Senate Poverty Report includes DW's/Comp/Added & Revised

[Marie]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/2/parlbus/comm ... ec09-e.pdf

It is a 290 page document, so I will just post the portions I believe apply to us and then comment. When one plows thru the document you will see the Recommendations following the problem. Recommendation 50 makes it a national issue to my mind. Because it's going to take some time to find out if it's possible for this to be rubber-stamped or if it must go thru parliament debate, then back to Committee. I'll start with page 138 of the pdf (not to be confused with the numbers on the document pages, which are different)

Disability income ―system‖ Page 138 of pdf
Complexity
The disability income security policies in Canada, as noted above, have been described as a ―dual benefit system [which] combines programs based on contributory insurance for labour force participants with means-tested disability benefits for those not qualifying for income protection insurance arising from labour market participation.‖358 Each source of income protection applies different eligibility criteria and provides different benefits. There is some difference in what is available for short-term leave from work and a longer term disability. Most injured workers begin with the provincial Workers‘ Compensation Board (WCB). The coverage of provincial labour forces by the WCB ranges from approximately 70% in Ontario to 95% in Quebec.359
The Committee heard that the current definitions in use in the workers‘ compensation programs across provinces and territories focuses on the impairment rather than on social barriers that can be removed to make participation possible despite the impairment.360 The Committee also heard that the provincial Workers‘ Compensation programs are inconsistent across provinces, and are limiting eligibility and the level of benefits for people with work-related injuries, off-loading to other assistance programs:
We have to look at the role of the Workers' Compensation Boards across Canada and its responsibility to Canada's working families in dealing with disability, expediting medical diagnosis and treatment while maintaining a necessary income.
(Darrell Powell, National Advocate – Mental Health and Disability for Disabled Workers, Evidence, Subcommittee on Cities, 2nd Session, 40th Parliament, 18 June 2009)

Recommendation 50 - page 139 of pdf
The Committee recommends that the federal government, at the next meeting of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers of Labour, take a leadership role in encouraging a harmonization of provincial and territorial workers’ compensation programs.

I don't believe Senator Eggleton meant for all the WCB's to harmonize the worst aspects that all WCB's share.

Of course this entire report could get shelved to gather dust, but the fact there are 2 Conservative Senators who served on this committee may be helpful. They are taking this on the road for support. People in our communities across the country have wanted a national issue, well we got it. And we now know the demon we're fighting, which has long been in the works by many pro-harmonization lobbyists on behalf of the wcb's. Obviously we need to gather much more information, but at least the fight is defined.

[Marie]

To those who have PM'd me and e-mailed me regarding the Optics of DP's quote in the report and Recommendation 50 that immediately follows:
NO, there is no connection, DP most definitely did not/would not make that recommendation under any circ's at this time. In fact what the Intent is remains a mystery.

I could make a guess though. If you look at the report's witness list you will notice no AWCBC or WCB honchos are on it, yet we know very well that the researchers on it push the WCB agenda. It almost looks like a behind-the-scenes wcb generated solution to the huge debt problem. The unfunded liability in Ontario is actually in debt, why else would the provincial government of Ontario make interest-free loan(s) to the WSIB? That comes from the Ontario Auditor General's report on the UL

The province had to step in and provide the PBGF (Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund) with the interest-free loans because the PBGF’s potential liabilities far exceeded the assets available to pay those liabilities.

pdf page 15 of 22.

As I've said elsewhere that is the people's money, taxpayers, the Ont. gov used. If harmonization happened on a national scale, the UL debts would be spread out and become society's debt. That's bloody convenient eh? And not bloody likely if furious taxpayers have anything to say. And notice it is plural in loans, but doesn't mention total $$ that was loaned tax-free, nor how many loans.

Regarding the Ontario Auditor General's report the OFL makes a statement

Today’s report from the Auditor General of Ontario makes clear the cause of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board’s (WSIB) unfunded liability, and it certainly isn’t overly generous benefits for injured workers, says Ontario Federation of Labour president-elect Sid Ryan.

“It’s all there in the Auditor General’s report: ‘Clearly premium revenues have not increased enough to offset the costs of the benefits that are mandated under the Act’,” says Ryan. “This report is a tremendous vindication for the labour movement, and especially for injured workers, because it essentially echoes what we’ve been saying for more than a decade.”

In 1996, the average premium rate was $3 per $100 of payroll, or 3 per cent. In the same year, the Harris Tories reduced premiums by 5 per cent, the first in a long series of premium reductions that finally levelled out at 2.26 per cent of payroll.

According to the Auditor General’s report: “Clearly, the very existence of the unfunded liability demonstrates that, over the years, the province’s employers have not fully funded the costs of injuries and occupational diseases, so these liabilities will need to be funded by future employers.”

“The WSIB, in its own report, concluded that had the premiums been maintained at 1996 levels, the unfunded liability would have been less than a third of the $11.5 billion that it currently sits at,” says Ryan. “At the same time, compensation for injured workers remains about 20 per cent below 1995 levels. While corporations in 2009 are benefiting from 1990’s level premium payments, injured workers are trying to pay their bills in 2009 on 1990’s level incomes. It’s truly perverse.”

“In order to make WSIB fulfill its mandate, and keep injured workers out of poverty, we need to make sure that premium revenues are adequate. The Auditor General’s report makes it clear that they are not,” says Ryan. “A phased-in premium increase, eventually returning to 1996 levels, would allow the system to address the true needs of injured workers in a fair and just way.”

“It’s a shame how government inaction over many years has created this problem,” says Ryan. “But let’s be crystal clear that this is indeed a government created problem. Injured workers did not create this problem, and under no circumstances should they have to bear the costs of fixing it.”

I found the report very Mike Harris poor-bashing, most especially the ODSP program, which is also totally broken as all the income supplement programs are. Senator Eggleton said as much in a Dec. 8 interview. The report for Ontario didn't even get into the offloading, nor the fact foreign owned companies in Canada offload their DW's to our health care system, deflecting their responsibilities to Canada, and in the course of doing so, making more profit. The auditor general's report also included managing claims costs into benefit costs, which is rather conniving. I'm getting off-topic here, but wanted to point out that the Senators report on Poverty is much more accurate and that Recommendation 50 is not something Labour or Individual Activists would recommend. Intent is important and that is where we should want some clarification.

[altasnowman]

The only time we count in so far as the government is concerned. Not that they really mean to help us.

[Marie]

The only time we count in so far as the government is concerned. Not that they really mean to help us.

Yes I know, it's diabolical eh. But it is the very first time anything about DW's or Comp has ever been included. For a heads up check out the pdf report the UK department of defense imagines for us.
http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/ ... 3jan07.pdf

We need to work this.

[Marie]

Update - not much really. Except it's going on the road. Recommendation 50 (harmonization) will not happen without debate in parliament, which means it will go back to committee, which means INPUT from DW's and orgs such as FoL's and the sheisters from WCB's. Who cares, it has to go back to committee eventually. So far, so good.

[Marie]

It looks like the issues are much bigger than anyone thought. The report and Recommendation #50 was taken to a MLA/MPP for an evaluation. And they think this is NOT going to debated and that it will be the Insurance Companies who will write up the amalgamation. More specifically Great West Life who is partnered with the Mental Health Commission, along with other Ins. Co's and if that is the case, then Amalgamation will be written to the lowest common denominator, status quo, and most importantly no litigation or absolutely no liability for the Corporations/Employers.

This public service is generously supported by Great-West Life’s Centre for Mental Health in the Workplace and endorsed by the Mental Health Commission of Canada http://www.directengagement.com/mediali ... works.html

In fact the relationship between GreatWest/Manulife/et al insurance with the MHC goes back to '07 - I am delighted to report that findings from this initiative funded by Great-West Life,
Manulife, Sun Life, Standard Life and Desjardins Financial Security will be reported at a
conference on mental health in the workplace on May 18th that has been organized by the
Institutes of Health Research and is hosted by Simon Fraser University. http://www.mentalhealthroundtable.ca/ju ... 050807.pdf

GWL and their Mental Health Strategy site and Return to Work up top: http://www.gwlcentreformentalhealth.com ... /index.asp

There have been the public meetings, but there are also Private Meetings going on, and what are they about? A wild guess would be healthcare reform. Certainly reform is needed, but I don't think it's the MHC's purpose to do that.

Discovery/Debate - The WC's and Insurance DO NOT WANT A DEBATE, that would open up a can of worms. Therefore, will legislation be needed? Legal or illegal it won't matter, the stakeholders will want it pushed thru, ratify it without debate.

Does Labour really know what the MHC's agenda is with regards to Recommendation #50? A meeting between the B.C. Federation of Labour and Kirby was being brokered when suddenly Kirby shut it down (Kirby probably didn't want to answer questions). Apparently Kirby wanted to go to the Head, (the CLC) to get political support. Since disabled workers are totally excluded (except for Recommendation 50) why would he want political support from the CLC when DW's are excluded? Does that make any sense to you?

The MHC report is to come out sometime next month (Feb.?), which is coincidentally the same time as the http://www.awcbc.org/en/calendarofevents.asp AWCBC has a Feb. meeting. In Feb the will be presenting # State and federal scheme comparisons
# - Claims Management
# - Psychological Injury
# - Self Insurance
# - The role of technology in streamlining processes
# - Injury Management and Return to work
# - Medico-legal Issues
# - Ageing workforce
# - Understanding your legal obligations

and in the sidebar you see: January news - Safe Work establishes strategy group to facilitate harmonised workers’ compensation laws

There will be Private Insurers attending as well.

I guess the excuse we get from all of our politicians "It's jurisdictional, can't help" is simply untrue.

ETA - As was posted in another forum the Austrlian Union CEPU was successful in getting a Senate Committee to review WC practices. Specifically they are looking at:

1. allegations that injured staff have been forced back to work in inappropriate duties before they have recovered from workplace injuries:
2. the desirability of salary bonus policies that reward managers based on lost time injury management and the extent to which this policy may impact on return to work recommendations of managers to achieve bonus targets:
3. the commercial arrangements that exist between Australia Post and InjuryNet and the quality of the service provided by the organisation:
4. allegations of Compensation Delegates using fitness for duty assessments from Facility Nominated doctors to justify refusal of compensation claims and whether the practice is in breach of the Privacy Act 1988 and Comcare policies:
5. allegations that Australia Post has no legal authority to demand medical assessments of injured workers when they are clearly workers’ compensation matters:
6. the frequency of referrals to InjuryNet Doctors and the policies and circumstances behind the practices:
7. the comparison of outcomes arising from circumstances when an injured worker attends a facility nominated doctor, their own doctor and when an employee attends both, the practices in place to manage conflicting medical recommendations in the workplace; and
8. any related matters.”
http://safetyatworkblog.wordpress.com/2 ... and-ltifr/

All non-confidential submissions can be accessed as they are uploaded at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/ ... ssions.htm

Set to bring down its report by February 2010, the Inquiry will have the power to compel witnesses to appear before it and to call for whatever documents it requires to help deal with its concerns.

The time is NOW to write your politicians, your Feds of Labour, the CLC and ask for the INTENT of Recommendation 50.
Let's face it, after reading the Ontario Audit Report which was very damming to the WCB in Ontario, it's entirely within the possibility that the answer to the UL and all the other WC's UL, is to harmonize and amalgamate to spread the huge debts evenly across the country. Wonder what the Taxpayer groups would think of that?

# Keep it short, be polite and respectful in your question.
# Request a specific action, on this you want clarification on what the Intent is on Recommendation #50
# Attach the link and the wording of Recommendation #50, that support your point.
# Commend any good work you know any of them have done.
# Send copies to your provincial poli's/your fed of labour/CLC/your favourite editor of the newspapers
# Sign with Your full name, your address and your phone number (if you have one)


Gaah having trouble fixing links. Regarding the Australian report to come out in February, one thing to look for is injuries. From what I've heard injuries went way UP under harmonized/amal, the opposite of what all the social marketing campaigns can't discount.