ACC Experience Rating
July 15th, 2010 at 1:00 pm by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
Employers are being offered a carrot and stick to improve workplace safety under a Government scheme which gives discounts and penalties of up to 50 per cent on their ACC levies.
But the Government acknowledged Opposition concerns that the proposal carries the risk of bosses pressuring workers not to report injuries.
ACC Minister Nick Smith yesterday said the Government planned to apply “experience rating” – essentially a no- or low-claims discount on employers’ ACC levies – from April next year.
On the other side of the ledger, employers with poor safety records will pay higher levies.
The two-tier system will see larger employers receive up to a 50 per cent discount or a 50 per cent penalty according to their record over the preceding three years. Smaller employers including farmers will receive a 10 per cent discount or a 10 per cent increase on their levies depending on their record of employee injuries.
Excellent. Rewarding safe workplaces and penalising unsafe workplaces makes sense. Also on a personal front, will be nice to have a reduction in levies considering in six years of operations, we’ve not had one workplace accident or claim.
The proposal was welcomed by Business NZ and Federated Farmers. However, while Labour’s ACC spokesman, David Parker, said it seemed appropriate to reward employers who acted to prevent workplace accidents, some might not report accidents in order to protect their discounted levies.
“It is also a possibility that some employers will encourage employees hurt in workplace accidents to report their injuries as being non-workplace.”
Greens leader Russel Norman said it would not work for the same reasons.
Smith acknowledged those concerns but did not believe they were valid.
” I accept you might be able to fudge whether the sprained ankle was at work or tennis, it’s a lot more difficult to fudge where there was a serious accident.”
Norman is speaking nonsense. This is not some new thing – it has been used extensively in the past, and worked very well. The left always try to promote the scenario of the evil employer who will break the law and lie and cover up to save a few hundred dollars here and there – and then use that as the rationale for a lowest common denominator approach that all employers must be punished.
There are some bad employers out there. Yes. But don’t penalise all employers for a few. To 98% of employers, they would never not report an accident, just because it may slightly affect a future premium,
And as Nick Smith pointed out, a sprained ankle is not going to change your premium much – it will be the serious injuries that really affects levies or premiums, and they can’t be hidden away.
Tags: ACC
July 15th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Great post, DPF. I would have thought the changes were in the interests of employees being represented by the unions that are so vocal about them. If accidents go down because employers are being encouraged more then that’s all well and good for employees. If employers start under-reporting accidents then that just gives more power to employees deciding whether or not to blow the whistle. Can anyone explain how employees lose from the changes?
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Excellent idea that deserves to proceed.
Comrade Helen Kelly, CTU president, when interviewed this morning by Larry Williams expressed her opposition to the idea. The unionists do not want any competition in the marketplace. All power to the state is their motto.
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
“Excellent. Rewarding safe workplaces and penalising unsafe workplaces makes sense. Also on a personal front, will be nice to have a reduction in levies considering in six years of operations, we’ve not had one workplace accident or claim.”
I don’t suppose you’ve felled many trees or demolished any skyscrapers at Curia recently.
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Possibly, Manolo, possibly. Does it look to you like they’re doing something in the interests of the union, not in the interests of the union’s members? It looks awfully like that to me. Man, it’s a good thing union membership isn’t compulsory (except of course for students), eh?
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Does it look to you like they’re doing something in the interests of the union,
How is opposing this measure in the interests of this union?
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Stephen, Manolo suggested that unions resist competition and want the state to have all power and I agree with him. Who better to deal with the big monolith of a national government that a well-organised union?
If power is widely spread and things become more competitive, less power lies with the union, it seems. That suggests unions want more power in the hands of the State. State-controlled ACC is therefore preferable for them, but not necessarily for their members.
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Evidence overseas is equivocal re the impact of experience rating on reducing workplace accidents. But it certainly provides an incentive for an employer to argue that an injury to an employee is not work-related.
And remember that if the injury is a gradual process, disease, or infection, the employee has no ACC cover at all unless the injury can be shown to be caused by there work. Thay can effectively be hidden away, and some employers will attempt to do so.
DPF, I accept your assertion that most empployers won’t behave in this manner, but what would you do to protect employees from the minority who will?
[DPF: OSH and the ERA. They can complain to either OSH or the ERA if their employer is acting unsafely or not reporting accidents. They can even do so anonymously to OSH]
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
“remember that if the injury is a gradual process, disease, or infection” then it is not an accident
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Toad, why do we need to “protect” employees from corrupt employers? Won’t employees be able to protect themselves by threatening to blow the whistle?
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Newsflash from Labour/Green spokespersons on ACC.
We propose that every work place have an Accident Review Supervisor and Examiner.
The Accident Review Supervisor and Examiner will ensure that all work place accidents are documented and recorded.
This is the only way to ensure that employers will not game the system and will protect employees.
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
@mjwilknz
We might not if they are unionised, but the majorioty of employees are not unionised, and are likely to be fearful that threatening to blow the whistle will cost them their jobs.
@RightNow That is the whole point of my comment – the employer argues it has nothing to do with work, so the employee doesn’t get cover, and has to go through the protracted review and appeal process before he or she gets any rehabilitation or compensation.
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
And on cue comes Toad with the usual waffle. I am sick to death of your condecending attitude to “workers” being expolited by nasty empolyers. The last time we had anything link competition with ACC I was employed by NZTS in a non-skilled role, got a back injury and the insurer did everything they could to get me back to work…when I was able not when the boss wanted me back. Since ACC is back this does not happen, last person I knew of who had a back injury is now on ACC and has been for years.
And another thing that really bothers me about you and your ilk, when was the last time you actually spoke to a worker?? Will use NZTS again as most of the factory staff Samoan and know their workplace rights better than most, and their responsibilities. I really do think these “workers” of whom you speak just exist in your mind. Most low/non skilled workers I know do know their rights and would not let an employer bully them at all.
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Now can we please have experience ratings for individuals??? I’m sick and tired of being forced to pay full-rate for an ACC system that I have never used. I can appreciate it’s still valuable for me to have it there, because you never know when you might have a bad accident and have a need for it. But in the meantime a no claims bonus wouldn’t go amiss.
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Toad, if employees are already so fearful, what’s to stop one of them having a quiet word to a reporter to say, look what this guy’s doing to our health and safety. Won’t knowing that their employees can do that mean employers need to start making changes, need to start looking after their employees better? The risk of getting fired doesn’t come in to anonymous comments to a reporter, does it?
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Isn’t it hard enough firing someone already, let alone doint it on fall pretenses??
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Virtualmark, I’m sure a no claims bonus would encourage you to keep things safer for your employees, too. Maybe after ACC’s privatised we can expect that sort of thing. That is, just as long as the unions don’t manage to get in the way of privatisation trying to keep their cushie jobs, whoops I mean protect employees.
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Privatisation and competition would achieve the desired result without the Government having to do anything .
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Great move!
Bring back experience rating.
Fair for everyone.
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Nick Smith, when will you reply to my emails instead of passing them to (duck for cover) Pansy Wong?
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Here’s yet another problem with ACC. It is
a) broke
b) horribly over priced
c) still run like a welfare scheme where everyone thinks they’re entitled
d) denying apparently legitimate claims on the word of an ACC-selected doctor you have to see at the timethey say on pain of your income compensation being stopped and who is known to to think everything is degenerative here
e) needlessly and at tremendous expense draws a distinction between degenerative and accidental, and workplace and leisure
…and the unions are worried one or two employers might underreport claims.
Yeah. That’s the problem.
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
We might not if they are unionised, but the majorioty of employees are not unionised, and are likely to be fearful that threatening to blow the whistle will cost them their jobs.
Or they might not.
Really – is NZ supposed to stay in hock for $billions under this corrupt, mismanaged, out of control behemoth on such baseless theories?
Vote:July 15th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
[DPF: OSH and the ERA. They can complain to either OSH or the ERA if their employer is acting unsafely or not reporting accidents. They can even do so anonymously to OSH]
Christ Toad – this looks you being owned. Does the Left have arguments that can’t be destroyed in a single line?
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 12:03 am
Norman is speaking nonsense. This is not some new thing
Yep!
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 8:37 am
All big business will do is shift their ACC liability to a separate company – if the ACC levys get too high then they’ll dump that company and start a new one with a clean slate. The good company’s will still pay less than o.k. company’s but, with bad company’s bailing, increased costs will fall on both the former.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Why do “larger” companies get a 50% reduction when “smaller” companies only get 10% reduction? Who defines a “big” and “small” company?
Vote:Also I suggest that many companies don’t report accidents. It’s not because they are trying to hide anything, it’s because the ACC make it too difficult, and who want’s to deal with the government when you don’t have to. If there’s an ACC claim, by all means make a claim. I don’t see anyone reporting smaller incidents that ACC won’t pay out for anyway.
July 16th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Interesting viewpoint that says: Okay we all know there are rotten employers out there, but we shouldn’t do anything to stop them.
You don’t legislate for the good employers, you do it for the bad ones.
DPF’s argument is the equivalent of saying you shouldn’t have a law against murder because most people aren’t murderers.
Vote: