The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Workcover, for the Employer or the Employee?

Workcover, for the Employer or the Employee?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
Sorry to hear about a young 26 year old man killed on the job at the Packer project at Barangaroo (Sydney's 2nd Casino). The young man was a graduate of the Koori Job Ready Program and had only been on the job for 2 weeks.
One of the real untold stories in Australia is the number of workers killed every year 'on the job'. Many of these death could be avoided if a little bit more care had been taken.
People who knock unions should take a look at "safety" in many non-unionised work places. Many employers turn a blind eye to unsafe work practices, for them its all about getting the job done, and boosting the bottom line.
Over the years in the industrial world I have personally witnessed horrendous practices when it comes to safety. Everything from taking guards off machines to an unlicensed kid operating a bulldozer.
One of the true Australian's doing a great job is Brian Parker from CMUFE. Brian and his union do their best on saftey, but there are a lot of 'cowboys' out there.

http://www.safetyaustraliagroup.com.au/news-resources/safety-news/59-81-australian-workers-killed-at-work

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/scaffolder-who-fell-30-metre-to-his-death-not-mentored-union-20140109-30jkg.html
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 10 January 2014 5:46:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul, it is my understanding that this guy was not authorized to be at this location when the accident occurred.

So without having the facts, one can only speculate as to what happened, but I see two possible breaches, one being lack of supervision, the other being lack of respect for rules put in place to prevent such tragedies occurring, as there is a chance this guy knowingly went where he was unauthorized to be.

Let's wait and see before we lay blame.

Bec, it often amuses me how the likes of Belly can come to a conclusion without even knowing the facts. It's almost typical of unionists to find employers guilty until proven innocent.

So until anyone can lay judgement on who's to blame, they would need to know just what happened.

It's like the guy who Paul has just referred to, who can lay judgement on this case until the facts are known.

So in your husband case, was he partly to blame, if not, why would you walk away because work accidents that are no fault of the victim are pretty much an open and shut case.

Just curious, not judgmental by the way.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 10 January 2014 9:05:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are a lot of ambit claims and outright fraud in work cover. So why not give the premiums of work cover to an employees super. Thus in the building industry employees get 19% super but lose money if they make a claim. Eliminate the insurance parasites.

Workers comp send many small businesses to the wall because premiums escalate to cover the cost of a claim. Hence this adds to unemployment.Everyone needs to be made more responsible.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 10 January 2014 8:31:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Arjay, that's a great idea, because you can actually have your own personal injury insurance within your super.

Now not only would that cover work related accidents, it would also cover accidental injury sustained during out of work/recreational injuries.

Work related injuries could still be investigated and, if an employer was found to be negligent, then a claim can be made against their public liability insurance as all employers must have this nowadays.

At least this way, rouge employers would see their PL premiums go through the roof, while compliant employers would not suffer from industry based premiums, as they do now under work cover, as premiums today are a percentage of wages, determined by the industry group standard, which means compliant employers get shafted.

To me it would be a very rare win win.

Great idea Arjay!

I think we need to look toward super for many things, like maternity leave for instance.

BTW, not meaning to blow my trumpet, but in the 23 odd years I had butcher shops, (a high risk under WR), I only had two claims.

One was as a result of a guy turning up intoxicated and refusing direct orders to stop work, the other for not wearing safety gear (mesh glove) that was provided.

Yet I paid the industry standard.
Posted by rehctub, Saturday, 11 January 2014 7:20:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks rehctub. I do get a few good ideas, however the powers of oligarchy have too much control over our Govts.

I suspect a revolution is about to happen in the USA but will the population have enough nous and intelligence not to fight each other? Most of them know not who the enemy is.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 11 January 2014 7:31:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy