Rauner: You
Get Injured on the Job, It’s Gonna Be Your Problem.
From the Daily Southtown, April 13, 2015: “High on the list
of Rauner’s priorities is reducing the amount employers pay for workers’
compensation insurance...Rauner said one of the reasons for the high costs is
that Illinois compensates workers for injuries that are related in any way to
their job” (Burnett & Lester. Rauner hustles to push agenda. Daily
Southtown. 13 April 2015.)
There’s an old standard joke told at Republican cocktail parties. The short version goes something like
this: After being saved by three elderly
fisherman in a small dingy, a beautiful mermaid decides to reward their
behavior by giving each of them a miracle.
The first old man’s broken and twisted hands are suddenly made supple
and youthful. The second angler’s
darkened eyes behind inch-thick glasses become unexpectedly clear and
bright. The third old fisherman, whose
back is bent and misshapen by years of toil, yells out, “No! Don’t! I’m on disability.”
It doesn’t take too much deconstruction to arrive at the
nasty barb that sits within the middle of this little tale. Those on disability or claiming injury would
rather remain that way instead of working, and at the expense of the employer
or the insurance companies.
That’s right. Life
without a leg is good…or without an eye…or an organ here or there. “At least I don’t have to work…”
Reprise: (If you
listen to the Republicans in the Illinois General Assembly, you’ll hear a
number of terms thrown about with deadly serious looks and a somber shaking of
the head. Causation will be one popping up in the next election cycle, and when
would-be governor Bruce Rauner ever decides to discuss his fiscal and budgetary
plans for Illinois. ) Written over a
year ago.
The definition of causation
has changed in the last few years primarily as a result of legal interventions
on the state level. In short, causation refers to the legal obligations in a workplace
accident and the subsequent compensable responsibility to provide for a
worker’s recovery or permanent disability.
In other words, $%@& happens, and if it happens on the
job, the employer should assist the injured worker. It’s not a new idea, and, in fact, for as
long as $%@& has happened, there has been some kind of workers
compensation, believe it or not.
Records of workers compensation can be traced all the way
back into the Old Testament, when warriors (generally a pretty common form of
employment in those days) were reimbursed for loss of limb or appendage. In some cases, rewards were based even upon
the inches lost.
 |
| Captain Queeg? |
Quite probably the form of workers compensation most closely
resembling our current form of insured workers reimbursement can be found in
the high seas adventures of the pirates of the wind-tossed Caribbean.
Pirates, before entering into an expected bloody and
dangerous fray, often pooled their swag before the battle; and the money would
be used to pay out for loss of limbs or other parts of a daring swashbuckler –
especially parts that would be necessary in future pillaging and plundering.
In fact, the loss of a right (or dominant) arm was
reimbursed at a higher level than the left (or less dominant) arm. Eyes were also insured, especially that last
one. Blind pirates were given monetary
amounts that acted as a small sinecure for the rest of their lives. Captains also added large amounts of promised
booty to these “insurance” pools, for they knew that a brigand was more likely
to fight wildly and recklessly if he knew he was covered for losses to his
person. Pirates valued their work forces
and sufficiently rewarded sacrifice.
And you expected a similarity to politicians? Especially the Governor?
In the U.S., workers compensation laws are determined by
each state, although there exist general guidelines on the federal level. Fifty states each have a different set of
legal requirements for workers compensation, and you can bet that “right to work” states have far different
schedules for benefits than other states. With severely limited revenues since 2008,
many state legislatures have been looking frantically for ways to increase
revenues; and in many cases, increasing by cutting costs on the backs of those
who needed or required state assistance in the years leading up to the Great
Recession.
And now, in the name of creating a business climate that
will draw fiscal recovery from his neighboring states, Rauner is calling for a
series of diminishments in compensation for injured workers that would make
these worthless “insiders” work through their injuries regardless of what they
might be.
Some time ago, in an effort to alleviate costs of doing
business for companies in a terrible economy, states like Illinois provided
loopholes for taxes and other monetary perks; but this slippery slope required
more than just tax breaks. Enter
insurance cost reductions stage right.
When it came to determinations of causation in workers’ compensation claims, for example, states like
Kansas, which had initially a threshold level that stated if the job activities
contributed “one iota…” it was deemed compensable…have now changed to the
terminology of “must be…the prevailing factor in injury.” Most states hold to the threshold for
compensation if “more probably than not” the injury was workplace related( http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/aug11/youraaos5.asp)
.
Bruce Rauner, like several of the previous GOP gubernatorial
candidates, has declared his intention to bring a better business environment
to Illinois by (1) getting rid of the Quinn tax hike, (2) enacting tort reform and limiting lawsuit parameters,
and (3) by reforming the workers compensation laws to make Illinois more
competitive with other states. In fact,
Rauner today declared that his turnaround agenda also would require the worker
to prove that the workplace was more than 50% responsible for the harm.
“Reform,” for those of us who may have had pensions is politic for “cut.” Herein Rauner echoes what we can read in the
Illinois GOP webpages. According to the
Illinois GOP, the state still lacks the clear standards of causation, and because
of this Illinois employers pay more than other states for workers compensation. Senator Dale Righter (R-Matoon), a Rauner
devotee who advises often on cutting services to Illinois citizens, worries
that we have lost our competitive edge over other states because we provide too
much for injured workers.
Righter says, “Causation does not negatively impact workers
who are hurt on the job, it simply protects employers from those who try to
take advantage of the system. This will
save on workers’ compensation insurance rates and help to create much needed
jobs in Illinois.”
Will it? A very
recent study by Ralph Martire of the Center for Budget and Tax Accountability
does not suggest the climate will improve by limiting the opportunities for
those injured in the workplace to receive compensation (http://origin.library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1100380756398-186/2014.04.07_Good+For+Business_CTBA_FINAL.pdf).
Senator Righter would disagree with those last words, probably
vehemently. But many Republican bills
now sitting in assignment offer changes that would make some serious
alterations to the amounts, manners, and thresholds applied to workers’
compensation. A quick read of the bills
indicates a number of changes that have little to do with identifying those who
might “take advantage of the employer.”
Truly, after the review one might be more inclined to think
of these bills as a creative but rather unscrupulous methodology to cutting of
charges borne by not so much small business employers but also more so insurance
companies too large to fail.
NOTE:
Rauner and Illinois GOP legislators want the threshold for compensation
revised to “major contributing cause,” signifying that the employee must prove
that more than ½ the injury must have been created by incident(s) in the
workplace.
If, like many workers in this economy, you happen to find
yourself working part time in multiple jobs; and you are severely injured on
one job, your respondent (responsible) employer need not pay you anymore for
the money you will lose at the other job(s).
Example: I lose a disc in my back
working at the seed store carrying bags.
I can no longer work part time at the gardener store where I had another
part time job, and I can no longer work at the UPS dock where I had a part time
job unloading trucks. I receive the
compensation for part time at the seed shop…and am likely terminated at my
other two jobs.
If I work for a company that demands I travel from one place
to another, the GOP now proposes that am covered for any accident occurring
while I am in the performance of my job, but if I am injured on the way to a
lunch or any other destination which could be construed as “out of specific job
description” I am denied compensation.
They use the phrase “actively engaged in the duties of employment…”
If my workplace injury is a serious “aggravation” of a
previous condition (let’s say a heavy object falls upon my hand which is
already a bit arthritic), I can only be compensated for the “aggravation” until
determined that it is just my arthritis acting up.
And, if you were to suddenly to become ill or diseased
spontaneously, but there was no direct link to your duties of employment, it
would be deemed idiopathic and no compensation could be awarded. Better not be headed toward diabetes or
working in an area where chemicals are pooling under your boots.
 |
| "They're all insiders, I tell ya" |
Oh, and remember that value differential for right and left
arms? Well, there are value differentials
between shoulders (think rotator cuff injury) and arms; and hips (think
dysplasia) and legs; BUT the proposed laws would change terminologies to
include shoulder as arm, and hip as leg. That will reduce payouts by insurance
companies and might decrease costs for insurance payments for small businesses
sometime in the next millennia.
One of the reasons we went to workers/compensation in the United
States in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s was because it was one way to
prevent negligence suits by workers against major companies, taking those
companies to court and being awarded major settlements. Think about it.
Workers compensation is an agreement that I won’t sue you if
you promise to take care of me while I work for you – even as I give you my
physical strength and loyalty over my
work life.
We are back to rewarding sacrifice.
Springfield doesn’t do that…never has.
And with Rauner as governor, sacrifice is forced on those
who can’t afford anymore. But they’re insiders,
and they stand in the way of the reforms Rauner would implement to advance the ideal
climate for the corporations.
