I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night...

[ecouch]

This is why the modern right wing must be defeated.

https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-corporate-americas-plan-to-ditch-workers-comp

Mitch and his cronies destruction of labor has to be stopped for the safety of the nation.

 

[kescwi]

This is why the modern right wing must be defeated.

https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-corporate-americas-plan-to-ditch-workers-comp

Mitch and his cronies destruction of labor has to be stopped for the safety of the nation.

I'll come back and read this but I did click the headline. I'm consevative at heart, in the true sense of the word not the new definition. My wife and I have employed people since both of us started businesses in our early twenties, those employees paid our bills, gave us the life we have. Both of us make certain, at the least, our employees are covered by comp and we do not 1099 unless the employee demands it, but then we do make certain, and tell them, and monitor hours worked,that they will not be full time employees but rather outside labor because we want our employees covered by unemployment insurance if we F'up.

This attack on the working poor, those DocRon so eloquently championed before he left, should be viewed as the canary in the coal mine. Once they go where does the fallacy of exponential growth need to look to drive down labor costs? Let me give you (not you personally OP) a hint, your salary and benefits.

 

[qazplm]

"U.S. Foods, the country’s second largest food distributor, also doesn’t cover any sickness or disease “regardless of how contracted,” potentially allowing it to dodge work-related conditions such as heat stroke, chemical exposures or even cancer."

So US Foods could set up a situation where their workers get sick from their business practices, yet there is nothing their workers can do about it except drain their own personal funds to pay for the resulting illness.

No doubt there will be folks on here defending this BS.

 

[kescwi]

This is why the modern right wing must be defeated.

https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-corporate-americas-plan-to-ditch-workers-comp

Mitch and his cronies destruction of labor has to be stopped for the safety of the nation.

Finally got around to reading the article, ugh.

I won't argue that workers comp, like many things in the new economy, needs updating but this seems to be a step back. It seems pretty clear the ultimate goal is to let employers determine if they will pay a claim or not. I see in the future, in construction, many small claims being paid out so the company keeps up the appearance of covering employees but will work hard to limit the larger claims that are why WC is there.

One part of the article sounded eerily similar to what I heard from South Carolina when I called to complain about the way the insurer of a guy who bounced me off the hood of his car while I was on my morning walk was handling the claim. I was told in SC, and I would guess most other states, the insurance company was not obligated to pay claims, just obligated to try and settle them. I did ask why it was then that the state forced me to pay my premium instead of just letting me try?

To me it's just another example of how far to one side power has shifted. They don't even really try to spin this crap anymore, they just say it will be better for employees and know that the majority of people will never hear about the change and if they do it will simply be turned into a political issue and they will automatically get around 50% support.

Finally, i have had employees make claims in SC, I can say that the part of the article where they say they are going above what WC provides in this state smells funny if that 75% is in fact taxed as the article states earlier. The way it has worked in my experience is that the employee gets the equivalent, in our case they are hourly so their weekly pay is averaged out, of net pay each week, up to 66% of gross, I don't think they can get more then their average net pay, but haven't come across a situation where it could happen so I'm not sure. So taxed, that 75% could prove to be significantly less for the employee.

 

[qazplm]

Finally got around to reading the article, ugh.

I won't argue that workers comp, like many things in the new economy, needs updating but this seems to be a step back. It seems pretty clear the ultimate goal is to let employers determine if they will pay a claim or not. I see in the future, in construction, many small claims being paid out so the company keeps up the appearance of covering employees but will work hard to limit the larger claims that are why WC is there.

One part of the article sounded eerily similar to what I heard from South Carolina when I called to complain about the way the insurer of a guy who bounced me off the hood of his car while I was on my morning walk was handling the claim. I was told in SC, and I would guess most other states, the insurance company was not obligated to pay claims, just obligated to try and settle them. I did ask why it was then that the state forced me to pay my premium instead of just letting me try?

To me it's just another example of how far to one side power has shifted. They don't even really try to spin this crap anymore, they just say it will be better for employees and know that the majority of people will never hear about the change and if they do it will simply be turned into a political issue and they will automatically get around 50% support.

Finally, i have had employees make claims in SC, I can say that the part of the article where they say they are going above what WC provides in this state smells funny if that 75% is in fact taxed as the article states earlier. The way it has worked in my experience is that the employee gets the equivalent, in our case they are hourly so their weekly pay is averaged out, of net pay each week, up to 66% of gross, I don't think they can get more then their average net pay, but haven't come across a situation where it could happen so I'm not sure. So taxed, that 75% could prove to be significantly less for the employee.

Here's my problem with all of this:

The same folks who are so big on laissez-faire capitalism are against unions. In true laissez-faire capitalism, employees would form unions to negotiate with employers on a roughly equal basis. But in the capitalism we have now, employers have all the power, employees have none, and the only real basis for power they have, unions, are under constant attack by the party who continually proposes getting rid of any and all regulations of business.

If you want laissez-faire capitalism, at least be consistent about it on both sides.

 

[kescwi]

Here's my problem with all of this:

The same folks who are so big on laissez-faire capitalism are against unions. In true laissez-faire capitalism, employees would form unions to negotiate with employers on a roughly equal basis. But in the capitalism we have now, employers have all the power, employees have none, and the only real basis for power they have, unions, are under constant attack by the party who continually proposes getting rid of any and all regulations of business.

If you want laissez-faire capitalism, at least be consistent about it on both sides.

Yep, corporation are to capital what unions are to labor. Both bring people with shared interests and goals together into an organized group. I'd also add, if competition leads to innovation and efficiency then you would think encouraging fair competition between labor and capital would be championed. Obviously laissez-faire, free markets, deregulation... are just words used to hide the true political motivations of the past 40 years or so, the destruction of labor and the plundering of middle class wealth.

Edit to add- I think union leadership is also partially to blame for the demise of labor. They have failed to grasp the dramatic economic shift that was taking place as they were going under. They didn't/don't see who/what they should be fighting, the finacialization of the economy. It's too far gone now, but unions could actually be beneficial today in a different form where they act as a pool of skilled labor that could work for multiple small companies at the same time, similar to how construction unions work effectively for commercial contractors who stay small and use unions as basically temp agencies.

 

[Purdue97]

Yep, corporation are to capital what unions are to labor. Both bring people with shared interests and goals together into an organized group. I'd also add, if competition leads to innovation and efficiency then you would think encouraging fair competition between labor and capital would be championed. Obviously laissez-faire, free markets, deregulation... are just words used to hide the true political motivations of the past 40 years or so, the destruction of labor and the plundering of middle class wealth.

Edit to add- I think union leadership is also partially to blame for the demise of labor. They have failed to grasp the dramatic economic shift that was taking place as they were going under. They didn't/don't see who/what they should be fighting, the finacialization of the economy. It's too far gone now, but unions could actually be beneficial today in a different form where they act as a pool of skilled labor that could work for multiple small companies at the same time, similar to how construction unions work effectively for commercial contractors who stay small and use unions as basically temp agencies.

From the article

"Yet Minick’s push has united an unlikely set of allies — unions, trial lawyers and insurance companies. They say his idea isn’t progress, but a return to the Industrial Age before workers’ comp, when workers and their families had to sue their employers or bear the costs of on-the-job injuries themselves."

I can see why trial lawyers and insurance companies like this. But why would a union? I worked at UPS a long time ago, and at that time they were all about WC-at least at that time.

 

[ecouch]

From the article

"Yet Minick’s push has united an unlikely set of allies — unions, trial lawyers and insurance companies. They say his idea isn’t progress, but a return to the Industrial Age before workers’ comp, when workers and their families had to sue their employers or bear the costs of on-the-job injuries themselves."

I can see why trial lawyers and insurance companies like this. But why would a union? I worked at UPS a long time ago, and at that time they were all about WC-at least at that time.

It united folks who don't like it. It is regressive. Labor, lawyers, and insurance do not like the reduction of benefits.

Read the essay.