowa.

First of all, let me say I hope the employee gets better and I wish him nothing but good.

But, this brings me to something about which I have always wondered. FELA allows various transportation employees to sue their employer in Tort rather than requiring the employees to use the workers compensation board like normal non-railroad employees.

This recent jury award really makes me wonder how much we are hamstringing the rail industry by our insistence with sticking with FELA.

Why are railway workers any different than highway construction workers, equipment operators, welders, etc.? Presumably, the Workers Compensation Act was passed to lower the transaction costs for American businesses when dealing with injured employees. Why don't railroads receive that benefit when other dangerous occupations do?

For all of the railroaders out there who are saying wait a minute!: I am not suggesting that you should be entitled to any less recovery--although you can rationally argue that the Workers Compensation Act does that.

However, what the Workers Compensation Act also does is lower the amount of money that lawyers get paid, precludes lawyers from forum shoping--like bringing a lawsuit to St. Louis when the accident happened in Iowa because lawyers know St. Louis juries award bigger verdicts.

I am not asserting that railroaders should receive less injury recovery. I am just saying that I don't see the difference between railroad workers and other workers.

If the workers compensation act does not provide adequate recovery for railroaders, then it doesn't provide adequate recovery for other workers either and the government should allow all workers to sue in tort like railway workers and do away with the Workers Compensation Act.

If the Workers Compensation Act does provide adequate benefits to injured workers but allows companies to escape excessive transactions costs for attorneys, why shouldn't railroads have the same benefits that other industries have?

I guess what I am asking is why are railroads treated differently now?

When FELA was passed there certainly was a need for it. Railroading was one of the most dangerous industries and various states would pass virtually non-existent worker recovery laws to entice railroads to build in their state. Now, railroading is no more dangerous than many other industries that are not covered by FELA, and I don't think we are going to see too much more track construction.

Gabe

P.S. Once again, I am not saying that rail workers should be deprived of injury compensation benefits, I am wondering what makes them different.

Gabe-

Obviously you are aware of the issue of compensation of injured railroad employees. I am of two minds on the subject. As you know I am an attorney who has served in several rail related capacities both labor and management. I have also represented a railroad in an FELA matter. Lastly, as an employee I suffered a serious injury in the line of duty and sued my employer under FELA.

FELA is an old law that was made when there were essentially no other laws to protect workers. Choices were made creating a framework that allowed compensation of employees through the existing judicial system. Obviously, issues have developed over time with this process. As society has canged and litigation has become more of a lottery to many and attorneys, particularly plaintiffs attorneys have amassed large fortunes handling FELA cases, various special interest groups have been created that rely upon the continued existence of this system to the detriment of the injured employee and the railroad.

Who are these folks? Insurance companies who make money on increased FELA premiums and restrictive rules, certain labor unions who have made it a practice to illegally and unethically "refer" (steer) employees to certain "Approved" attorneys. Plaintiff attorneys who charge high contingency fees on FELA cases despite the fact that in FELA cases including those under the Boiler Inspection Act are among the easiest to prove negligence of any legal theory, defense attorneys who charge insurers high fees as a specialty area, and of course the legions of expert witnesses who often go to the highest bidder. In case you are wondering, all these folks plus the employees and companies themselves lobby politicians heavily to preserve the status quo.

Is railroading a dangerous occupation. It sure is. I'll be happy to show you the scars. I was one of the lucky ones who made it back. About two months before my injury I remember being called to work on my pager by the crew dispatcher. It wasn't a special call, just a regular train. I had just finished shaking the hand of the President of the Class 1 Railroad I worked for. The occasion? A funeral for a colleague killed in the line of duty when a loaded grain hopper rolled off an icy crossing and landed on him crushing him to death. He had been a promoted Engineer for three weeks. I was a newly promoted conductor at the time. He couldn't yet hold the Engineer's Extra Board and took a call as a conductor. His brakeman that night had 35 years on the railroad and jumped free of the other side of the same car. He retired on a permanent disability . He couldn't come back to work. He suffered no physical injury beyond some bumps and bruises.

Are there abuses of the system? You bet. Like the Superintendent who followed me to the hospital and argued that the RR wasn't responsible for my injury with hospital staff. Or how about the Claim Agent who came to see me the next day after I spent 4 hours in joint surgery and was hooked to a powerful morphine drip wanting a written statement. Luckily, I still had enough on the ball to refer him to my wife, the other lawyer in the family. She told him if he showed his face again he would face criminal charges. He didn't return.

How about a MOW employee I knew who broke his leg in a weekend game and came to work monday for two hours and then fell and claimed the injury. Or in one FELA case, the conductor from a different railroad who was leaving interchange cars and claimed to have tripped and fallen suffering a broken leg. Problem was his fracture didn't match the mechanism of injury. His spiral fracture demonstrated he had in fact stepped off moving equipment in violation of safety rules causing his own injury. There are no sacred cows in the FELA game, just many who have violated the old maxim of equity that if one seeks equity he must come with clean hands.

There isn't any easy answer to fix FELA. Too many entrenched interests. Worker's Compensation systems are no better. In some cases, particularly California and other high cost states Comp can actually be more expensive than FELA. Remember too that unemployment insurance and disability (sickness) insurance is not handled through the States on the railroad it is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, a Federal Agency that also handles railroad employees retirement instead of the Social Security Administration. As interrelated as the railroad system is, it is difficult to change any one component without other more broad and less predictable effects.

Reform is needed. The problem is that there is no real political will to accomplish it. Unions that supported railroad retirement reform a few years ago that was also supported by railroads as it saved money won't support FELA reform for some of the reasons above. Accordingly, any changes are unlikely in the near term.

LC

[Junctionfan]

"No political will"-why do I here that a lot? What are thease politicians good for anymore?

[kevarc]

Most politicians are worthless, they are more worried whether they can keep their job than serving the people.

WE have workmans comp here in Louisiana. I have never made an employee claiming injury go to a certain doctor or hospital. The only time a supervisor may accompany the employee is when the employee requests that the supervisor either go with him or drive him. If I find a supervisor harassing an employee over this, well, let us say it will be along and loud on sided converstion between me and that supervisor.

Though like any business, you do have your "problem child." Yet, any injury claimed by them MUST be treated the same as any other injury. Our policy here is to let the Workers Comp carrier handle it. That is why we pay the premiums.

[Junctionfan]

Isn't it easier and cheaper for the company to do that?

[gabe]

Ed,

Once again, I am not asserting that railroading is not a dangerous occupation. I am just saying that there are a lot of dangerous occupations. Significantly more highway construction workers are killed every year than cops. My only argument is that if railroading—as a dangerous occupation--needs the protection of FELA, why doesn't other dangerous occupations. Or, if dangerous occupations are adequately covered by workers compensation acts why are Railroads not given the benefit of these acts.

Also, I am emphatically not suggesting that employee recovery be limited in any way. I am, however, suggesting that the transaction costs thoroughly referred to by Limitedclear are making a lot of people rich who probably never stepped on a train. The fact that the case I was referencing came out of St. Louis says it all. I am suggesting that attorney’s access to FELA’s slush fund should be limited, not employee’s recovery.

I have not been a lawyer long enough to speak to the effectiveness of either FELA or the various workers compensation acts. But I do know that the workers compensation acts are designed to shelter business from all of those transaction costs referred to be Limitedclear and having employers have to worry about forum shopping.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

Ed,

Once again, I am not asserting that railroading is not a dangerous occupation. I am just saying that there are a lot of dangerous occupations. Significantly more highway construction workers are killed every year than cops. My only argument is that if railroading—as a dangerous occupation--needs the protection of FELA, why doesn't other dangerous occupations. Or, if dangerous occupations are adequately covered by workers compensation acts why are Railroads not given the benefit of these acts.

Also, I am emphatically not suggesting that employee recovery be limited in any way. I am, however, suggesting that the transaction costs thoroughly referred to by Limitedclear are making a lot of people rich who probably never stepped on a train. The fact that the case I was referencing came out of St. Louis says it all. I am suggesting that attorney’s access to FELA’s slush fund should be limited, not employee’s recovery.

I have not been a lawyer long enough to speak to the effectiveness of either FELA or the various workers compensation acts. But I do know that the workers compensation acts are designed to shelter business from all of those transaction costs referred to be Limitedclear and having employers have to worry about forum shopping.

Gabe

Gabe-

I think as you continue in the legal profession you will find that indeed there are special laws for many exceptionally dangerous occupations. For example, the Jones Act which is similar to FELA and covers merchant seamen. Remember too, that both railroads and merchant shipping are Federal in nature as they deal with Interstate Commerce (and International for that matter). At the State level there are often other laws protecting particularly dangerous occupations. For example, I recall reading a New York statute in law school designed to protect workers in construction accidents. I understand that law was originally passed in the interest of Ironworkers erecting the early NYC skyscrapers, although it covers all construction workers and allows them to bring suit for damages.

Also, don't kid yourself, just because Comp bars litigation against the employer in serious injury cases you will see litigation against third parties is common in workplace injury cases on other theories such as negligence or strict liability in tort (products or ultra hazardous activity both being choices depending upon the case).

So, in answer to your question, there are special protections afforded to other occupations. I could get into greater detail on how Comp doesn't perform its intended functions and costs employers big money, but that is too far removed from railroads.

LC

[edblysard]

Gabe,
I agree with quite a lot you said....

And, as LC pointed out, we are Federal in nature.

As a suggestion, go the web page for the Southern Distric of the US Attorney Generals office, and read their slant on the UTU scandal.
Employees steered to DLCs, Designated Legal Counsel,
lawyers who, in some instances, paid bribes and contributed lagre amounts of money to former UTU President Boyd, to be included on the DLC list.

Horrible abuse of FELA, and the union members trust.

But I know you could cite examples of Workers Comp bribery and fraud also.

Just because we are all lumped together as blue collar workers dosn't necessary mean we all work under the same conditions, or under the same rules.

All of us know, railroader and others, of a Sunday afternoon football accident that is turned into a monday afternoon work related injury...
it happens, no matter if its under FELA, or workers comp.

For the most part, workers comp functions like kevarc said, if a guys is hurt, he is packed off to the hospital, and everyone at work sends him get well cards.

It dont work that way on a railroad.

Yes, trainmasters, superintendents and claims agents(really loss prevention and liablity limiting agents) do bully the employee, do follow them in to the emergency ward rooms, do harrass the attending doctors and nurses, do threaten to fire the employee and his or her co-workers if they want a ambulance to transport them, or try to get them removed from the hospital room once there.

I have yet to see a ambulance on property, and the last injury we had, the employee was struck by a moving train, and when he awoke, complained of numbness and loss of feeling in his arms.

The trainmaster on duty wanted to know if he could drive himself to the company doctors office!

He refused, and demanded a ambulance.

The trainmaster threatened him with removal from service, and insisted on driving a injured employee to the hospital, the entire trip spent trying to brow beat him in to see the company doctor, instead of the emergency room doctors.

Before you state that this is hearsay, I would like to let you in on this....it was my train that hit him, I was one car length away.

I was the first person on the scene, and after reporting to the yardmaster that a man was down, I called 911, and requested a ambulance.

The trainmaster showed up as I was speaking to the dispatcher, and grabed my phone, threw it against a covered hopper, and informed me if I even called another ambulance with out a trainmasters permission, I would be fired.

Now, do you know anyone else who works under conditions like this?

The system is so entrenched that changing it would be almost impossible.

And, both the carrier, and the unions, like it the way it is.
The unions, of course, present as a bonus of union membership, you get hurt, we get you big bucks.

The carriers, on the other hand, like it this way, because it allows them to pressure the employees into out of court settlements.

For every 4.1 million dollar award you read about, there are hundreds of fifty thousand dollar settlements for permanent injuries, destroyed backs and knees blown out, missing fingers and toes, single eye blindness, all settled for chump change to stop the harrassment.

If they ever saw the inside of a court room, a third year law student could win almost every one of them for the employee.

For the railroads, it pays to leave it like it is, if they changed it, the other things, like the safety appliances and work conditions, would be forced to change too.

As for me, I would love a system that works as kevarc describes, you get hurt, you go the hospital or a doctor, and in the end, the doctors decide how badly you are injuried, not the attorneys.

A reasonable scale on damages, and a punitive course of action against the carriers to force them to correct the hazzards would be great too!

But dont hold your breath.

As long as both sides see it as a profitable arrangment, or a limit on losses, then nothing about it will change.

Ed

[gabe]

Ed,

I don't disagree with anything you say. Nor do I disagree with Limitedclear's statement.

However, dispite my inexperience, I clerked at a rather large law firm in Michigan during the summer of my second year of law school. I was truly amazed by how many defense lawyers (billing at $250+ an hour) were dedicated to just FELA work--and that was just one firm in a State that is not known for big jury awards.

When you consider that, the plaintiffs' lawyers, the payment for court time, the amount that is paid to expert witness, etc., talk about a cottage industry!

Workers comp work did not receive nearly the same amount of attention (two or three over worked defense lawyers billing at $110 an hour)--that seemed to indicate to me the difference of transaction costs that FELA was placing on the rail industry.

Like I said, I am not suggesting that rail workers aren't entitled to just or less compensation. I just see all of those transaction costs as a burden.

Gabe

[edblysard]

My point too, there is a cottage industry devoted to this, and trust me, none of the players want it to change.

Has the balance changed since you clerked?
Now that attorneys are allowed to advertise, you cant watch TV with out one or more commericals airing by attorneys hunting workers comp cases.

Seems, according to the ads, no place in the world is safe...they even want to sue the materess makers for your back pain!.

I learned about two new life threatening illness, one releated to saw dust, the other to welding fumes, and discovered if I have ever coughed, I might have one of them, so I better dial 1-800-........... a board certified attorney will decide right over the phone if they can take my case.....

Wow, what a country!

Seems all the hogs are lined up at the trough....

In the end, of course, the cost of all of this is passed on the us, the consumer.

Now, when you have a real beef, and need access to the court system, you'r stuck i line behind theses clowns for several years.

Dont know what the solution is.

Ed

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

My point too, there is a cottage industry devoted to this, and trust me, none of the players want it to change.

Has the balance changed since you clerked?
Now that attorneys are allowed to advertise, you cant watch TV with out one or more commericals airing by attorneys hunting workers comp cases.

Seems, according to the ads, no place in the world is safe...they even want to sue the materess makers for your back pain!.

I learned about two new life threatening illness, one releated to saw dust, the other to welding fumes, and discovered if I have ever coughed, I might have one of them, so I better dial 1-800-........... a board certified attorney will decide right over the phone if they can take my case.....

Wow, what a country!

Seems all the hogs are lined up at the trough....

In the end, of course, the cost of all of this is passed on the us, the consumer.

Now, when you have a real beef, and need access to the court system, you'r stuck i line behind theses clowns for several years.

Dont know what the solution is.

Ed

WCB is an answer. As long as majority of the people support it, the politician should fear election reprisal over that issue.

Maybe there should better safety standards for some of these industries. I can see certains jobs like military, emergency services and railroad jobs for example that have a degree of unavoidable danger but a lot of the employers out there either do not provide proper safety standards to the worker or don't make sure that the worker has an exceptable amount of trainning. This is why workers get injured a lot and hence the large volume of civil trials. I know that the WCB here will fine the employer heavily when repeat problems are brought up and can even at times result in the employer's licence to operate being suspended until safety standards are met.

I say to heck with the greedy insurance companies and do what is best for the people provided the people give you the O.K to go ahead with the legislation. So ask them.

[Anonymous]

Ed-

The UTU scandal is the union I was thinking of primarily as its corruption seems to be the most obvious. I am uncomfortable with both the BLET and BMWE as both maintain counsel lists that they "recommend" to their members. In my FELA action I was represented by an "approved" law firm and they did a good job. Interestingly enough, I refused to be represented by a different "approved" firm in another city and this seemed to cause quite a bit of consternation in the union higherarchy. It showed me the extent of the steering and associated politics.

As to your cottage industry comment, that was a point of my earlier post. There is an entrenched and well financed cottage industry that means FELA will be with us for a long time.

Andrew-

I hate to break it to you, but further empowering the Worker's Compensation Board is not the answer. It really doesn't give the worker adequate compensation and drastically increases coasts and the opportunity for fraud. Also, many small businesses cannot afford private coverage, throwing them into government sponsored pools (for example the State Compensation Fund in CA). How long will this continue before there is a need for a governement bailout of these funds? It is easy to wave the government checkbook at a problem, but this is a BIG one and it isn't likely to go away easily.

LC

[Junctionfan]

I don't know why it works so well here than. I don't hear too many people complain (including small businesses) about it. I think I need to do some research on it and see if they address your concerns including fraud. I am almost certain that they have. The governments often introduces and passes a lot of what I call "complementary legislation". They introduce a bill and then introduce a bunch more as amendments to fix any problem that might be brought up.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I don't know why it works so well here than. I don't hear too many people complain (including small businesses) about it. I think I need to do some research on it and see if they address your concerns including fraud. I am almost certain that they have. The governments often introduces and passes a lot of what I call "complementary legislation". They introduce a bill and then introduce a bunch more as amendments to fix any problem that might be brought up.

Andrew-

At the risk of offending you (again), Canada has and will cointinue to have a much higher tax rate than the U.S. I have little doubt that the solution in Canada is related to having both more money to throw at the issue and a national health care system that I suspect absorbs more cost than our private system which must at least try to operate at a profit...

LC

[Junctionfan]

I did ask my grandmother who was a VP of a CUPE local. She said that everybody is entitled to workers compensation and that all the business pay into it. The amount that is payed depends on the size of the business and how many workers so a small corners store with 3 workers pays nowhere near the amount of say what CN would pay.

To prevent fraud, the WCB requires doctor's reports as well as a report from work. I am assuming that anytime there is an injury on the job the inspector from the Ministry of Labour files a report accessable to the WCB. For example, in a kitchen, if someone get cut on a meat cutting machine and it's because the employer has not provided the training or the mesh glove, the employer will be fined. If the worker however, had recieved the necessary training and the glove was available, than the employer will not be fined. It isn't as easy to commit fraud here because of the amount of paper work involved and we take WC fraud very seriously.

As far as funding is concerned, the government pays partial for it. The bulk of the funding comes from the employer who has payed into it to protect himself from litigation. Yes it is a double edged sword but it keeps the taxpayers money away from the civil court cost as much as possible which saves the people a lot more money in the long run. Like I said, it wasn't a Liberal or NDP government that came up with it, it was a conservative government. It obviously isn't just a Canadian thing either.

As far as the healthcare is concerned, that is where we differ in ideals. We don't try to operate healthcare for profit. We don't think that way because we believe that everybody from the very rich to the very poor should be entitled to the same kind of healthcare. That is why we hate two-tier health systems because it means that the rich have theirs and the less fortunate people do generally will not get the same kind of care.

To stay on the topic of WCB. It was lobbied by the large businesses because it was costing them too much money to spend on the legal fees and than compensation. Where as the WCB gives the injured worker some money enough to get by usually and payes for healthcare not covered by the government, the employer would be sued for millions. With the WCB, employers pay into it as a sort of liability insurance that can not be cancelled nor will the rates change to increase the Boards bottomline (unlike a private insurance company). That is why the government passed the bill for it as it was effecting our economy. Now having said that, employer who operates safely should have limited amount of accidents therefore not be fined by the WCB. The Board of Labour recognizes the fact that some jobs are more dangerous than others and so makes reasonable allowances for it. Generally speaking, the businesses and workers in Ontario don't regret it.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I don't know why it works so well here than. I don't hear too many people complain (including small businesses) about it. I think I need to do some research on it and see if they address your concerns including fraud. I am almost certain that they have. The governments often introduces and passes a lot of what I call "complementary legislation". They introduce a bill and then introduce a bunch more as amendments to fix any problem that might be brought up.

Andrew-

At the risk of offending you (again), Canada has and will cointinue to have a much higher tax rate than the U.S. I have little doubt that the solution in Canada is related to having both more money to throw at the issue and a national health care system that I suspect absorbs more cost than our private system which must at least try to operate at a profit...

LC

No need to worry, nothing offensive at all. The way I see it is that all of those taxes go to protect us from having to lay down a lump some of money when we can't afford it at that moment in time. I liken it to the investment of a lot of insurance policies.

[kenneo]

An interesting side note to the FELA and Workers Comp.

A number of years ago, the State of Oregon took its high-risk public pool (those that could not get private Workers Comp insurance) into a public corporation that could also then take in "regular" customers. Called it SAIF. Stands for State Accident Insurance Fund. It got so good at promoting safety in all of its forms that insurance rates started dropping state wide and private insurance almost has disapeared.

The insurance industry was, of course, not happy with this and so formed their own local Oregon company (now has moved to Mass.) to counter SAIF. They are now sponsering a Ballot Inititive to to abolish SAIF and return all of the business to private concerns. They also have caused the political process to take SAIF to task for "corrupt practices" -- which SAIF had been doing and which SAIF should have long ago been upbraided for. Lots of high-pay managers and lobiests were sent packing - including the CEO of SAIF and then that CEO's replacement, a former Federal Cabinet Officer and others.

I am not trying to defend or promote SAIF or its opposers. But the comments of vested interests and their examples above are playing out here.

Sorry about the spelling -- I can't spell today.