Is it to pay off some annoying injured worker to make them go away?
Is it to rehabilitate /retrain the injured for a meaningful working life?
To make rich lawyers, specialists etc to get richer?Between $2-3500 each.
In a recent case e 23 yr who was a structural draftsman (3yr tertiary course) was injured at work. He may not be able to work again in an office.
It took three years to finalize the case.
40% of his payout went to Drs. 50% of the balance to lawyers he was left with >$10k to compensate him for his lost career… his HECs is three times that.
All he wanted was to be able to work at a reasonable job.
Everytime he applies for a job now he is obliged to mention the case and EVERY (despite interviews and being qualified.) job find a reason not to hire...most don't even tell him.If he mentions his WC on the phone they terminate the conversation there!
There has to be a better way. Any suggestions? Comments?

Dear examinator,

I watched ABC's "Q and A," programme last night
where this topic was raised. And the MP for
'disabilities,' made it quite clear that this is
a problem area. If any mention is made of your
being a WC case - ( or ever having been) you're not
going to be granted an interview for any job.

Where the answer to this problem lies, I'm not sure.
Re-educating our society? Putting certain anti-discrimination
laws in place? Will any of it work in reality?
"You can lead a horse to water..."

As we saw on the programme - glass ceilings do still
exist for women. Equal pay for equal work is not a reality.
People are still judged by appearances. And an employer
still decides who they will or will not hire - not matter
how many laws are put in place.

Foxy,
I watched that and of course it's right.
What bothered me was all the stress he and his family had to endure and for what? Everybody got rich off him. All he'll get is about $10k in leu of a life. I didn't mention that he has other problems that means that his best shot at a reasonable life(in our terms) was structural drafting now its DSB at 26? getting married children etc are now unlikely. I immagine how he will go meeting women.
"Hi what do you do?"
"DSP"
"oh"
He's frightened of being a social security sponge and potentially only able to attract bogans. His words.
What do you say that's meaningful? Nondirective is fine but it runs thin and he's at the thinest edge. His parents are worried.
But that's a side issue
In my mind the issue is that the system has failed him. Healthy rich specialists benefited but did he. WC would have spent the same ...ergo what a waste of money my calc is he could have trippled his take paid off Hecs if there was a better system than the one that exists.

PS The more I see of Chris Pyne the less convincing he appear to me terms like... well... $3 bills come to mind lots of them. His contribution to the discussion was pathetic. All the rest contributed more. I liked the ethicist and even the labor man said useful things.

examinator,

Do you (or Foxy, or anybody, for that matter) have a link for the transcript of that Q&A program?

This is a topic I find extremely interesting, but I'd like to be better informed before I venture an opinion.

I'm also intrigued by the observations in the postscript of your second post. I didn't see the program. Was it Chris Pyne's actual words, or his body language, that caused you to form your view? I ask because he chaired a Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee back in 2000, from memory. I think it was the Electoral Matters committee, and they were inquiring into the integrity of the electoral roll.

examinator,

You raise good points - this particular issue is fertile ground for any humanist.

As usual, the system extracts more than its fair share out of the victim. Why go and see doctors, specialists, etc if they do nothing for you? Society has this thing about referring onesself to authority as though just by seeing them all will magically be fixed. Utter garbage!

I also saw Q&A last night and couldn't agree more about Pyne - I think I called him a political chihuahua in an OLO thread once because of the constant stream of sharp yapping that comes out of his mouth. I thought all he did last night was hide behind Liberal cant. I wasn't that impressed with Bill Shorten either although I can see the real difficulty the Government has in changing the culture of society which is the real obstruction to solving the problems that you raise.

Even though the two (and a half) women on the panel were very sympathetic to the issue and did raise some good points, they are very much part of the layer of society that indirectly does well out of keeping others down. What I would like to see more of is these people putting some weight and actions behind their words. In this case I'm talking about Shorten who, when put on the spot by a woman in the audience saying that despite certain assurances from him the bureaucracy still didn't come through with a workable solution to her son's disability, kept rabbiting on with Labor ideas, values and promises. This is the easy bit and often all pollies are good for.

It's time for the political rabbits to disappear back into their hats and allow the real problem-solvers to come to the fore.

RobP

I saw Q&A last night also - terrific TV. I agree that Shorten was put on the spot by that woman in the audience, however I think he came out looking far better than Pyne who offered nothing more than rhetoric.

As a past compensation claimant myself, I never mention that I have received a claim. I would prefer to be honest, however, also prefer to have a job.

What is the point of worker's compensation? I think it is a highly sophisticated experiment developed by laboratory rats to see how many hoops a hapless employee can jump through before collapsing in a worse state than when they were originally injured. Pure evil.