Dear Mr Holding,
Thank you for you correspondence received August 7th 2008 in relation to
my letter sent via the VTHC website.
I was led to believe that Mr Hanks QC would be providing the government his
report this month? Can you please verify to WCV’s what date we can expect this
report to be made available to the public?
I am extremely concerned about your understanding of my recent correspondence
as I believe that my concerns more than peripherally relate to the objects of this
review.
I have personally been effected by this system and fully understand and
comprehend the changes Mr Hanks will make and its effect on my families lives.
So for your total understanding of my correspondence I have discussed my
concerns and complaints further so as; I may receive your total understanding
of the issues raised.
The VWA claims that psychological and psychiatric injuries are a major problem
and its right. Psychological and psychiatric injuries inflict massive suffering on
the 3,000 workers who receive stress injuries at work each year.
The Review being conducted by Mr Hanks QC wants to solve the problem by
taking most stress claims out of the system as a "work-place injury".
Mr Hanks also said that a psychological and psychiatric injury that arises
from any “reasonable management action” shouldn’t count as a work-place
injury.
Of course from WorkSafe’s point of view this would solve this problem, and if
these changes are passed then an injured worker would be left on the scrap heap
without medical care or financial support. The Review also wants to force these
workers to take part in mediation and/or workplace counselling before liability
for their claim is considered.
The VTHC says including “any reasonable management action” as a reason to
not accept claims discriminates against injured workers with psychological and
psychiatric injuries, and will result in the vast majority of stress claims not being accepted.Worksafe Victoria holds the record for rejecting new claims by injured
workers. It rejects 14.1% per year when in Queensland, only 3.8 % are rejected.
Worksafe Victoria is the most profitable system of workers compensation in Australia.
It makes a profit of more that $1 billion a year and pays more than $700 million
a year into state government coffers.
Since 2004 Worksafe has cut employers premiums by 45% saving them $2 billion
and despite WorkSafe’s profits and its gifts to employers and its support of country
football it still fails to provide quality care for injured workers.
Under the Hanks recommendations premiums will be cut by another 6% reducing
even further, the funds available to care for injured workers. What’s wrong with
this picture?
We here at Workcover Victims and the Trades Hall Council want every
Victorian to let the government know that it's time Worksafe was for workers,
not for employers and to include the following inclusions into its changes and
provide some form of protection for injured workers in Victoria.
1. Increase Weekly Payments
Currently, injured workers' weekly benefits are cut after 130 weeks, unless
they are able to demonstrate that they have "no work capacity" for any
employment and that this incapacity is likely to continue indefinitely.
The VTHC says the period of entitlement to weekly benefits should be
increased to 260 weeks, or five years.
How much should injured workers get?
The Victorian system of weekly payments is one of the worst in Australia.
The Hanks Review refused to examine the payments regime and made only
one slight improvement. Currently workers get 95% of pre-injury average
weekly earnings (PIAWE) including overtime for 13 weeks, then 75% up to
26 weeks, then 75% (less overtime) until 130 weeks.
The only change that Hanks has recommended is that after 13 weeks the
percentage increases to 80%.
The VTHC says that there should be an increase in the level of weekly
payments to 100% of PIAWE for the first 12 months, then 80% for the
duration of the entitlement period.
How should the payments be calculated?
The current manner, in which PIAWE is calculated whilst including piece work,
does not include allowances, commissions, bonuses, salary packaging etc.
This means that effective rates of weekly payments often fall well below the
current 95% and 75% rates in the Act. The VTHC says the calculation should
be based upon "normal weekly earnings" that incorporates pay structures,
including overtime, shift penalties and all other benefits and not based solely
on ordinary rates of pay for normal hours worked.
2. Make Automatic Payments.The delays that exist between a worker being
injured and getting their first weekly payment causes major financial hardship
and means that vital medical and rehabilitative services are delayed.
The VTHC says full provisional liability should be introduced to provide weekly
benefits and medical and like expenses within 7 days of a claim being made.
3. Cover All Stress Injuries.The Workcover Authority claims that
psychological/psychiatric injuries are a major problem. It's right;
these injuries inflict massive suffering on the workers who have them.
Mr Hanks wants to solve the problem by taking most stress claims out of
the system as a work-place injury that workers receive compensation for
from Workcover. He says a psychological/psychiatric injury that arises from
any "reasonable management action" shouldn't count as a work-place injury.
From Workcover’s point of view this would solve the problem, but a worker
would be left on the scrap-heap without medical care or financial support.
Every year about 3000 people receive stress injuries at work. The Review
also wants to force these workers to take part in mediation and/or workplace
counselling before liability for their claim is considered. The VTHC says
including "any reasonable management action" as a reason to not accept
claims discriminates against injured workers with psychological/psychiatric
injuries, and will result in the vast majority of stress claims not being accepted.
4. Improve Dispute Resolution Process.If your right to be compensated for a
work-place injury is challenged, your first port of call is the Accident
Compensation Conciliation Service (ACCS). But now, the toothless tiger
may be stripped of its few remaining powers and reduced to a mere talking
shop. Although it's been a toothless tiger for years, it is still a place where
injured workers can make some progress in claiming their rights.
Mr Hanks wants the have the ACCS's powers reduced so that it's a mere
talking shop and have Workcover dictate most of what it does. This would
see at least an extra 6000 claims being forced into the courts for resolution.
The VTHC estimates it will cost workers and employers at least an extra
$60 million a year. This means $30 million each more than the current system.
It would be a lawyers' picnic. It would blow-out the delays in court resolutions
of Workcover claims by at least two years. And extend the suffering and delay
medical treatment for injured workers. It would stop the treatment of injuries
that should be treated and fixed quickly. It would turn basic ordinary injuries
into a battle ground that would prevent workers from pursuing their claims
and create a financial gift to lawyers. For Injuries that could be fixed fast and
the worker back to work quickly, it would extend the process into a complex
legal battle that would mean that the injuries would become long-term and
chronic. This is an ill-considered and, in practice, a mad plan.
The VTHC says workers' claims must be resolved quickly. Unions want a
one-stop shop that has the power to conciliate issues - and - if that fails,
arbitrate. The unions' solution is speedy, simple, fair and economically
efficient. It would deliver the best results for workers and employers.
5. Improve Return to Work Rights for WorkersMr Hanks proposes to remove
from the law most, if not all, of the employer obligations in the return to work
process and move them to guidance material, regulations and codes of
compliance. He also proposes that OH&S reps be the ONLY people -
apart from the injured worker - who can represent an injured worker
in the return to work process. This is a fundamental attack on an injured
worker's right to make their own decision about who represents them at
a critical period in their life. The VTHC says the obligations must remain
in the Act, an injured worker should be able to choose anyone to represent
them and the whole process must be reformed to improve the rights of injured
workers, increase the obligations on employers to return injured workers
to meaningful work.
6. Stop Discrimination.Injured workers are amongst the most discriminated
against groups in the community. But it doesn't just start after they lodge their
Workcover, it can happen if their employer thinks they are going to lodge a
claim. And it isn't just the injured worker who faces discrimination, it can
include anyone who encourages or helps an injured to lodge a claim.
Mr Hanks merely wants to bring the Workcover Act's anti-discrimination
provisions into line with the OHS Act. This doesn't go far enough. The VTHC
says the Act must be changed to prevent all forms of discrimination against
the injured worker or work-mates that may be assisting them in their claim.
7. Bring Outworkers inOutworkers are the most vulnerable workers in Victoria.
Their hours are long and they are regularly the victims of unscrupulous
employers. Mr Hanks says the Act merely needs to be clarified to properly
cover outworkers. But this does not go far enough. Even if it is clarified, the
law won't address the sham working arrangements forced on outworkers
by their employers. The VTHC says existing provisions need not only to
be clarified but also changed to ensure coverage for outworkers. Protection
should not be limited to natural persons and sole employee companies but
should also extend to all sham arrangements.
Now Mr Holding, do my comments only peripherally relate to the objects
of the review?
I have clearly outlined my expectations of this system and its review.
Yours Sincerely,
Workcover Victims
Now after writing the above letter to Mr Holding he hasn't even bothered to
respond too it?
If he is going to continue to ignore his responsibilities then he should be
removed from his office because he is ignoring the very people he was
employed to help!
If you cant take the criticism Mr Holding then resign your position and allow
someone to take over who cares about their job and the injured workers of
Victoria!
No comments:
Post a Comment