Eliminate worker's comp?

[EVT1]

I was listening to the usual complainers on the way to work this morning, and the idea, supported by some call in small business owners, was to get rid of worker's comp insurance laws. My first thought was that they have no idea why it exists and how quickly they could be wiped out by a lawsuit. Granted it is mainly state law, but it can be required. Is it over regulation or does it do a good job of protecting both the employer and employee?

[ugonow]

Some states are killing business with their comp laws. It is more of a determining factor than taxes for some types of business when locating. Some revamping needs to be done in many states. The system is being abused bad enough without the deck being stacked against businesses.

[fairlycrazy23]

I think a few states allow employers to opt out.

[Deleted]

It is not the worker's comp insurance laws that are the problem. It is the underling employment laws that are the issue.

[ugonow]

Some states loss structures are set so high it is not even funny. The percentage of whole varies between states.

[jarhead1976]

May 18, 2011 9:21:58 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

It is not the worker's comp insurance laws that are the problem. It is the underling employment laws that are the issue.

Its the states way of adding more Insurance to an already over insured business. With general liability insurance and umbrella policy's, along with WC , it is the only way a business, those most involved in heavy labor, to limit the company's liability's due to a serious accident or death. Another necessary evil that is past onto all employers.

[Deleted]

May 18, 2011 9:35:59 GMT -5 @jarhead1976 said:

May 18, 2011 9:21:58 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

It is not the worker's comp insurance laws that are the problem. It is the underling employment laws that are the issue.

Its the states way of adding more Insurance to an already over insured business. With general liability insurance and umbrella policy's, along with WC , it is the only way a business, those most involved in heavy labor, to limit the company's liability's due to a serious accident or death. Another necessary evil that is past onto all employers.

I'm not sure what you mean, jar.

[ugonow]

The workers comp system is not businesses friend.

[Deleted]

May 18, 2011 9:40:19 GMT -5 ugonow said:

The workers comp system is not businesses friend.

That is true. Worker's comp is there to compensate an employee when they are not working. That is never going to be employer friendly.

[jarhead1976]

Being an employer , WC is required whether we like it or not." Employment laws" make it just one more card stacked against any company's bottom line. I was agreeing with what you had to say. Respects.

[billisonboard]

May 18, 2011 9:40:19 GMT -5 ugonow said:

The workers comp system is not businesses friend.

Which it should not be. Nor should it be the workers friend. It should be administered impartially.

[Deleted]

May 18, 2011 9:43:15 GMT -5 @jarhead1976 said:

Being an employer , WC is required whether we like it or not." Employment laws" make it just one more card stacked against any company's bottom line. I was agreeing with what you had to say. Respects.

Gotcha. I guess my point, though, is that it makes sense to require employers to carry wc insurance. That just makes sense. The problem lies in the litigation of worker comp cases and the system in processing wc claims.

In my industry, a relatively minor injury (broken wrist for example) can easily cost us (the company and our insurance) $100k.

[ugonow]

Even in contested cases where it goes to an arbitrator,the arbitrator usually is on the employees side.

[ugonow]

In my industry, a relatively minor injury (broken wrist for example) can easily cost us (the company and our insurance) $100k.

And that is just the settlement amount...that does not include the wages. Am I correct?

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

I am not in favor of eliminating worker's compensation, but I would be in favor of increasing oversight/enforcement to reduce wc fraud and abuse.

[ugonow]

I personally would not dream of suing an employer I expected to go back to for an injury settlement. But there are some that do so all the time.....

[jarhead1976]

I would assume ugonow, that would be total cost litigation as well as (tort) compensatory damages. 100k for a broken wrist wow. The scary part is at least in my state, the employer is not covered by WC.

[Deleted]

May 18, 2011 9:51:31 GMT -5 ugonow said:

In my industry, a relatively minor injury (broken wrist for example) can easily cost us (the company and our insurance) $100k.

And that is just the settlement amount...that does not include the wages. Am I correct?

That actually does include the wages.


And God forbid you have a fatality. That could cost up to and above tens of millions of dollars. Even if you have WC insurance, the policy may not cover that much. The company could still be on hook for millions.

[ugonow]

I think in cases like that,negligence would have to be proven.There are written scheduals for injuries that are based on the percentage of loss of use as a whole.Death would be 100 percent. A finger a smaller percent.

[Deleted]

May 18, 2011 10:23:25 GMT -5 ugonow said:

I think in cases like that,negligence would have to be proven.There are written scheduals for injuries that are based on the percentage of loss of use as a whole.Death would be 100 percent. A finger a smaller percent.

that's true. A strict worker's comp case would probably not get that high, but a middle aged worker who makes a decent living and has 20 more years of work potential would still get a multi million dollar w/c amount.

[EVT1]

This is kind of my point- on one side you get rid of a bunch of lawsuits, the drawback is that it pays for idiots that otherwise would not have a case. What do you think would happen to liability policies if workers comp went away- along with the defined schedule of benefits? In a related question- what should happen to a negligent employer if they fail to insure- should they be able to just close the business and keep their personal assets isolated?

[ugonow]

Is the consenus that it is a necessary evil that needs to reigned in?If so I agree. ;D

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

When I worked at my local City, employees who got injured and who were off for w/c reasons got paid MORE than when they worked ... how's that for a broken system? (Of course, that was because of how the City set things up, but still!)

[ugonow]

When I worked at my local City, employees who got injured and who were off for w/c reasons got paid MORE than when they worked ... how's that for a broken system? (Of course, that was because of how the City set things up, but still!)

It happened at my private sector job too. The lawyers do not help.They encourage abuse for their 33 percent or whatever the state sets the limit at.

[Bluerobin]

Yes, eliminate WC. When I got hurt, it prevented me from suing the hell outta my negligent employer.

[henryclay]

WC can cut any number of ways. Business friendly/unfriendly, etc. It is good for an injured employee to have the coverage and some pay coming in. But it is never free. The insurance rates (here), are based on exposure to injury by trade. I am acquainted with a welding company that works on petroleum storage tanks. There has not been a single claim filed by any of their employees, but their WC insurance rate is 33.3 % of wages.

[handyman2]

I would say workers comp could be made to be more relative to the job. For instance if you have a business where the employee has relative little chance of injury and would be covered by an insurance plan then why have Workman's comp.
Now take the construction or manufacturing industry where the hazards are much greater then yes Workman's comp is vital in several ways. For one most contractors are much more aware of the need to eliminate job hazards because one claim can drive your costs out of sight. They are willing to make sure employees have and use provided safety equipment. Another is that a temp worker who may not have insurance coverage in your plan has some means of compensation should they get injured on a temporary assignment.
It at times is abused. It is hard to prove that a worker did not get a back injury on the job although the injury may have happened some place else. But for the employer involved in hazardous work environments it is just additional protection for both parties.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Actually, I think there are a lot of people out there who'd like to have their own business.

[fairlycrazy23]

May 18, 2011 12:07:48 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Why can't employees be responsible for obtaining their own insurance? Why must the business owner be responsible for not only an employee's wages, but also his retirement, taxes, garnishments, health insurance and job injury insurance? Jeesh, no wonder there aren't any jobs. Who'd want to own a business?

Well, although I don't think workers comp should be a government thing, it is insurance to cover the Employer against damages from injuring employees on the job. But there is no reason the employer couldn't get this type of coverage from a private insurance company.

[Deleted]

Issues with WC

1. A lot of claims are NOT really fought by insurance company.....easier and cheaper to get quick settlement out of the way
2. Cost of insurance is prohibitive....especially with labor intensive jobs (welders, mechanics, etc)

Tort reform will help in this area also. Common sense and reasonable settlements can go a long way to helping small business compete in an open marketplace. But lawyers seem to throw common sense out the window anytime $ is involved.....