WC costs society more than it\’s worth. The vast majority of those who use the system are employed in some physically strenuous, or inherently dangerous line of work. It\’s less a question of \”if\” you\’ll get injured as it is \”when\” you\’ll get injured. Since the benefits aren\’t taxable, many claimants make more money by being on WC. Here in NYC, the old people keep doing their strenuous work waiting for the \”pension claim\”, one that will be certified for lifetime benefits. The courts have made it virtually impossible to get a judgement against a recalcitrant employee, so even when someone is injured through their own stupidity or carelessness, they get paid.
Interesting rant, Dread. Not exactly sure what is has to do with the article, but intriguing none the less.
The whole purpose of WC is to be a no-fault system without need to prove or need to defend – regardless of stupidity. If there were ever a stupidity exclusion in any policy, very few claims would ever be paid.
I\’m sure employers would like to see compulsory WC go away since to them it is nothing but an expense; but the result of that would be disastrous. Adverse selection would make costs skyrocket; a reversion to the negligence system would cost employers whose employees are injured far more than WC premiums (juries and finding of fault has changed a great deal over the last century). Etc., etc.
It might be broken, but it\’s the best we got right now. We certainly don\’t want the Feds involved.
Today, the lawyers would love to rid us of Workers Compensation. Can you imagine how much more money they and their clients could make with pain and mental anguish & punitive damages? I would guess most, if not all states, have limitations on what the lawyers can get from WC settlements.
Sure I do, I just like accuracy. As far as I know, there is no such thing as privatering. If you’re going to write an article about pirates and their origins, you should at least get it accurate.
And, as far as having better things to do than worry about an E. Right back to you, since you have time to comment on my comment. (LOL)
This is the best short history of Worker Comp I have ever seen. WC was enacted for real reasons and there was an important trade off, as the article states. It is important that we not forget the reasons WC was enacted as we evaluate options for the future.
Answering the comment by “ad,” in NY lawyers have successfully broken through WC in the contracting class. They can jump over WC to sue a GC on behalf of a subcontractor’s employee (“NY Labor Law”). The GCs are being worked over with having to pay WC premiums and now higher GL premiums to cover the increased liability suits.
In the early 1900’s my great grandfather was badly hurt in a mine blast. He was given $20.00 and told to come back if he got better. My Grandfather had to drop out of school at the age of 14 to take care of the family. For the time, $20.00 was great but it didn’t help much for the five years he couldn’t work and the low wage job he could eventually get.
Chris: Great history lesson, entertaining and educational. Well worth a sackful of pieces of 8.
Thanks,
Bruce
WC costs society more than it\’s worth. The vast majority of those who use the system are employed in some physically strenuous, or inherently dangerous line of work. It\’s less a question of \”if\” you\’ll get injured as it is \”when\” you\’ll get injured. Since the benefits aren\’t taxable, many claimants make more money by being on WC. Here in NYC, the old people keep doing their strenuous work waiting for the \”pension claim\”, one that will be certified for lifetime benefits. The courts have made it virtually impossible to get a judgement against a recalcitrant employee, so even when someone is injured through their own stupidity or carelessness, they get paid.
Interesting rant, Dread. Not exactly sure what is has to do with the article, but intriguing none the less.
The whole purpose of WC is to be a no-fault system without need to prove or need to defend – regardless of stupidity. If there were ever a stupidity exclusion in any policy, very few claims would ever be paid.
I\’m sure employers would like to see compulsory WC go away since to them it is nothing but an expense; but the result of that would be disastrous. Adverse selection would make costs skyrocket; a reversion to the negligence system would cost employers whose employees are injured far more than WC premiums (juries and finding of fault has changed a great deal over the last century). Etc., etc.
It might be broken, but it\’s the best we got right now. We certainly don\’t want the Feds involved.
Very interesting article.
Today, the lawyers would love to rid us of Workers Compensation. Can you imagine how much more money they and their clients could make with pain and mental anguish & punitive damages? I would guess most, if not all states, have limitations on what the lawyers can get from WC settlements.
interesting article, but I think it needs spell checking. Its not “privatering”, its “privateering”.
…and it was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory not the Triangle Waste Factory (though the latter sounds like a much more hazardous risk).
Dot,
Actually, it is Traingle Waste. Traingle Waste was the parent corporation name, the location was Triangle Shirtwaste. So, you’re kind of right.
You really gonna knock a whole article over an “e”? Certainly you got better things to do.
Nice article. As far as stupidity being compensable, it is.. enjoy the job security that comes as a result of it!
Sure I do, I just like accuracy. As far as I know, there is no such thing as privatering. If you’re going to write an article about pirates and their origins, you should at least get it accurate.
And, as far as having better things to do than worry about an E. Right back to you, since you have time to comment on my comment. (LOL)
Actually, Speller, I don’t have too much other stuff to do than mess with you.
Since when is mis-spelling akin to inaccurate information? Just a question, since I ain’t got nuthin better to do.
This is the best short history of Worker Comp I have ever seen. WC was enacted for real reasons and there was an important trade off, as the article states. It is important that we not forget the reasons WC was enacted as we evaluate options for the future.
What’s wrong with pointing out spelling errors.
Never said it was “wrong,” just seems a bit picky to miss the point and good information over one “e.”
This is a NICE article.
InsIsMyPassion, I beg to differ. The parentage issue that you point out may be correct, but it is still “Waist”, not “Waste”. OK?
Answering the comment by “ad,” in NY lawyers have successfully broken through WC in the contracting class. They can jump over WC to sue a GC on behalf of a subcontractor’s employee (“NY Labor Law”). The GCs are being worked over with having to pay WC premiums and now higher GL premiums to cover the increased liability suits.
In the early 1900’s my great grandfather was badly hurt in a mine blast. He was given $20.00 and told to come back if he got better. My Grandfather had to drop out of school at the age of 14 to take care of the family. For the time, $20.00 was great but it didn’t help much for the five years he couldn’t work and the low wage job he could eventually get.