23 17 46 11
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.
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
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
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.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.