Description
A forum for interaction about Workcover South Australia and the experiences of Injured Workers.
My Links
»
»
»
»
»
|
New Legislation- More disadvantaged Workers-More blowout??
Please post here any messages that relate to the current legislative changes to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
It seems that the comments of some on this blog are under scrutiny by our Parliamentary members in South Australia.
Whilst it is the intention of this site to give everyone a right to speak out freely against the current Workcover system we must ensure that the comments are not critical of an otherwise oppressive and abusive system that works to the government's advantage and to the serious detriment of injured workers who because of their workplace injuries are an oppressed minority group.
|
Posted: 4:15 PM, 3/3/2008 |
Add Comment |
Labor’s love lost
Labor’s latest attempt to fix WorkCover’s billion dollar liability has floundered at the first hurdle of internal discontent.
The widely expected changes to WorkCover’s levies, entitlements and administration failed to pass through Labor’s caucus this morning, prompting an emergency meeting tomorrow morning.
“Labor is in internal turmoil over the recommendations of the latest report into this ongoing mess,” Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith said.
“Just before 2pm today we were told that Economic and Finance committee meetings scheduled for tomorrow had been cancelled to make way for the emergency Labor caucus.
“They are ripping themselves apart.
“Five years of board sackings, senior management clean-outs and case management overhauls have done nothing but make WorkCover worse. Now it’s another bun fight.
“Labor made a big promise a year ago to cut levies, look after workers and get rid of unfunded liabilities,” Mr Hamilton-Smith said.
“Minister Michael Wright is at the end of the rope. If this latest plan doesn’t work, then he must accept responsibility and go.”
In March last year, Mr Wright promised changes to the scheme will be directed towards three objectives including fair financial and other support for workers, reduction of the employer levy rate from 3 per cent and the scheme should be fully funded.
Mr Hamilton-Smith said a recent focus on the single issues of cuts to entitlements or levy rates was not sufficient to deal with WorkCover’s problems.
“In the last five years there have been problems with methods of case management, delivery of legal services to WorkCover, efficiency within the organisation itself, inadequate work capacity reviews and inadequate funding of investigations,” he said.
“WorkCover’s own recovery has become a big challenge.”
|
Posted by Media Release- Martin Hamilton Smith at 4:30 PM, 3/3/2008 |
Link |
|
History haunts Rann
History haunts Rann
Labor’s ham-fisted attempt to fix WorkCover has embarrassed its Premier.
On the same day he told his MPs workers entitlements needed to be cut, it was revealed in parliament he had railed against less onerous cuts in 1995.
Caucus briefing notes, leaked to Opposition MPs, show Mr Rann wants injured workers to take a 20 per cent pay cut after 13 weeks on WorkCover.
Yet in 1995 he said a proposed 15 per cent cut after 26 weeks would; “condemn people who want to work and their families to a lifetime of poverty and dependence”.
In media releases at the time, Mr Rann described the measure as “draconian” which would exact a “human toll”.
The then Labor Opposition described the 1995 changes as being “hard to imagine how anyone could draft a more vicious and uncaring piece of legislation than this. Effectively every clause is unacceptable”.
State Liberal Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith described the Government as being in total chaos.
“First they were going to introduce changes on Tuesday, but Caucus was split,” Mr Hamilton-Smith said.
“Then it became Wednesday and its maybe Thursday,” he said.
“Labor MPs are openly whingeing in the corridors about the way their Leader has rammed the changes through.
“It’s taken them a year to organise the review and they are still arguing about its findings.
“In six years they have turned what the Clayton Report describes as a healthy and financially stable scheme into a financial disaster.
“It is hurting workers, it is hurting business and it is shattering our State’s reputation.
“Mike Rann and Michael Wright should never be forgotten.”
|
Posted by Media release- Martin Hamilton Smith at 4:32 PM, 3/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Let’s get it right, Mr Wright
State Liberal Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith has thrown down the gauntlet to the Rann Government over its proposed changes to WorkCover.
In a speech to parliament today Mr Hamilton-Smith said he would engage in the widest possible consultation to make sure any changes made are the right ones and are made for the right reasons.
“Our objectives are threefold,” he told parliament.
“The changes must result in reduced levies on business, a fully funded scheme and fair entitlements and rehabilitation for workers.
“We know that Labor has failed in its six year management of the scheme.
“It is an outrage that the first move they have made is to cut payments to injured workers.
“That is a step you can only take if you have exhausted every other avenue to make the scheme efficient, financially viable and effective in returning workers to a place of employment.
“The Clayton report confirms that the scheme worked well under the Liberal Government.
“Changes made so far under Labor have seen the scheme slip into deep financial trouble.
“We need to ask ourselves; were those changes the wrong changes?
“There is a lot of work to be done before we start abandoning the reason this scheme exists – that workers be given security and every chance to return to work as soon as they can.
“We face this challenge in 2008 for one simple reason; the Rann Government’s mismanagement.
“The Premier can add this episode to his political scrapbook, alongside the State Bank.”
|
Posted by Media release- Martin Hamilton Smit at 4:33 PM, 3/3/2008 |
Link |
|
reader
The Liberal Opposition are currently considering all the recommendations of the Clayton-Walsh report which have been adopted unqualified by the Rann Labor Government through the introduction of WorkCover legislationlast week.
The Opposition has a number of concerns with this legislation and will be discussing WorkCover issues with key stakeholders, the community and businesses over the next couple of week. The Labor Party have scheduled the legislation for debate in Parliament early in April.
The Liberal Opposition welcomes any feedback and comments you may have and we will consider all submissions made over the next few weeks.
morphett@parliament.sa.gov.au
|
Posted by Anonymous at 7:51 PM, 3/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Time for the truth to come out
| This state government has take the worse measurements ever in a knee jerk reaction into severely amending the current legislation. What this has caused is Injured workers have now nothing to fear in submitting on how their claims have been mis-managed in order to protect themselves as they have been victimised. These submissions can now be made to the unions and the state Liberal and Labor members, To Anonymous from the comment "there are two sides to every story", most workers do understand you are working under instructions from mis-management, and as there there are a small majority of workers taking advantage of the system, I believe there are also the same percantage case managers and rehabilitation consultants that are non holistic in their approach. |
Posted by me at 5:38 AM, 4/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Mr Rann.
| So Mr Rann has alleged to mis-lead parliament by stating something that was not in the proposed Bill. Seems like the WorkCover disease has got to him too. All the workers wanted was the system to be fair. How could it when the state Premier cant play by the rules. |
Posted by Anonymous at 3:49 PM, 4/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Totally incapacitated
| I am totally incapacitated and would be left on the system. I dont want to be stuck on here until retirement age. How will this fix the liability? It may push a few current incapacitated workers off initially but unfortunately they soon will be replaced with the new mining boom high risk occupations. I really can not see this working. |
Posted by Anonymous at 6:15 PM, 4/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Injured Workers Forum
Don't forget to attend the Injured Workers Forum run by Kris Hanna this Saturday March 8th.
Enfield Community Centre
540 Regency Road
Enfield
9.30am -1pm
You don't have to give your name so please come along and stand up for what you believe in. |
Posted by PhilM at 10:10 PM, 4/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Transition costs
| Has anybody actually worked out how much this transition will all the amendments is going to cost? Socially it will effect current workers, but what about the 5000 fully incapacitated who would have to front up before the "Medical Examiners". No doubt these would have to be determined straight away, a good portoin of these claimants have yet to finalise section 43. Then there is the review of new decisions, new case manuals and retraining of managers and rehabilitation and the like. |
Posted by Anonymous at 1:47 PM, 5/3/2008 |
Link |
|
"The Letter"
| Woops, looks like a case manager went against protocol and used bullying tactics in writing. It may start a chain of letters to be submitted with similar tactics. I know I have several case notes of other injured workers being wrongly sent to me. Might be time to hand them over. |
Posted by Anonymous at 5:31 PM, 5/3/2008 |
Link |
|
stRuth
Wonder who the Bully that was exposed today?
My bet it is one of the usual suspects who are so arrogant knowing that Denial and the CRU team won't question such conduct, even if the written evidence is there.
Welcome to Adelaide EML, see you at the Border!!!! |
Posted by PhilM at 9:42 PM, 5/3/2008 |
Link |
|
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/comments/0,22638,23287499-5006336,00.html
I work for one of the small rehabilitation providers that is being rail-roaded by WorkCover and it's Claims Agent, Employers Mutual limited who are constantly sending injured workers to larger rehabilitation companies who DO NOT have good return to work rates and whose owners are WorkCover board members. The provider I work for has great return to work rates and is low costing, yet we are constantly discriminated against because we are a small provider and because we refuse to follow Employers Mutual Limited's dictatorship, which DOES NOT get injured workers back to work - it infact impedes on the process with it's neglectful Case Manager's who DO NOT do their jobs, and in fact have a mentality of blaming the worker. Only changing the practcies of the Claims Agent and getting rid of the conflicts of interests of certain WorkCover board members will lead to more successful return to work outcomes and heal South Australia's ailing compensation scheme.
Posted by: Michael of Norwood 9:25am February 29, 2008
|
Posted by Anonymous at 9:50 PM, 5/3/2008 |
Link |
|
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/comments/0,22638,23287499-5006336,00.html
Cutting workers entitlements is not going to solve the problem. The problem is with EML and the case managers who do not do their work and do not punish the BLUDGERS who are on the system. If the case managers actually got off their arse and did their job then maybe the system would be better!
Posted by: cj of 11:26am February 28, 2008
|
Posted by Anonymous at 9:52 PM, 5/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Absurd
The suggestion that the solution to WorkCover's problems are to reduce benefits to workers is absurd. The issues are clearly management issues. Outsourcing has been clearly a failure and a contributor to the blow-out. Rehabilitation is a joke. Structures to ensure market share of the big Rehabilitation Companies seem to be in place. Conflicts of interest of Board members, and a huge and growing bureaucracy, all contribute to the blow out. The solution? Of course! Cut benefits and leave the problems in place. Before outsourcing, what percentage of annual costs were "management"? What is this cost after outsourcing? Does the Advertiser actually know what "unfunded liability" actually means? It is a mythical figure based on the assumption that WorkCover gets no more income ever from NOW. The reality is that WorkCover gets more than it spends on an annual basis. The Reality is that WorkCover has over a $billion in real hard reserves in cash and investments. "Unfunded liability" is a actuarial guess based on unrealistic assumptions. The simple solution if people are nervous about it, is for WorkCover to insure against the liability ever being activated. Insurance companies insure against unforeseen disaster exceeding their reserves all the time, which is why we end up paying for damage by Cyclone Katrina.
|
Posted by Atli Karl Freiherr Von Bansch at 9:56 PM, 5/3/2008 |
Link |
|
I am sure QBE may have a different opinion
Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (14:54): Is the minister completely happy with EML as the claims manager for WorkCover and, if not, what action does he intend to take to improve claims management performance?
The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT (Lee—Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Finance, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (14:54): EML is the new claims agent. They were chosen by the WorkCover Board. I think I have said to the house previously that the management of claims is better than what it once used to be but it is still not perfect. I am sure that the board is monitoring and working very closely with EML to ensure that claims management is always on the improve. We can do better and we shall do better. That is what claims management is all about. But what we can be confident about is twofold: one is that the change in the regulations that were brought about enabled a contract to be struck where there are better incentives in place and penalties, and the other thing we can be confident of is that EML is doing better than the previous claims agents.
|
Posted by Anonymous at 6:06 AM, 6/3/2008 |
Link |
|
$1m fight to cut WorkCover
$1m fight to cut WorkCover
Article from: The Advertiser
NICK HENDERSON, STATE POLITICAL REPORTER
March 06, 2008 12:53am
BUSINESS SA is launching a $1 million campaign demanding urgent reform of the WorkCover scheme, pitting the powerful group in a battle against the state's unions.
Declaring the system had "reached breaking point", Business SA president and Harris Scarfe chief executive officer Robert Atkins yesterday warned, "each day's delay is costing South Australian businesses and the community".
In a move aimed at heading off pressure within Government ranks to alter the Bill, Business SA today launches a print, radio and television advertising campaign strongly backing the proposed WorkCover amendments, which will result in cuts to workers' benefits.
But unions are firing back with radio advertisements attacking Premier Mike Rann, stating that ". . . big business has got to you so you're selling out the little guy by cutting WorkCover entitlements".
Unions also are vowing to target individual employers with poor workplace safety records in their own advertising blitz.
They want the Government to scrap plans to reduce injured workers' weekly payments as part of its moves to slash WorkCover's unfunded liabilities of more than $840 million.
Government sources said yesterday they knew business had "a huge war chest" to campaign for the changes, which The Advertiser has learned will total $1 million.
Mr Atkins said businesses were no longer able to afford paying the highest levies in the country. "South Australia has the worst performing and most expensive workers' compensation scheme in Australia," he said.
"The system has reached breaking point and must be changed now. The proposed changes will mean SA will have a workers' compensation scheme that provides fair support for injured workers, is delivered efficiently and enables the earliest possible return to work.
"SA businesses now pay an average annual levy of 3 per cent of their payroll compared to other states, which have levies below 2 per cent."
Under the proposed changes, the levy could be reduced to as low as 2 per cent. Mr Atkins said the changes must be supported in parliament and delays to introducing changes would severely damage the community. "What we need now is for the changes to be implemented without delay and that means getting the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council to pass them as a matter of urgency," he said.
Government sources said Premier Mike Rann would take a tough stance on WorkCover, winning him points with the business community despite alienating the unions.
Mr Rann is gambling that unions ultimately will support him at the 2010 state election, ahead of the Liberals.
Tough stance on WorkCover also paints Mr Rann as a strong leader, in the wake of the Government's failed bid to build a grandstand at Victoria Park and backflips on education levies last year.
SA Unions secretary Janet Giles yesterday vowed to counter Business SA's campaign by threatening to target individual employers.
"I would hope the public would be suspicious of business campaigning on this issue because they are the problem," she said.
"We find employers' behaviour to be one of the major reasons why people don't go back to work. In many cases it is the employers that won't take people back to work. If they want to open this can of worms then we have a lot of stories about bad employer behaviour that we can use."
Ms Giles said the business community's campaign demonstrated the Government had "lost touch".
Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright yesterday said the Government was delivering workers "the fairest conditions to injured workers" but would continue discussions with the unions.
Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith said Business SA's campaign would not pressure the Liberals to support the Government's Bill.
He said by consulting, the Liberals were "doing what the government had failed to do" and therefore would "rule nothing in" and "nothing out". |
Posted by Bully boys at 6:08 AM, 6/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Carter and Atkins are probably best mates!!!!!!!!!!!
HARRIS SCARFE: Management Buyout Given The Green Light
------------------------------------------------------
Harris Scarfe Holdings Limited (the Company) announced that successful negotiations with landlords and suppliers and an agreement with the South Australian government on a supportive tax relief package have secured the future of the Company.
The Company's Receivers and Managers, Messrs Bruce Carter and John Spark of corporate recovery and turnaround specialists, Ferrier Hodgson confirmed Tuesday that a management buy-out plan for Harris Scarfe announced earlier this month had been concluded, with ownership of the retailer changing from Tuesday.
After more than six months of negotiations, this is a very
pleasing outcome for the staff, customers and suppliers of
Harris Scarfe," Mr Carter said.
"The deal secures the future of an Australian retail icon;
maintains the jobs of 1700 retail sector employees, and ensures that Harris Scarfe can continue as the preferred department store of so many loyal shoppers."
"We appreciate the commitment given by the South Australian Government as well as the company's landlords and suppliers - all of whom have recognized the future opportunities the new strong Harris Scarfe will bring."
The new owners of Harris Scarfe are its CEO Mr Robert Atkins, fellow Harris Scarfe executive Mr David Clark and a syndicate of private investors, none of whom have previously had a financial interest in Harris Scarfe.
Mr Atkins, a former senior executive with Coles Myer and Coca Cola Amatil with more than 12 years retail experience - took the helm of Harris Scarfe in July. Mr Clark has been with Harris Scarfe since 1995 when it acquired Tasmania's Fitzgerald Group - a company he joined in 1980.
"This is a great result for Harris Scarfe and we thank all of
those involved in supporting the deal for their foresight," Mr
Atkins said. "For the new Harris Scarfe it will be very much business as usual - but better."
"We are looking forward to an exciting future together with our staff, customers and suppliers. We will be building on the traditional strengths of Harris Scarfe in ways which
meet the needs of our customers while at the same time expanding our investment in selling quality brands for less."
Harris Scarfe customers can continue to use their lay-by, credit card and interest-free purchase facilities as normal. The New Harris Scarfe also will continue to honor discounts to shareholders in the old company until December 24, 2001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
Bruce Carter at Ferrier Hodgson on (08) 8235 7655 (Office) or 0418 823 687 (mobile)
Robert Atkins at Harris Scarfe on (08) 8203 4444 (office) or
0404 007 710 (mobile)
Hughes Public Relations - Tim Hughes on (08) 8373 5322 or
0417 788 891 (mobile)
<http://bankrupt.com/TCRAP_Public/011121.mbx> |
Posted by Connect two. at 6:12 AM, 6/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Whats the connection with Bruce Carter and Robert Atkins?
Whats the connection with Bruce Carter and Robert Atkins?
Was Robert Atkins the CEO who was involved in buying Harris Scarfes after Bruce Carte's company Ferrier Hodgson was appointed Receiver and Manager of the financially troubled retailer?
Seems favours can be repaid in many ways..
I wonder if an ICAC would be able to find any improprieties in the $1 million donation to support Workcover's legislative changes. |
Posted by R U Corrupt at 6:21 AM, 6/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Above Comments
Unions SA should advertise the fines Companies receive when there is a workplace accident and deaths and show how Businesses are getting away with murder. It will now bring in SafeWork SA and declare how many employers have been found guilty of the act.
Great move by Business SA, I think they have just done the employees a big favor. |
Posted by Anonymous at 6:58 AM, 6/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Memo: Business SA
You represent Businesses of South Australia. Statistics show Businesses are a major cause to industrial accidents due to negligence.
For example:
"Failure to ensure so far as was reasonably practicabale thats its employee was whilst at work safe from injury and risks to health".
Awwad
Markos
Moor
Gelzinis
Paparella
Baker
Barnett
Spinks
Duggan
Nizamis
Oaten
Fonteyn
Farrell
|
Posted by Anonymous at 8:33 AM, 6/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Michael Wright
Michael Wright seems to think "The letter" is an isolated case. If he had attended the WIRC forums which he was invited to he would have realised this is common practise. He used the word "IF" these bullying tactics are common and its a big "IF".
Has he been asleep at the wheel? |
Posted by Anonymous at 11:13 AM, 6/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Recent Workcover woes....
| These recent WorkCover developments could actually be a cleansing of the system as there is so much information being poured in due to mis-management. |
Posted by cleansing at 12:20 PM, 6/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Clipsal
I remember quite clearly Rob Gerard ringing in 5AA saying he was in favor of the changes. A nice observation from a recent finding Cuadra v Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd [2008] SAWCT 8
|
Posted by Anonymous at 7:10 PM, 6/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Rehabilitaion consultants
above comment
(j) (iv) The video film has previuosly been shown to the workers current rahabilitation provider.
|
Posted by Anonymous at 7:16 PM, 6/3/2008 |
Link |
|
The Letter
Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (14:55): My question is to the Premier. What will the Premier do to ensure the WorkCover claims agent will desist from threatening to cut off workers' benefits if they mix with other injured workers? An injured worker recently received a letter from EML, which said:
Employers Mutual Ltd have received information that you are visiting other individuals that are on WorkCover, and liaising with them in relation to their situation.
We write to issue you a warning that this does not continue. If you proceed to continue to visit your fellow colleagues on workers compensation, we shall consider issuing you an applicable discontinuance letter. Under no circumstances should you be visiting other individuals that are on WorkCover.
Members interjecting:
The SPEAKER: Order!
The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT (Lee—Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Finance, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (14:56): I am aware of this issue and I have read the letter, and I say that the letter is totally inappropriate. I am advised that the letter contains no information about the conduct of the injured worker that constitutes a proper basis for the discontinuance of WorkCover benefits. I have spoken on two occasions this morning with the CEO of WorkCover, Ms Julia Davison. Ms Davison also takes this matter very seriously and has informed me that this is not conduct that is condoned by WorkCover.
I also understand this matter has been raised with the Chief Executive Officer of Employers Mutual. The matter is under investigation. I have called for a full report, in particular to determine whether this is a one-off incident and what action will be taken by the WorkCover Corporation regarding this issue. Once again I say that this letter is totally unacceptable and inappropriate.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Wright, there are many more instances just like these and urge you to make a full report with all files.
hear, hear......
|
Posted by AAA at 8:16 PM, 6/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Michael Wright
| I heard Michael Wright on the radio about this Letter and he said he spoke to Julie Davidson who will do a full report. I am wondering what Julie Davidson will tell him because if she tells him this only happened once she then has to explain some of the letters I have got. |
Posted by Anonymous at 5:14 AM, 7/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Any comments Mr Roberts?
IAN HENSCHKE: WorkCover's Paul Roberts says the court ruling will not be challenged, and it won't put WorkCover under financial pressure, as it has has more than $600 million available for payouts.
Transcript
Professional Athletes to claim Workcover
Broadcast: 01/08/2003
Reporter: Ian Henschke
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/sa/content/2003/s915660.htm |
Posted by reader at 7:34 AM, 7/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Unions
| Just an observation, wouldnt the Unions be stronger if the state was Liberal run? I have a funny feeling the unions have their own agenda which does include protecting workers but they would be more pro-active with a non union government, not at least their membership would swell. |
Posted by union member at 8:54 AM, 7/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Apartheid in South Australia?
Well seems that EML would like to segregate injured workers from each other. I guess thats fair because they might find out that their claims are being mismanaged if they compare notes.
But for a long time its been the case that Injured workers are treated differently because they are injured...this is simply proof in the making..
Shame on WorkCover staff-this simply defines the attitude thay have to workers-they think they have the power to control every aspect of their lives. Even who they socialise.
Welcome to Communist South Australia. |
Posted by N. Mandela at 9:05 AM, 7/3/2008 |
Link |
|
A nice little pot of money
IAN HENSCHKE: WorkCover's Paul Roberts says the court ruling will not be challenged, and it won't put WorkCover under financial pressure, as it has has more than $600 million available for payouts.
Why is it that injured worker's are not getting paid out?
Obviously the board considers this little nest egg is a good excuse to claim that if they made redemptions there would be a lump sum mentality.
Well some might think thats a better mentality than a government using the money to boost up its own investment portfolio.
WorkCover should not be in the main business of investment. If it concentrated on its core business-rehabilitating and managing injured workers claims it could do much better.
|
Posted by T M Clarke at 9:06 AM, 7/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Gagged.....
| The story yesterday headed "$1m fight to cut WorkCover" received only 2 online comments. I wonder why? |
Posted by Chris Rann at 9:34 AM, 7/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Comments in the Advertiser
Can not say that there were only two people that submitted any comments.
Seems there is too many adverse comments against Workcover and the media is now trying to slow it down before it gets out of control.
|
Posted by Reader at 5:58 PM, 7/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Out of control
I think it is too late, It is totally out of control. Too many workers with nothing to lose now so now they will complain thru radio, Advertiser etc. If they were too scared they were going to be vilified, you can throw that theory out of the window now.
Even today I received a rehab plan thats didnt even include my Doctors details. I think everyone has just chucked it in or too much pressure? |
Posted by me at 8:07 PM, 7/3/2008 |
Link |
|
EMPLOYER
| Appellant convicted of breaching s 19(1) of the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 – Whether employees were exposed to risk of injury from falling while working in an elevated bucket – Whether employees were exposed to risk of injury while working in proximity to a dislodged electrical service line – If employees were exposed to risk of injury whether there were other reasonable practical means of eliminating such risks – Appeal dismissed |
Posted by Anonymous at 8:22 PM, 7/3/2008 |
Link |
|
EMPLOYER
| Prosecution - Plea of not guilty - Whilst hot rollers were turning an employee attempted to feed paper into them - Access to rollers was through a safety gate - Employee’s hand was drawn into the rollers resulting in a severe crush and burn injury - Whether employer failed to adequately guard moving rollers of machine by failing to fit an interlocking device to the safety gate so as to prevent rollers moving whilst the gate was open - Whether risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable - Whether foreseeability extends to precise circumstances of employee’s actions at time of injury or applies to possibility employee may forget to, or decide not to, isolate the machine before passing through safety gate to perform work duties - Application for disqualification on grounds of apprehended bias - Whether an awareness of prior sentencing remarks of different magistrate for s 19 charge that were acknowledged to be irrelevant warrants disqualification - Application dismissed - Held - Defendant guilty of charge - S 19(1) |
Posted by Anonymous at 8:23 PM, 7/3/2008 |
Link |
|
EMPLOYER
| Prosecution - Guilty Plea - One charge - Failure to provide and maintain safe systems of work - Failure to maintain plant in safe condition - Injury occurred when employee caught finger in machine whilst attempting to dislodge a spring caught in the machine resulting in partial amputation of middle finger of left hand - No formal hazard assessment performed apart from standard operating procedures which were not placed near machine - Machine not adequately guarded - Contrition and remorse - Conviction recorded - Penalty after discount of $6,000 -Defendant in hands of administrator - Pursuant to S13(1) of the Sentencing Act ordered no penalty and no costs to be paid |
Posted by Anonymous at 8:25 PM, 7/3/2008 |
Link |
|
EMPLOYER
| Prosecution - Guilty pleas - Three charges - Failure to ensure safety of a worker - Failure to give notice of dangerous occurrence - Failure to provide and maintain safe plant - Inspections and risk assessments were not effectively performed - Company relied on experience of its operators - Two incidents involving same plant and different employees within five weeks - (i) Employee’s lower leg immersed in hot water tank when corroded and damaged mesh walkway gave way which was inadequately maintained - Leg trapped for a short period - Burn injury - (ii) Employee’s foot briefly immersed in same hot water tank when employee stepped backwards into uncovered manhole - Less serious burn injury - Immersion for brief period - Failure to notify Workplace Services of occurrence of second incident - Mitigatory circumstances - Convictions recorded on all counts - Penalties of $22,000, $5,000 and $1,500 respectively, all reduced by 25% on account of early plea and contrition plus costs - Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1996 s 19(1) |
Posted by Anonymous at 8:25 PM, 7/3/2008 |
Link |
|
EMPLOYER
| Prosecution - Guilty plea - Employee engaged to perform building work - Engaged in placing flooring above mezzanine floor and near to ceiling space which flooring was to serve as a platform for contractors accessing, maintaining and repairing air conditioning plant - Relevant height from ground floor to where employee was working was a distance of some 7.2 metres - Floorboards unsecured - Employee had one hand on a smaller floorboard whilst the other hand held onto a C-channel - Employee shifted balance and the smaller board slipped off its edge and employee overbalanced and fell through the floor space down to the ground level below - Failure to provide and maintain so far as was reasonably practicable safe systems of work - Failure to provide a safe working environment in that the employee was required to work in a place from which he could fall without fall protection - Early guilty plea and cooperation by the defendant - Expressions of regret and contrition for the incident - Acknowledgement that the risk was that of serious injury - Held: Discount of 20% to be applied - Conviction and fine of $36,000 plus levy and costs - S 19(1) |
Posted by Anonymous at 8:26 PM, 7/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Are you getting the message Mr. Atkins?
| Prosecution - Guilty plea - Two counts - Two employees - One employee standing in a trench shovelling sand - Other employee operating skid-steer loader alongside trench dropping sand into trench - Walls of trench collapsed - Employee in trench became trapped - Skid-steer loader slid sideways into the trench - Employee in trench sustained serious multiple injuries - Failure to supervise - Failure to undertake any shoring system as regards the trench - Failure to adequately train and instruct - Early plea of guilty - Held: 20% discount - Early plea - First offence - Risk in relation to one employee was that of potentially fatal injuries - In relation to the other employee there was a risk of serious injury - Penalty: Convictions on both counts and fine of $44000 plus levy and costs - S 19(1) |
Posted by Anonymous at 8:28 PM, 7/3/2008 |
Link |
|
EMPLOYER
| Prosecution - Guilty Plea - One count - Employer engaged in rail track maintenance - Employee engaged as maintenance supervisor - Whilst travelling in road vehicle converted to rail use suffered substantial injuries to his leg when vehicle derailed and subsequently died in hospital - Failure to eliminate loading hazards and to implement a system for uneven or excessive loading - Failure to ensure safety of worker - Failure to implement system to adequately monitor whereabouts and well-being of worker in an isolated area - Contrition, early plea, prompt implementation of appropriate maintenance and loading procedures and of isolated worker procedures - Conviction recorded - Penalty of $48,000 after discount - S 19(1) |
Posted by Anonymous at 8:29 PM, 7/3/2008 |
Link |
|
EMPLOYER
| Sentence - Guilty plea - Failure to ensure so far as reasonably practicable that employee was, whilst at work, safe from injury and risks to health - Failure to provide a safe system of work and plant in a safe condition - Failure to ensure use of interlocked foot pedals by each operator of metal bending machine - Employee suffered crush injury to ends of both thumbs - Held - Conviction and fine of $7,200 - S 19(1) |
Posted by Anonymous at 8:30 PM, 7/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Are you still reading Mr Atkins? These are businesses you represent.
| Sentences - Guilty Pleas - failure by both IQES and Fosters to ensure so far as reasonably practicable that a first year apprentice employee was safe from injury and risks to health - IQES failed to develop and implement a safe system of working from a personnel box on an elevated service bridge - IQES failed to provide adequate information instruction training and supervision - Fosters failed to develop and implement an adequate system for ensuring that plant provided to contractors was to be used by suitably qualified and trained personnel - Employee was first lifted in box to about four metres and then driven by forklift towards service bridge - Box should have been accurately positioned while empty and only entered for vertical lifting - Box loaned by Fosters for work on its plant without any checking for safe system of work - Fosters provided appropriate SWP to its direct employees but not to contractors - Inexperienced IQES driver mistook accelerator on IQES forklift for stop pedal and drove box under bridge causing employee to be crushed - severe abdominal injuries resulted - Held - Convictions recorded against each defendant - IQES fined $42,500 - Fosters fined $32,000 - |
Posted by Anonymous at 8:32 PM, 7/3/2008 |
Link |
|
And another.......
| Prosecution - Plea of guilty - Two incidents - Separate complaint and summons - Failure to ensure safety of employee - First incident: Impeller fan of machine had guard missing from portal - Ring and middle fingers caught by rotating impeller fan - Second incident: Employee attempting to manually recover a stirring arm of a degasser machine from molten aluminium following hydraulic failure - Right index finger became trapped and was crushed between tine of forklift and frame of plant when hydraulics reactivated - Held: Subsequent offences - In both cases convictions recorded - Fines imposed discounted by 20% - In each case fine of $52,000 plus levies and costs - S 19(1) |
Posted by Anonymous at 8:33 PM, 7/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Wasnt the "NEW" board appointed before 2005?
Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (14:06): My question is to the Premier.
Members interjecting:
The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Why under the Premier's leadership did the government fail to take action to fix WorkCover in 2005, 2006 and 2007? On 29 March 2007, during a no-confidence motion moved in parliament against the Minister for Industrial Relations, the house heard that the Premier had been advised by Alan Clayton in June 2005 that there were financial problems with WorkCover.
In November 2005, the report of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee (chaired by the Hon. Bob Sneath) warned of the financial problems in WorkCover. In November 2006, the government received the WorkCover Board's report and recommendations for reform and, in 2007, the Liberal opposition again warned the government of the crisis. Why was nothing done?
The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT (Lee—Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Finance, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (14:07): Plenty has been done, and I have previously talked about what has been done. This government made sure that a new board was put in place. That new board put in place a new CEO, a new management. I have also talked about new regulations which, of course, has provided the opportunity for a contract—
Members interjecting:
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition was given a pretty fair go during his rather lengthy explanation. I now ask members on my left to show the same courtesy to the Minister for Industrial Relations. The Minister for Industrial Relations.
The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: Thank you, sir. As a result of the new regulations, we have seen a new contract put in place. As an example of the change that has occurred, we also see a new single legal services—Minter Ellison—in charge of legal matters. So, a lot has been done. The leader also referred to recommendations previously made by the WorkCover Board. We had a good look at those, but we have called for some independent research and, as a result of that, we now have a package which goes beyond what was put forward by WorkCover. It has measures that are both legislative and non-legislative. Of course, what we would urge the opposition to do is support the legislation before the parliament.
|
Posted by me at 4:39 PM, 8/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Is this right?
9—Amendment of section 30—Compensability of disabilities
As a consequence of this amendment, a worker's employment will include attendance at a place for the purposes of a rehabilitation and return to work plan.
I have been on a RRTW plan for 3 years without having a job placement because I am incapacitated and doing a course as part of my rehab. The way this reads, I would have to be in a workplace, so where would retraining come into it? |
Posted by Hugo at 4:55 PM, 8/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Can someone answer this?
For example, my pre-injury remuneration was $1400.00, (teachers, nurses, engineers etc.....)
If a job was nominated for me that pays only $800.00, (meter reader, admin job, car park attendant etc....) how would this be classified as suitable? |
Posted by Hugo at 5:05 PM, 8/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Legislation
| This new legislation is a joke, all this is going to do is have the minor injuries ride out the 2 and a half years. A nice long service leave for many and they can give so much crap to WrkCover because they are off the system. Shifting chairs on the titanic my friends. |
Posted by Anonymous at 8:31 PM, 8/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Shafted
| I also have been shafted, I was told I didnt require retraining as I would always have a top up, I also know of injured workers receive redemptions but my lawyer advised me not to. So I miss out on my entitlements both ways. I now have a very different opinion on our society for the sake of some very bad management decisions. I hope there is some way fairness prevails. |
Posted by Harry at 9:46 PM, 8/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Clayton Report
It is unfortunate that most members of the Government only read the briefings or hear Michael Wrights plea for support to slash the rights of workers.
Just eight pages into the Clayton Walsh report, Alan Clayton gives a very clear insight to what went wrong with the WorkCover scheme and in doing so provides some idea as to the solution.
Clayton says;
The WorkCover scheme was reasonably stable during the late-1990s, with the availability of redemptions, and their strategic implementation, successfully extinguishing significant amounts of tail liability. At the same time reported claim numbers continued to reduce, especially after the increase of employer liability for short term income maintenance.
During the same period claim payments were very well controlled, reducing in real terms throughout the five year period. The average levy rate stayed at 2.86 percent of wages during this period, allowing a gradual erosion of the deficit such that the Scheme achieved a high-point funding ratio of 97 percent as at 30 June 2000, representing a deficit of $22 million.
So if all was going so well in the 90’s what changed? In the early years of the new millennium, WorkCover executives and the newly appointed WorkCover Board theorised that they could save some money by ignoring the intent of the Legislation and begin offering substantially lower redemptions to permanently injured Workers on benefits. Michael Wright the new Minister for WorkCover accepted their theory and a Ministerial Instruction was issued to that effect.
The value of redemptions fell 65 percent in real terms between 2000 and 2006. WorkCover began to save money and lots of it. In 2000 WorkCover had just $50 Million in cash and investments and by 2007, WorkCover had $1.4 Billion in cash and investments. Unfortunately for South Australia, the outstanding claims liability increased at an even greater rate. In 2000 WorkCover had an outstanding claims liability of $277 Million and by 2007 the outstanding claims liability had increased to $2.3 Billion. The compounding impact on a liability this size is $100 Million annually before a single claim is added to the list and wipes out half of Michael Wright’s ambitious projected savings found in slashing workers entitlements.
It is evident that Michael Wrights early Ministerial decision that the strategic implementation of Redemptions become an offer of a token redemption followed by attempts to bully injured workers into acceptance has failed. Annually some 180 permanently incapacitated Workers have rejected these token redemption offers in turn creating the multi Billion Dollar tail liability we are now confronted with.
As the number of Workers trapped on benefits increased it created jobs for some 300 administrative and case management staff and increased the annual operational cost of running WorkCover by in excess 200 percent. WorkCover employed spin doctors to suggest that the increasing number of permanently injured Workers trapped on benefits were somehow malingerers and used the skew in numbers to suggest a declining return to work rate was responsible for the mess their errant corporate policy had created. The truth is there has been NO change in Annual Return to Work rates, just an increasing number of permanently disabled workers trapped on benefits creating the anomalous skew in the figures.
The solution to the WorkCover problem can be found at pages 8 and 9 of Mr Clayton’s report and through compliance with the existing Legislation, not in slashing the rights of Injured Workers.
|
Posted by PhilM at 10:35 AM, 9/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Injured workers not told about forum
I am an injured worker and I saw on Television last night that there was a forum held for injured workers. I also understand from what I have been told by another injured worker that it was arranged by a lady called Rosie.
Can anyone please advise why injured workers are not told about these forums? I see there was post here on the site about it but many people do not check this site for upcoming events.
To run a forum where injured workers are given an opportunity to speak out and yet for some reason only a handful of injured workers are told about it seems to me to be lack organisation, structure and planning.
This is why the current workcover system is failing.
Unless injured workers and other stakeholders unite and are given a proper opportunity to speak out the problems with continue. Surely there must be some employers who care about their injured workers.
My recommendations.
Either tell Rosie to organise the show properly and advertise so all injured workers are aware of the event or give the responsibility to someone else who will do things properly. |
Posted by D. Price at 10:39 AM, 9/3/2008 |
Link |
|
unfunded
| Can someone please ask me why is it going to take 6 years to rein in the unfunded liability when a major percentage of maintanance claims will be kicked off the system. |
Posted by me at 12:34 PM, 9/3/2008 |
Link |
|
I stand by my WorkCover plan
By RENATO CASTELLO
The architect of reforms that would cut benefits to South Australia's injured workers has fronted his critics, saying his recommendations are not a case of "slash and burn".
Lawyer Alan Clayton faced a 100-strong crowd of injured workers and their relatives yesterday and said he stood by his report that would cut entitlements in a bid to rein in WorkCover's unfunded liabilities, believed to be now topping $1 billion.
But the crowd agreed to hold a rally at Parliament House on April 1 to coincide with the expected debate of the proposed reforms to the WorkCover legislation.
And Opposition industrial relations spokesman Duncan McFetridge promised those gathered at Enfield Community Centre he would be urging his colleagues not to cut workers' entitlements.
Mr Clayton, who along with financial expert John Walsh reviewed Australia's worst performing compensation scheme, insisted that after the changes, SA would continue to have one of the fairest systems in Australia.
He said SA would be one of three states that would continue to pay workers 80 per cent of their wages after 13 weeks, down from 100 per cent at present.
He said payments to workers per-manently injured or ill would be a maximum $400,000, the "highest in the country" under the changes.
"This is not a slash and burn" he said, adding the scheme would be the first to have a charter of workers' rights.
"It will be only the second juris-diction to have the costs of specialist counselling services to the family members of a deceased worker.
"I think we have met the standard of maintaining South Australia as having, overall, the fairer set of workers' compensation benefits. I am here to defend my report, I am not here to defend the Bill... I'm happy to stand behind the report." The Rann Government's Work-Cover Bill is expected to contain many of the recommendations of the Clayton/Walsh review, including terminating all payments for workers after 130 weeks and during a disputed claim, and reducing business levies.
The Government predicts the reforms will eliminate WorkCover's debt within at least six years.
Treasurer Kevin Foley and Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright were invited to the forum but did not attend.
Dr McFetridge said he would present a submission on the WorkCover Bill to the Liberal joint party meeting on March 25, where he would be urging colleagues not to cut entitlements.
SA Unions will intensify its public campaign against the reforms this week, with volunteers to hand out leaflets at Tea Tree Plaza Interchange, Noarlunga and Adelaide railway stations urging people to sign an online petition to "save WorkCover".
Mr Clayton would not comment on the union's campaign.
|
Posted by Reader at 3:00 PM, 9/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Above comment
"It will be only the second juris-diction to have the costs of specialist counselling services to the family members of a deceased worker.
You would have thought this would have been in place before his recommendations. Just shows how low WorkCover have been. Has Mr Clayton seen all the cases at riverside where families have to prove they are families or the death was caused by a workplace accident. I think there has been a comment on here about how many families of deceased workers WorkCover have treated badly. Very shameful. |
Posted by Phillips at 9:26 PM, 9/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Lets hold hands
| So what happens to the case managers and rehabilitation consultants now. Do they join the rest of us at centrelink? I would laugh if I get my rehab working at centrelink. |
Posted by Anonymous at 9:35 AM, 10/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Before you worry, do the Math
There are currently 3000 workers beyond 36 months on benefits.
To throw them off as WorkCover propose, each Worker must attend a medical panel convened of medico’s of somewhat questionable ethic hand picked by WorkCover.
Each Panel should realistically take at least half a day so lets get ambitious and say they can punch through 4 a day, 20 a week, or 960 per year. And that assumes the medico's work full time on it.
The first few claimants thrown off will be courted by lawyers wanting to take it to the highest court and challenge the legality of the legislation and the merit of the decision. That will bog them up for another year or so.
And don't forget Alan Clayton's warning to WorkCover that the Victorian Courts ruled that if they have NOT prepared the worker for employment at the assessed capacity, they will NOT legally be able to throw them off. Given the lack of re-training and genuine rehabilitation offered by the kids managing the files, they will be up against it there as well.
It will take 4 years to get through the current 36 mths+ group and then there is the 1000 or so that will join the list over that period.
The first worker forced back to work that suffers an injury or flare up the old injury because they shouldn't have been there will then sue WorkCover and the Medical Panel for negligence. The dubious Medical Panel will also need to have a very close look at their Professional Indemnity Insurance if they want to go against the recommendation of their peers and push an injured Worker back to work.
The reality is however they will get through 2 reviews a day and may throw 1 off benefits. They will work at most 2 days a week so that is 2 a week or 100 a year which is 100 less than join the 36mth+ group. The Case clerks will stop managing the files earmarked for Panel review thus no rehab thus no right to terminate benefits. At that rate, the liability will peak at around $17 Billion before Bruce is forced to admit that he really has no idea how to actually run a business as opposed to closing the doors and garage sale the assets!
So good old WorkCover. In pursuing what can only be described as a fantasy, they have simply dug themselves and South Australia into yet another ever growing hole.
With Peter Vaughan’s Business SA wholeheartedly supporting the proposal to double the Statutory Cap on Levies to 15 percent, Small Business will be left paying off the debts created by the corporate incompetence of the WorkCover Board because big business will of course join the ranks of the self insured! |
Posted by PhilM at 10:10 AM, 10/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Back to work sooner.
I can clearly recall that WorkCover commenced a campaign where they were trying to get workers back to work sooner.
Seems all this money was just a waste and the new Clayton's legislation is an easier way forward. Let the injured workers rot on the system for two years and then throw them off.
The current system would work well if it was actually managed properly. The current legislation shows its clear intentions.
Review injured workers at the two year mark and either redeem them, or rehabilitate them more or leave them on the system for another short period until their injury stabilises. They should also get a fair redemption - not just a years wages to send them on their way.
If this was followed there would be less than half the current employees, less than half the overheads and likely a surplus and no unfunded liability.
The recent Clayton report which was instigated and paid for by the board just reflects the way the board would like things done.
The public, Mike Rann and all of his catholic mates should
realise that at no time have the current board made any clever decisions to significantly save any money that might turn the scheme around. In fact every change they have made has made the unfunded liability grow even more. |
Posted by Peter S. at 11:12 AM, 10/3/2008 |
Link |
|
SUB-PRIME
Can anybody find out how much WorkCover has invested in the Sub-Prime market, FOI maybe???
It is in meltdown. |
Posted by Anonymous at 12:31 PM, 10/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Scape Goats
It seems there is a lot more to WorkCover woes than what is published. I am unsure how much is invested (business levies) in the sub-prime markets. Maybe Mr Foley will include it in the treasury report??
We also have had directions from Minister Wright back in 2003 on the issue of redemptions. If I can see what has gone wrong, why are they blaming and penalising current and future workers? All seems to be adding up now.
|
Posted by me at 1:34 PM, 10/3/2008 |
Link |
|
A little bit of history, now its for real.
Australia’s Reaction to the U.S. Subprime Meltdown
By Dan Denning
• March 15th, 2007 •
Everyone loves a good panic, just like everyone loves a parade. The U.S. subprime meltdown story has the potential to be a great story because it has all the elements of good newspaper copy. Money will be lost. Lives ruined. Arrests will be made. There is blame to dish out! Who is responsible for the destruction of dreams!?
|
Posted by Anonymous at 1:41 PM, 10/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Sounds familiar here Mr Rann.
Date : Tuesday, 4 March 2008
Subject : VICTORIAN AGENCY LOSES $300M IN SUB-PRIME MELTDOWN
Every Victorian should be disturbed at the report today that the agency in charge of superannuation investments for many of Victoria's public servants has lost $300 million because of the sub-prime financial market crisis.
Just over three months ago, the Premier told Victorians that the exposure of the Victorian Funds Management Corporation (VFMC) to the sub-prime market was "extremely limited".
Yet at the same time that the Premier was on his feet in Parliament claiming the VFMC's exposure to sub-prime was "extremely limited," market volatility caused by the collapse of the sub-prime housing finance market in the United States saw the value of VFMC's investments collapse by $300 million.
It is now apparent the scale of these losses was the reason John Brumby refused on many other occasions to answer questions in Parliament last year about this issue.
The sub-prime crisis has plunged the sharemarket into chaos, yet the Premier has had his head in the sand about its effect on the billions of dollars of investments made on behalf of Victorian taxpayers, particularly public service superannuation and investments on behalf of other Victorian Government agencies including the Royal Children's Hospital.
The Labor Party boasts the Victorian economy is in safe hands, but John Brumby's claimed ignorance of a $300 million loss by its premier investment agency reveals that there are serious financial issues affecting the future of Victoria which Mr Brumby refuses to disclose.
BACKGROUND ON VFMC: The Victorian Funds Management Corporation (VFMC) is the primary investment agency of the Victorian Government and is responsible for managing investments of $41.3 billion on behalf of 14 clients, all of whom are Victorian Government entities.
It currently invests primarily on behalf of insurance funds such as the Transport Accident Commission and WorkCover, and superannuation funds including the Essential Services Superannuation Fund. The VFMC also invests a number of smaller portfolios on behalf of departments and authorities such as the Royal Children's Hospital, the Royal Women's Hospital and the National Gallery.
Further information on the December quarter VFMC losses can be found at http://www.vfmc.vic.gov.au/investmentprofile_performance.asp
(Background information from VFMC website: http://www.vfmc.vic.gov.au)
|
Posted by Business levies at 1:50 PM, 10/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Investments
| http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:9LF_AlV-fZgJ:www.workcover.com/documents.aspx%3Ffno%3D3279+sa+workcover+funds+management&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au |
Posted by Anonymous at 4:24 PM, 10/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Flaws, flaws, flaws......
After reading the bill for reforms in the WorkCover legislation I have noticed so many flaws that I really hope it gets passed. It is going to be one big nightmare and if the government can not see it then they deserve the backlash. I hope there will be more than one ombudsman appointed because the workers who will stay on the system should keep him/her busy for quite some time, they wont have time for any new claimants. And how long will it take to evaluate each workers capacity? How much is it going to cost?
Has anybody told the Minister about all this? |
Posted by Anonymous at 9:31 PM, 10/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Unions
| Looks like the unions have backed down, this is ashame for all future injured workers. This has proven how weak the unions are. There will be some very unpleasent unsettling times ahead as the above comment suggests as this will cause a legal minefield. Also "Retrospective" is a very nasty word in the legal world, and I cannot see the system settle for years. |
Posted by Anonymous at 8:50 AM, 11/3/2008 |
Link |
|
In the event of corruption - Who would one complain to??
I wonder if anyone really had problems about the way Work-Cover was doing things-who would they complain to?
If they complained to a member of parliament -they would be targeted by Work-Cover like that guy a few years ago.
The Police would likely say well its Work-Cover they look after themselves.
If they complained to the Ombudsman I am sure there would not be any available resources to deal with the matter in a timely and efficient manner. In most cases the response would simply be a uniquely tailored letter responding to your concerns that does not actually deal with the issues and sidesteps everything you complained about.
If you complain to Minister Wright- You will no doubt get a thank you for your letter. Nothing more will be done about it.
If you complain to anyone in Work-Cover or the press you will simply be targeted.
The answer??
Well at least posting it here on the blog makes your complaint accessible by the public. |
Posted by D. Crassus at 11:53 AM, 11/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Sex harrassment- Workcover will pick up the tab.
Govt 'sorry' for raped nurse's pay issue
March 5, 2008 - 5:43PM
Advertisement
The Queensland government has apologised to a nurse who was sexually assaulted on a remote Torres Strait island and then told to claim worker's compensation.
The 27-year-old nurse told police she was raped as she slept in her home on Mabuiag Island in the early hours of February 5.
Since then, her employer Queensland Health has declined to pay her any wages or expenses because the "injury" occurred at work and it was an issue of workers' compensation, The Australian newspaper reported on Wednesday.
The nurse also was told by health authorities immediately after the attack that if she left Mabuiag Island she would have the days away deducted from her leave, the newspaper said.
Health Minister Stephen Robertson apologised to the nurse and said she would be paid according to her contract.
He said the nurse had been employed on the contract to February 28 as part of a program that would rotate nurses in and out of the area for three months at a time.
"It would appear an error has occurred, an administrative error occurred, that stopped her payment early prior to the completion of her contract and that is being attended to today," Mr Robertson said.
"So there was nothing malicious about that, it was a simple administrative error that occurred ... so there was nothing that was as a result of the very unfortunate circumstances that happened to her."
He said her WorkCover claim would go through the normal process.
Nurses have threatened to leave far north Queensland if the government fails to take action on security concerns within a month.
A 22-year-old man is in custody after being charged with rape and burglary over the incident, while the nurse has been relocated for treatment. |
Posted by S. Peters at 8:54 PM, 11/3/2008 |
Link |
|
work cover
Can anyone confirm that under this proposed new work cover legislation, does it also apply to the members of parliament supporting it's introduction, after all they are only worker's too.
I would like to see them if injured, cut 20% after 13 weeks and after 152 weeks left high and dry. |
Posted by Anonymous at 9:08 PM, 13/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Australian Nursing Federation
12 March 2008
Dear Reader,
Injured workers' entitlements are under threat due to the State Government's proposed changes to
WorkCover legislation.
The proposed changes will see:
• Payments to Injured workers cut after 13 weeks to 80 percent of their average weekly earnings.
• Weekly payments discontinued altogether after two and half years following injury.
• If an injured worker disputes their claim, they will receive no payments during this time.
• Reduced compensation for loss of a limb or body function at the discretion of WorkCover.
While the State Government is currently debating these changes in parliament, Premier Mike Rann believes cuts to entitlements are necessary because of unfunded liabilities of more than $840 million. Despite the schemes financial blow-out, Premier Rann also wants to reduce employers levy rates, arguing these changes will make the SA WorkCover system the fairest in the country.
Along with SA Unions, the ANF fails to see how this proposed legislation is fair to injured workers. The primary focus of workers compensation should be effective return to work for injured workers. However the State Government's plan to improve financial viability of the scheme is directly contrary to the interests of injured workers and will not facilitate early return-to-work outcomes.
If this proposed legislation goes ahead the ANF is deeply concerned for the welfare of all injured workers including nurses, midwives and personal care attendants.
I am urging all members to take action now to protect the rights of injured workers. By signing ANF's electronic petition you can help stop this proposed legislation from going ahead.
To sign ANF's petition, visit the website <http://www.sa.anf.org.au> and follow the link to:
<http://gopetition.com/petitions/protect-the-welfare-of-iniured-workers.html>
To find out all the latest about future campaigns, news and information, why not forward us your email address and/or mobile number. By emailing or SMS we can keep you informed with events as they happen. You can update your details on the ANF website or contact membership on: 08 8334 1902.
Yours truly,
Elizabeth Da bars Secretary-elect
ANF (SA Branch) and ANF South Australian Branch
191 Torrens Road Ridleyton SA 5008 : PO Box 861 Regency Park BC SA 5942 Tel: 08 8334 1900 Fax: 08 8334 1901 Toll Free: 1800 809 642 Email: enquiry@sa.anf.org.au Web: www.sa.anf.org.au
|
Posted by Time is up!!! at 8:21 PM, 15/3/2008 |
Link |
|
WorkCover Parliament rally
APRIL Fool's Day could provide an important indication of how much of a fight the government has on its hands over WorkCover reform.
Thats the day parliament resumes after a three-week break.
Angry unions are planning a rally on the steps of Parliament aimed at showing the government how they feel about WorkCover reform, especially plans to reduce compensation benefits.
The last time worker's rallied on the steps over Workcover was 1995 and Mike Rann was Opposition leader and leading the protests.
The opposition is yet to decide its stance on the Government's reform legislation and has been slightly compromised already by comments from front bencher Duncan McFetridge that entitlements should not be cut but administration expenses reined in instead.
The questions to be answered on April 1 will be whether Premier Rann fronts up to the rally and what Opposition leader Martin Hamilton Smith will say.
|
Posted by D3Vo at 2:19 AM, 16/3/2008 |
Link |
|
WorkCover Advertisements
| Has anybody noticed the WorkCover Advertisements in "The Advertiser"? it shows a brick layer being helped by a physio. The funny bit is the person standing behind the concrete mixer. Returning a worker before one is fit could be detrimental......... |
Posted by Anonymous at 1:12 PM, 19/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Atkinsion
I heard Michael Atkinson on 5AA the other night. He was questioned on the WorkCover issue plus the issue of the new prison and the new hospital. He stated that the new hospital and prison couldnt be built overnight and a process was in place for these projects. These could take 6 years, He then went on and said he was not going to stand there and watch the WorkCover unfunded liability reach a $Billion. The simple fact is they have all watched it grow to this figure without any action, they have been warned many times.
Why is it that a process was to be put into place for the much needed hospital and prison when it seems no process was needed to force in the new kneejerk WorkCover legilsation. They try and run this spin and get caught every time. |
Posted by Anonymous at 2:40 PM, 19/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Blame the Workers.......
Businesses evacuated after Wingfield chemical spill.
March 19, 2008 03:15pm
TWO Wingfield businesses have been evacuted and people have been warned to stay clear of the area after a chemical spill.
Sixteen containers of hydrogen peroxide and tartaric acid began giving off the fumes at industrial premises at 463 Grand Junction Rd about 2.30pm.
It's thought the chemicals reacted to the wooen pallets on which there are stored.
|
Posted by Anonymous at 4:14 PM, 19/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Blame game
| Regarding Mr. Bruce Carter’s three critical factors on the demise of WorkCover, it would have to be noted that one overlooking critical factor was that these all occurred after Mr. Carter was appointed chairperson of the WorkCover board. Comments such as his could lead to playing the blame game but one has to look at the causation in its endeavor to seek why such critical points occurred in the first place. |
Posted by Anonymous at 12:58 PM, 20/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Join the queue......
A perfect example if the new reforms comes into place. Occupations just like teachers will now have to protect their employment status as the new reforms has no considerations for loss of the ability to sell ones employment potential if one was to go on WorkCover.
I hope Business SA has notified its Business members that this will become a common reacurrance.
South Australian teachers say time is running out for the State Government to settle a new enterprise agreement.
Australian Education Union state president Correna Haythorpe said the existing agreement would expire on March 31, but the government had yet to respond to the union's claims.
"We began our part of the process last year, devised a detailed, carefully argued claim which explained the necessity of what we're seeking and allowed plenty of time for the government to respond," Ms Haythorpe said.
As well as higher pay, the union wants the government to agree to measures to attract and retain staff, to allow for smaller classes and more manageable workloads and policies to improve the work-life balance.
Edited by workedover1 on 20/3/2008 at 3:58 PM |
Posted by Anonymous at 2:57 PM, 20/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Critical facts of WorkCover
Much of the public commentary over the past few weeks ignores three critical facts in relation to the WorkCover scheme:
Answer: One critical point overlooked in that these three points were all generated after Mr Carters appointment as Chair of the board.
1) Fewer injured workers successfully return to work on our scheme than any other scheme in australia, often at a devastating costs to families.
Answer: mis-management and "fair" redemptions removed on the instructions from Minister Wright in 2003
2) Under the proposed reforms, the scheme will remain the fairest, according to workers' compensation expert Alan Clayton, and the most generous overall.
Answer: Alan Clayton also suggested in this report of mis-management.
3) The scheme is unsustainable in its present form and must be fixed in a way that is fair to injured workers and affordable to business.
Answer: WorkCover has sat back and has done nothing to a point where it would be questioned if it has actually sabotaged the system.
The legislative reform proposed by the government has a clear focus on achieving better return to work outcomes. This is the key to fixing the scheme through a combination of sound claims management and the right legislative tools.
Answer: Starve the injured workers back to work without considering the occupational hazards and further aggrevation. The workers are too familiar with the current tools so lets change the rules.
In its entirety, the package will significantly improve the state's return-to-work rates and gradually decrease the cost of the scheme to employers.
Answer: Employers will soon realise they have more of an obligation to offer workers employment and increase relationship tension within the employer/employee.
Much has been said about diminishing injured workers' entitlements. The fact remains that by accepting the proposed changes, South Australia would continue to have the fairest and overall most generous scheme in Australia.
Answer: This model copies the Victorias scheme in which common law is in place for an employee to seek damages through employer negligence.
Chair |
Posted by Reader at 3:25 PM, 20/3/2008 |
Link |
|
WorkCover Lies revealed
The very basis of every argument put forward by WorkCover and the Government for the proposed cuts to Workers Entitlements is that fewer injured Workers are returning to work.
This is a complete distortion of the truth.
In 1997 there were 2141 Injured Workers on Benefits for 12 months or less. In 2006 there were incredibly 2141 Injured Workers on benefits for 12 months or less.
If we look at the 24 months or less figure we find that in 1997 there were 2640 Workers on Benefits and in 2006 there were just 2788, an increase of only 148 workers on benefits in 10 years.
How then is it possible that WorkCover try to suggest that there are fewer workers returning to work?
If we then consider the greater than 24 month group, the group that are internationally accepted as permanently incapacitated with only a 6% chance of ever returning to work we find that in 1997 there was 1970 Workers on benefits but in 2006 there were 3725 a 100 percent increase.
These figures obtained by FOI from WorkCover objectively prove that there is NO deterioration in return to work rates as WorkCover try to suggest but a 100 percent increase in the number of permanently injured Workers trapped by the ministerial policy to stop complying with the Act and paying reasonable redemptions.
WorkCover simply confuse the argument by including the ever increasing number permanently disabled Workers each year that find themselves trapped on benefits rather than paid out as the Legislation intended are somehow malingering and should be back at work.
|
Posted by PhilM at 10:00 AM, 21/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Business led by the hand.
Well as everyone will know businesses in South Australia expect that bodies like Workcover are run by competent management. With the unfunded liability one must wonder about how competent they really are.
The recent full page advert in the advertiser stating"pass the workers compensation bill now" is obviously showing the pending desperation of businesses........or is it a show of people who have other interests.
The advert appears to have been sponsored by the following
Aged Care Association Australia (South Australia).
Australian Hotels Association
Business SA
Engineering Employees Association of South Australia
Master Builders Association
Motor Traders Association
Property Council of Australia
South Australian Chamber of mines and Energy
As an injured Worker I will make it my duty never to support any of the above organisations.
|
Posted by You want it when?? at 11:30 AM, 21/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Talk with Bruce Carter
| How ironic "The Advertiser" should use an appropriate photograph of the one finger sign (FxxK you) to describe Bruce Carters opinion on crucial arears WorkCover is failing all of us. (friday 21st march 2008). It just goes to show the contempt he has towards injured workers and workers as a whole in this state. |
Posted by reader at 1:05 PM, 21/3/2008 |
Link |
|
The Advertiser
| I would like to make a comment on the statement made from The Advertiser under Bruce Carters column. It generalised that most sprains heal within a 6 week period. Take my word that the 6 week healing process will now extend to 13 weeks as there is now a safety factor been put into place thanks to Mr Clayton. Having said that, the new bill actually is an update of the type of employment and the injuries that may occur in this 21st century. Office workers have taken over from the labour type of employment hense when the original act was written in 1986 where there would have been more of the back, sprains, slip discs etc. Today you will find stress is becoming the more common injury type and dare i say the more difficult to treat. It is a positive sign that stress related cases are now more accepted as the norm and there is an element where compensation can now be claimed from this. The 10% threshold will be the only thing that would have to be proved in such claims. |
Posted by The new 21st Century culture at 8:05 AM, 22/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Carter
What Bruce Carter has done is very Mike Rann. ie. He spoke to the majority and to hell with the minority.
He is right about how few Workers actually need WorkCover. In fact he understated the true picture. Of the 37000 reported Workplace injuries, 32000 healed and were back to work within 2 weeks with no claim for Income Maintenance on WorkCover. The Worker probably took it for granted that should the injury have been worse, WorkCover would have covered them.
He could also have stated that some 95 percent of all injured Workers are back to work within 3 months and any of the proposed changes won't affect them.
But the key point that Bruce refuses to understand is that the very intention of Workers Compensation is to be the safety net for those suffering the debilitating injuries that keep them out of work beyond 3 months.
More so, for the half of one percent of all injured workers that are permanently incapacitated. In denying Injured Workers the right to Common Law Action, the Legislation protects employers. Bruce however feels that those permanently incapacitated workers don't deserve dignity and should lose their rights.
Bruce Carter has so much to be ashamed of in his puerile arrogant and worthless life selling assets for a fraction of their worth but the mess he made of WorkCover in just 5 years takes the cake!
Keep an eye out for Catch Bruce 2010 Pty Ltd.
|
Posted by PhilM at 3:54 PM, 22/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Bruce Carter Lies yet again!
Not only is Bruce Carter willing to ignore the intent of the WorkCover Legislation but he has taken creative licence in his description of its original intent.
There is not, and has never been, any suggestion that the Legislation had a “short term” focus, in fact, by denying the Injured Worker their Common Law right, it is reasonable to suggest that the Act is intended to provide long term support to the few that need it.
The balance between Workers and Employers Rights was lost when WorkCover decided to bank $250 Million annually and in doing so trapped permanently incapacitated on benefits costing SA $400 Million annually.
|
Posted by PhilM at 4:21 PM, 22/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Another Web Site
Seems yet another agrieved person feels strongly enough about the callous and negligent conduct of WorkCover that they have also set up a web site.
Worth a look as it is another voice trying to hold the mongrels to account.
http://www.workcovergonebad.com.au/ |
Posted by PhilM at 8:46 PM, 22/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Bruce Carter
| Bruce Carter does what he knows best in his insolvency expertise and that is rid of the so called bad debt. What he has also done is infiltrate the labor party in believing that what he does to businesses is ok to do to vunerable innocent injured workers. What ashame they are falling for the trick and the many thousand (including family members) are going to experience this callous action. |
Posted by Anonymous at 9:19 AM, 23/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Julia Divison's crediability
ABC Stateline 28/09/2007 Julia Davison stated there were 36,000 claimants on Workcover. Wrong..
Sunday Mail 23/03/08 Julia Davison states that it is incorrect that current workers will be cut off the system completely after 2 and a half years.?????
As WorkCover "chief" I doubt you have any credibilty left. |
Posted by Anonymous at 2:31 PM, 23/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Vow to make Workcover Fair
WORKCOVER chief Julia Davison has stepped in to end what she calls "unnecessary anxiety" over changes to the troubled compensation scheme.
She says SA will have Australia's fairest worker's compensation system.
"It has been reported that all injured workers would be cut off the scheme completely after 2 and 1/2 years. This is incorrect" she said.
Injured Workers who have no capacity for work will continue to be supported...until retirement age. |
Posted by Dumb Freddy at 8:07 PM, 23/3/2008 |
Link |
|
A lay persons view of the facts presented.
"unnecessary anxiety...Well wouldn't you be anxious if you had Julia Davison and Bruce Carter in charge of the sinking ship??
Fairest compensation system...For who? the employers who can get slave labour cheap and then sack them because they no longer can work?
Injured workers who have no capacity for work will continue to be supported....until retirement age.
Well thats what injured workers are bloody sick of..being left on the system to rot..
With you silly bastards in charge what chance have injured workers got to return to some form of normal life whilst stuck on Workcover benefits?
And what of those that end up on the shceme critical list that Bruce and his mates on the board direct be pushed off the system or prosecuted because they have spoken out about Workcover to their local member or another memebr of Parliament?
Ah yes ..we all know about how Bruce, his board and Workcover employees target and Bully injured workers who complain to their members of parliament, to the media or to management.
All the legislation changes will do is give South Australia the title holder of Australia's most oppressive Workers compensation system, that has the highest ongoing unrestrained and unfunded liability with the worst treated injured workers, with the lowest effective compensation and with the highest frequency of litigation and the highest legal expenses per injured Worker.
Not to mention the ever increasing levies for employers.
|
Posted by Dumb Freddy at 8:26 PM, 23/3/2008 |
Link |
|
hear, hear dumb freddy
You have hit the nail on the head. Nobody wants to stay on this sytem until retirement age, that is a jail sentence in itself. Can you imagine living each day as its your last with the amount of pressure and reviews that is going to be needed to support the incapacity, how is that fair?
Just a few days ago, Bruce Carter stated he wanted legislative tools to rein in the unfunded liability and we have Julia Davison stating she will keep them on the system until retirement age. Come on, you have been told for years now you are not managing the system properly and Michael Atkinson reckons he isnt going to sit back and watch the unfunded liability grow. Wake up and realise you have neglected the injured workers and the public as a whole.
|
Posted by Anonymous at 9:19 AM, 24/3/2008 |
Link |
|
How can they not see the problems..
If Dumb Freddy can see the problems with Workcover one wonders why the management and the Minister have done nothing about fixing the mess.
As for Julia and Bruce..when push comes to shove Julia is just a mouthpiece for Bruce and the board...her job depends on it..
Perhaps they are all too caught up in their own spin..and do not want to admit that the Black hole is so big they have fallen into that nobody can ever pull them out.
Even Blind Freddy can see the problems.
People should not be left on the system until they retire or die, they should be redeemed.
|
Posted by Blind Freddy at 10:02 AM, 24/3/2008 |
Link |
|
Have you done your homework Mr Wright?
The relevant minister has to be satisfied that a legislative change is required to secure policy objective, and the proposed order-
Be "proportionate".
"Strikes a fair balance" | | | |