Rehctub, ajay,
Both you gentlemen are arguing on emotional grounds, neither is offering facts merely hearsay and personal prejudices. At least Belly has got facts/history on his side.
What both of you don’t seem to understand is that it is the system that is dysfunctional and often driven by money not the welfare of the injured as for compensation for the genuine… not where I’m sitting.

Many businesses aren’t all that keen to abide by the letter of the law as it affects their bottom line.
I remember a boss I had retitling (blatant lie) his drivers job id to pay a lower premium . When one was hurt the boss did everything including threats and bribes to avoid responsibility because if WC had been involved he would have been fined heavily. His lawyers advised him to pay off the employee with a lump less than the fine and the increase in premiums. After two more injuries it was a union that bought him to book .

Another boss refused to spend $1700 on a safety cage for workers up on a reach truck. Until I as their manager threatened to involve OH&S. My boss threatened to sack me for gross disloyalty however a week after we installed the safety cage a nasty accident was avoided because of that cage. The board congratulated my boss for his foresight.

At 18 I was sent up a pile of wheels they collapsed, I was sent home when I returned I was sacked to avoid WC.

Major Corporations self insure as they can control it easier. Given the number of premiums lost to the system WC has too small a base from which to recoup and as such small businesses cop the bill. The losses of premiums far FAR FAR out weigh dud claims…..fact.

In short there are as many dubious bosses as there are dud claims. Sure the system would be better if there were no dud claims, or dud bosses and ALL businesses had to belong to the same scheme.

examinator I agree with much of what you say in that there are definately more legit WC claims than there are crooked ones.

I also agree that there are many crook employers out there as well.

I do however dispute your claim that my case is based on emotion, rather than fact.

Fact. WC is wholely funded by employers. Compo cheats have made it the failed system that it is today.

Fact. My WC premium in 1989 was approx .5% of my staff wages. Today it is almost 5% of my staff wages. Almost a 1000% increase, do you think this is fair?

As an employer, who has always paid my compo for 20 years, including my 200% loading when it was proven I was not in the wrong, I feel I have every right to have my say when it comes to WC.

Once again, my views are not emmotional, they are based on fact.

Belly
I say again and again, WC WAS NEVER established as an 'income replacement'. Income protection insurance is available, for most workers and it is tax deductable. This is an income replacement scheem.

How can you possiblly expect a system that is not contributed to by workers to provide for workers full financial needs if they are injured and not able to work.

Of cause if there is negligence involved by the employer, then this is a whole different case.

At the risk of continually reapeating myself, again and again, it is a 'safety net' system that would be in far better shape if not for the selected few who ripped it off over the years.

I would also remind you that the billions and trillions you speak of has nothing to do with WC.

Finnaly, if I were you belly I would be more focussed on the huge job losses your unionist are about to create with Kruds new IR laws. WC won't matter to them hey!

Dear rehctub,

'Workchoices' helped contribute to the Liberal
Party's losing the last election.
You may not like the 'new industrial relations laws,'
as you put it - but most people do support
the right of all workers to protect their livelihoods.

I'm sure that you'll agree that
the only way in which our
country can work properly is for management and
labour to co-operate with one another. We're in
critical times here in Australia - and what we don't
need is constant attacks on employees by employers.
That does little for industrial relations - and long
term planning

Thanks for the poem Foxy it brightened my day.
To the contrary rechtub WC is to pay a worker unable to work again, it is also to pay people like you for temporary lost work.
The alternative is Social Security, we all pay bare less than living wage.
Your story's of fraud are true, but yesterdays sins.
Far more are dead, crippled or forever and ever marginalized , because one day their hopes and plans died.
I have NEVER met such a person who had one wish, not money but a return to life before that event.
In construction top up insurance is provided by the best firms.
It tops up wages lost if on long term compo, it gives extra benefits if unable to return to work.
Workers comp costs have risen, so have prices and fees charged by those who must pay for it.
That is the nature of business.
A side issue can never be ignored, the community expects injured workers to be insured, expects that they the community and the injured do not pay the costs of workplace injury.
right now sadly, some bosses are insuring construction workers as security guards, see it both costs less[less risk] and pays far less if injury happens.

In lunch sheds or offices all around Australia sit bored injured workers .
Arms or legs in plaster some in real pain, but the boss bought them back to sit and wait, it cuts workers comp claims costs and increases.
Some are far worse, small firms take paper work home to bed ridden workers , for the same reasons.
A young man informed his boss he was unable to work with wet concrete, he was going to burn badly, a fitter he was told do your job.
Horrific burns needing skin grafts followed.
In dreadful pain he sat in his doctors rooms, site safety official with him.
Doctor said you will need a lot of time away from work.
Site safety official took over the interview, no! we have work for him!
NO he did not! that young bloke had skin grafts is still unable to return but gets weekly insulting visits from guess who?
fraud and crimes against fairness and equity continue in workers comp.
Slip from workers bar at the club to the bosses end of the bar, strange workers are not one bit different than bosses as they enjoy a beer while watching the sport.
Find me any group, sport social, religious, that has not got good bad and ugly amung its members.
Unionist are human, I am too old to rat, never too old for change or fairness but too old to forget workers are human too.

Dear foxy, I have no argument with what you say, however, many wages paid today are the result of extreem supply V demand deficates in yesterdays workplaces.

By all means protect workers rights, but not the unrealistic wages that have been paid in recent years. Even Belly has admited this.

Supply V demand must work both ways to be fair. If you don't allow this you are risking many jobs. Wait and see.

Belly
To the contrary rechtub WC is to pay a worker unable to work again, it is also to pay people like you for temporary lost work.
Belly, this will go tit for tat for ever as we simply don't agree on many things.

Do you agree that WC is a basic cover and does not include any loading, overtime, bonnuses etc?

The alternative is Social Security, we all pay bare less than living wage.
So why don't workers have thier own 'top up' insurance if they feel they are under insured?

Your story's of fraud are true, but yesterdays sins.
Yes, but they are also part of the cause of todays problems.

In construction top up insurance is provided by the best firms.
It tops up wages lost if on long term compo, it gives extra benefits if unable to return to work.
AND IT IS EXACTLY MY POINT, 'top up' as WC is a 'safety net.

some bosses are insuring construction workers as security guards,
Yes I understand this and I don't support it, but Isn't it a shame that bosses have to employ security guards, often because workers theft is so high.

Workers comp costs have risen, so have prices and fees charged by those who must pay for it.
Yes, but only for the employers, workers have never paid one red cent for WC. A free system wrecked by yesterdays fraudsters, as you put it.

Your 'fitter' has my full sympathy. His boss should be finned, simple as that.

I would rather pay 5% on top workers wage and let them insure themselves. How much cover would this give them I wonder. Anyone?