Rewarding safe workplaces
The Dom Post reports on how unions are against ACC rewarding employers with safe workplaces:
The Government is set to reintroduce lower ACC levies for firms with the best safety records, a move unions claim will see bosses cover up accidents.
Sigh – the paranoia is rampant. Do they actually have any proven examples of this happening from last time? Failing to register workplace accidents is basically a criminal offence. So unions are saying we should not reward safer workplaces because they think so many employers are criminals who will cover up accidents. Really – at times they are just dinosaurs.
ACC Minister Nick Smith said he wanted an upcoming review of the corporation to consider bringing back “experience rating” of the 1990s, which saw employers pay levies according to the number of accidents in their workplace.
It’s called a carrot. The left want only a stick – prosecutions after the fact if an accident happens. I would much prefer getting the incentives right before an accident by having some carrot.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
When are National going to allow competition for ACC from private insurers as I was told would happen by Pansy Wong in the lead up to the election? It is one of the final reasons for my vote for National. I hope they don’t now view it like the cash cow that labour did.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Unions forget that it is in the best interests (both economic & social) of employers & employees for workplaces to be safe. Having employees off work (or worse) is not a good outcome for anyone. The Union view comes from the place that employers are ‘evil’. It follows then that employers will rip everyone off, and if it means making a buck then will cover up accidents. Sure, this may happen.
I bet also it happens under the current set of structures – not to avoid an ACC increase, but to avoid prosecution. This behaviour is all abotu the individual employer, not the structures under which they operate.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Brilliant idea!!! Will this apply to self-employed? This would be like no-claims in the insurance industry.
The left are deluded if they think employers will pay for their employees medical care just to cover up accidents.
If I were an employer, this would give me an incentive to improve saftey.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Sounds a great idea. Hopefully it will apply to the self-employed also or maybe the govmnt will open ACC up to competition ?
July 6th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I don’t understand the union’s claim – if employees or employers want compensation they need to register the accident, no? Employees know this and will expect the employer to stump up one way or the other. If the employer decides to compensate out of its own pocket and not ACC – what’s the problem?
July 6th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
DPF said: Failing to register workplace accidents is basically a criminal offence. So unions are saying we should not reward safer workplaces because they think so many employers are criminals who will cover up accidents.
It is not as simple as that. As someone who worked for many years as an ACC claimant advocate, both during the period of experience rating and that of flat-rate levies across industries, I became aware of many cases where employers wrongfully either denied there had been an injury (ie claimed it was a non-work-related degenerative condition), or acknowledged that there was an injury but denied that it caused by the employee’s work tasks or work environment. Often large employers engaged “company doctors” to provide medical evidence to back their claim. I managed to get a number of those decisions overturned after obtaining an independent medical opinion or consequent upon a review hearing.
The liability of the employer to pay the first week of weekly compensation when an injury is work-related already provides an incentive for employers to wrongly deny that it occurred at work – and some already do. The re-introduction of experience rating would provide an additional incentive for them to do this.
kaya said: When are National going to allow competition for ACC from private insurers as I was told would happen by Pansy Wong in the lead up to the election? It is one of the final reasons for my vote for National.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I suspect not soon, despite the election promis. With many insurance companies going belly up or in dire financial positions world-wide, I expect the risk of doing this at the moment would likely be too great even for a Government ideologically supportive of priivatisation.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Is it really true that the number of employers who would conceal accidents (or effectively bribe employees not to report them) is significant compared to the number who would actually consider their employees’ safety a priority?
I dare say that – especially in small business – it’s no joke to have an employee absent or semi-functional for a considerable time thanks to an avoidable workplace accident.
I’m not saying there are no dodgy employers – just that I suspect the number is less than certain unions might like to assert.
I also see no reason at all why an employer who takes time, money and effort to install suitable safety features and procedures in the workplace, and to train employees in the proper use of equipment etc., should effectively be made to subsidise a lazy employer who can’t be bothered doing these things to the same extent. That strikes me as a bit of a perverse incentive if the Government wants safe workplaces and a healthy population.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
You know how it works DPF. If one company has a very bad record then we need to suppress reporting. Like schools….
The unions are showing us why so many people think they are a waste of space. Come on – covering up accidents… are the unions saying that their members don’t have the ability to stand up to management and report accidents – if so then why have unions at all?
July 6th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Toad – thanks for that point of view:
“Sorry to disappoint you, but I suspect not soon, despite the election promis. With many insurance companies going belly up or in dire financial positions world-wide, I expect the risk of doing this at the moment would likely be too great even for a Government ideologically supportive of priivatisation.”
It makes perfect sense when you put it like that and was an aspect I hadn’t considered.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Ben – Problem is, that workplaces are avoiding filing accident claims now. My partner is providing treatment for injuries, for an Accredited Employer that wishes to pay for the first run of treatment costs themselves – without filing an ACC claim. This will cost the employer in the short term, but has the benefit of having no ACC claim to come back and haunt them in the future, for an ongoing injury. No claim, no injury, no cover – Simple. Ethical – well, that’s another story.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
It is a promising policy initiative and I hope the ACC minister succeeds in pushing it through.
Positive incentives to improve safety have to be an improvement to the current situation. It’s one way to reduce the moral hazard associated with an insurance scheme that otherwise has safe businesses subsidising unsafe.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
The CTU do a very good job in Health and Safety training as required by the Health and Safety legislation.
Having done both level 1 and level 2 training, and been on the courses with a really wide cross sections of industries and management levels you just can’t ignore the fact that everybody (Employees, unions and employers) take H&S seriously.
It costs too much money for employers to have accidents by employees, in down time, fines and retraining of replacement staff to ignore, and employees are generally not stupid enough to put life or limb on the line.
I think that rewarding the employers who do have a good track record in low or no accidents is good, as David puts it, a carrot instead of a stick.
The courts have also been increasing fines on the cowboy businesses that are just plain careless when accidents happen. Stick and Carrot will hopefully bring down our woefull death rate in workplace related deaths.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Of course no employee in NZ would consider claiming a work injury on Monday after being injured at rugby on Saturday?
July 6th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
OTGO
One size fits all – I know this because the unions told me so.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Toad, I suspect you are talking dangerous and slanderous crap again.
“With many insurance companies going belly up or in dire financial positions world-wide, ……”
Apart from AIG whose financial services division went belly up but whose other businesses are profitable and sound, would you care to name the insurance companies ‘world-wide’ which you say have gone broke during this past two or three years.
Take your time now, I wouldn’t want you to make a mistake and be sued.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I’m all for the idea.
There should be a positive incentive to opperate a safe workplace.
Carrots work better than sticks as DPF says.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
“Of course no employee in NZ would consider claiming a work injury on Monday after being injured at rugby on Saturday?”
Why would they need to? Their footy accident is already covered. Why wait for work??
July 6th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Joely Doe – it cuts both ways.
As a claimant advocate I had claimants trying to run that scam so they could get the first week compensation from their employer and not lose their sick leave. They were pretty easy to spot. Even though I don’t work as a claimant advocate these days, I encountered one just a couple of weeks ago when my wife (who is a production manager in manufacturing) sought advice from me about how to deal with a claim from one of her employees that he had a work accident.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
I might skip the chess club on Tuesday night and take the mountain bike for a night ride instead. Would be great to slam off it and have the rest of the memebers of the chess club funding my panel beating. God forbid I take any responsibility for my own risks – having paid thousands of dollars for my mountain bike and associated kit (including really cool lights for night riding) it just wouldn’t be fair to pay a premium for the risks I take – shit everyone else can cover my risk. If they don’t like it they should leave glorious socialist NZ.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I still cant get a straight answer as to why we need ACC. Afterall we dont have a State owned monopoly insurance company for house and contents insurance. Nor one of motor vehicle insurance.
So why do we need one of accident cover.
And having worked in the insurance business for a period ,human nature being what it is I saw plenty of fraud perpertrated by all stratas of our society.
I dealt with every level of income and social standing all trying and failing to rort the system
So I listen to the whinging against the insurance industry with a wry smile on my face.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Kaya
Ha ha ha, do you really think that Neville Key is going to keep that promise?
He will not break any promise he made to the low life bludgers out there but he does not give a second thought to breaking promises he made to the business sector or his traditional voters.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Toad, you really ARE a bullshitter and DPF needs to take care that this comment of yours is not defamatory. I suggest he removes it..
My enquiries of senior industry people indicate that there have been no (that is zip zilch nada) insurance companies in Australia or NZ which fit your irresponsible description and very few, if any, in the OECD.
Had you bothered to check, you could have discovered that in Australia there is a statutory reporting regime for capital reserves and the Reserve Bank in New Zealand is in process of converting our highly successful voluntary regime to one enshrined in statute.
Just what the hell do you think the Government Actuary does all day? Twiddle his thumbs?
I look forward to your prompt retraction.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
toad
Was it your inbuilt “state monopoly = good” background or was it “Unions = good” background that made you post such nonsense? Perhaps it was both becasue they are pretty much one-in-the-same here in NZ.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
This has more to do with self interest from the bloody unions. They are shit scared of becoming irrelevant. Does anyone really believe they give a fat rats arse about their members, to them this is the thin end of the wedge stuff.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Adolf, your understanding of defamation law is non-existant. An industry cannot be defamed – only a person. You are usually much more moderate than this in your posts here. I’ve actually on occasion supported you against the far right extremists who post here, because you sometimes say some sensible things. But here you go loop-de-loop!
Are you a player in the insurance industry perchance? Vested interest? That would explain the vitriol and the threats.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Toad:
I have absolutely no interest in exchanging views on defamation law, or getting into a discussion about whether AF has a vested interest in the insurance industry.
What I am interested in, though, is whether you can substantiate this claim: “With many insurance companies going belly up or in dire financial positions world-wide”. The word “many” implies that you have at least a couple of specific companies in mind. So which companies are going belly up or in dire financial positions?
July 6th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Nomestradamus said:What I am interested in, though, is whether you can substantiate this claim: “With many insurance companies going belly up or in dire financial positions world-wide”.
We will let history determine that issue. History yet to unfold. My post relates to an economicaly analysed prediction, not just to the AIG debacle. I might be wrong, but I’m betting I’m not. I suspect we’ll see many more insurance companies go belly up in the next 5 years.
This is not a recession as we have known them before. They have been inflation-based. This is asset-based, which is much more serious.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Nomestradamus, you are far too generous with this prick. Two or three would qualify as “a few.” You would need at least ten companies for the description ‘many’ to be anywhere near accurate.
Ah and smart arse Toad, in case you hadn’t noticed, a company is a corporate ‘person.’
You’s better start eating crow, pretty quick smart.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
People always assume that others have similar motives to them; this is why unions see management as being lying, cheating thieves, prepared to break any law or moral code to get advantage.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Toad:
I’ll provide just one broker report summary (and there are more):
This is a summary of a broker report written by, one assumes, someone familiar with the insurance industry.
Not exactly in a dire financial position, I would have thought.
Now if your argument was slightly different, say, that insurers should set aside greater reserves on account of climate change issues, then we could sensibly debate whether that’s appropriate. But I’m inclined to think you’re slightly more pessimistic about insurers than is warranted.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Which all just goes to show that people of limited intellectual capacity who have built themselves into legends within university student association common rooms should tread with care when they eventually find themselves blinking helplessly in the glare of the real world.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Right Adolf and Nomestradamus, now that you’ve pretty much proven that the insurance industry is not in imminent danger of imploding financially, will someone answer my original question. Why are National not opening up ACC to private competition as the indicated they would in the build up to the election? Is the process under way or not? I would really like to know. A large part of my voting decision was based on informationgiven pre election. I would love to know if I have been bullshitted to by politicians yet again.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Kaya:
See this media release:
So a case of watch this space.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Im sure the private insurance companies will lining up for the acc non earners account…
July 6th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Why the hell was this ACC scam started anyway? Why not just insist that everyone is responsible for themselves and can organise their own insurance?
July 6th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Nomestradamus – thanks for that information.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Did anyone address toad’s first point in any substantial way?