Article from: GREG KELTON, STATE EDITOR
October 19, 2008 09:30pm
JUBILANT unions will push for changes to workers' benefits after their
win on WorkCover at the ALP's state conference.
They have also warned they expect Labor MPs to support the changes
because they are now party policy.
The weekend conference backed union attempts to change ALP policy
on the issue of workers' compensation despite opposition from the
Government.
As a result, the party's platform now commits the Government to talking
to unions and resolving a raft of issues before December next year.
These include reducing employer WorkCover levies until the scheme's
unfunded liabilities are addressed.
This year, the Government and unions became embroiled in a bitter row
over reducing workers' benefits in a bid to reduce a looming financial
crisis for WorkCover. The changes were rammed through Parliament
despite strong opposition from unions and independent MPs in the
Upper House. It also provoked behind-the-scenes unrest among MPs
from the Left who opposed the changes.
SA Unions secretary Janet Giles said the conference decision was "a
significant victory for vulnerable workers".
"It is now the party's policy that worker protections must be reinstated
in law and all MPs are bound by party policy," she said.
"We have maintained from the very beginning improvements to
WorkCover could only be achieved through structural change, not
through penalising the very workers it is meant to support."
Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith has signalled
he will court unions – the Liberal Party's traditional enemy – in the
lead-up to the next state election. He has written to 24 unions seeking
regular meetings to "engage with, and listen to, the union movement".
Mr Hamilton-Smith told The Advertiser he wanted to take the Liberal
Party to all stakeholders in the community. "The days of the Liberal
Party representing the big end of town at the expense of others are
over," he said. Ms Giles said the union executive would accept his invitation.
"We speak to many organisations and political groups about our
objectives," she said. "We have a very clear agenda and set of
objectives and we will talk to him about them."
Showing posts with label South Australia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label South Australia. Show all posts
Monday, 27 October 2008
'Bullied' workers to fight reforms
WCV's would like to thank "ANNA" for this article.
Article from: Sunday Mail Newspaper
Written By: RENATO CASTELLO
October 26, 2008 01:00am
INJURED workers are uniting under a new peak body to fight the
controversial WorkCover reforms, saying they have been "bullied" for too
long.
And the group's spokeswoman has vowed to help people return to work
quicker, accusing the WorkCover system of "breaking" injured workers.
The body – which has the working name of Encompass – will provide
counselling, support and advice to injured workers and families of people
killed at work.
Encompass spokeswoman and injured worker Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson
said changes to WorkCover meant people injured at work must stand united.
"The one thing we know more than anyone else is that when you're forced
into isolation, which the system does, you start to doubt your own injuries,"
she said."(The group) has been a long time in the making but with the change
of legislation . . . it has formalised it to the point that we have to do something.
"We can't rely on the system to fix the system because it's the system itself
that is broken and injured workers are being even more broken because of it.
"With the formation of this body, we intend to be a voice to be heard . . .
this is the first time this has actually been attempted in Australia."
In June, the State Government rammed through changes to the WorkCover
scheme – including cutting workers' entitlements – in a bid to rein in ballooning
unfunded liabilities nudging $1 billion.
Ms McKenzie-Ferguson – who runs advocacy group the Work
Injured Resource Connection Office – said the lobby group would
provide social workers, community advocates and possibly financial
counsellors to help injured workers. She said the group – which already has
about 200 members – would also write to Industrial Relations Minister
Paul Caica to seek an "observational seat" at WorkCover board meetings.
"We are quite serious in what we are doing because, quite frankly,
injured workers have been pushed and bullied for far too long," she said.
"Nobody sits down and explains to them what the (WorkCover) process
is and what's actually involved in returning to work.
"What we will be doing is hand-holding until they understand those
processes and encouraging them in their own return-to-work plans.
The problem now is employers simply don't know if they can trust the work
ethic of an injured employee so our goal is to try and break down those barriers."
She said Encompass had secured office space through an "industry heavyweight"
but would apply for money through WorkCover's $15 million return-to-work fund,
which was established as part of the State Government's review of the workers
compensation system.
WorkCover is offering one-off payments to any group that can devise
strategies to get people back into the workforce."We hope the minister will
be supportive and the corporation will be supportive," Ms McKenzie-Ferguson
said. An inaugural public meeting of Encompass is scheduled for December.
Article from: Sunday Mail Newspaper
Written By: RENATO CASTELLO
October 26, 2008 01:00am
INJURED workers are uniting under a new peak body to fight the
controversial WorkCover reforms, saying they have been "bullied" for too
long.
And the group's spokeswoman has vowed to help people return to work
quicker, accusing the WorkCover system of "breaking" injured workers.
The body – which has the working name of Encompass – will provide
counselling, support and advice to injured workers and families of people
killed at work.
Encompass spokeswoman and injured worker Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson
said changes to WorkCover meant people injured at work must stand united.
"The one thing we know more than anyone else is that when you're forced
into isolation, which the system does, you start to doubt your own injuries,"
she said."(The group) has been a long time in the making but with the change
of legislation . . . it has formalised it to the point that we have to do something.
"We can't rely on the system to fix the system because it's the system itself
that is broken and injured workers are being even more broken because of it.
"With the formation of this body, we intend to be a voice to be heard . . .
this is the first time this has actually been attempted in Australia."
In June, the State Government rammed through changes to the WorkCover
scheme – including cutting workers' entitlements – in a bid to rein in ballooning
unfunded liabilities nudging $1 billion.
Ms McKenzie-Ferguson – who runs advocacy group the Work
Injured Resource Connection Office – said the lobby group would
provide social workers, community advocates and possibly financial
counsellors to help injured workers. She said the group – which already has
about 200 members – would also write to Industrial Relations Minister
Paul Caica to seek an "observational seat" at WorkCover board meetings.
"We are quite serious in what we are doing because, quite frankly,
injured workers have been pushed and bullied for far too long," she said.
"Nobody sits down and explains to them what the (WorkCover) process
is and what's actually involved in returning to work.
"What we will be doing is hand-holding until they understand those
processes and encouraging them in their own return-to-work plans.
The problem now is employers simply don't know if they can trust the work
ethic of an injured employee so our goal is to try and break down those barriers."
She said Encompass had secured office space through an "industry heavyweight"
but would apply for money through WorkCover's $15 million return-to-work fund,
which was established as part of the State Government's review of the workers
compensation system.
WorkCover is offering one-off payments to any group that can devise
strategies to get people back into the workforce."We hope the minister will
be supportive and the corporation will be supportive," Ms McKenzie-Ferguson
said. An inaugural public meeting of Encompass is scheduled for December.
Sunday, 10 August 2008
Claims outsourcing at WorkCover fails to deliver
Media Release
February 18 2008
New research from UniSA’s Hawke Research Institute has exploded
the myth that outsourcing government services will always make savings.
Research undertaken by economist and workers’ compensation specialist,
Dr Kevin Purse, has shown that the outsourcing of WorkCover's claims’
administration responsibilities has not only failed to meet promised
key financial and other objectives – but costs have actually increased
under the outsourced model.
According to Dr Purse the cost of administering the WorkCover scheme
in 1994, before outsourcing began, was $49.7 million.
“The move to outsourcing was supposed to deliver cost savings of up to
15 per cent a year,” he said.
“Not only was the target never met - there were never actually any cost
savings at all, even though the number of WorkCover claims fell
dramatically from the 39,500 in 1995 to 22,020 in 2007.
“Instead, there was a blow out in scheme administration costs and
by 2007 after adjusting for inflation, South Australian employers
had paid an extra $75 million in administration costs - in effect,
an ‘outsourcing loading’ of more than 10 per cent a year.”
In 1994 the state Liberal government introduced legislation to allow
WorkCover to outsource its core business - workers’ compensation
claims management - to the private sector.
From 1995, claims management was farmed out to nine insurance companies,
then five, then four and now, since 2006, one claims agent.
“At the time, outsourcing was ‘sold’ to the community as something
that would reduce WorkCover’s administration costs, provide greater
choice for employers, improve service delivery, and lift the scheme’s
performance,” Dr Purse said.
“What we know now is that the much vaunted benefits of outsourcing
have simply failed to materialise.”
Dr Purse said the promise of employer choice under outsourcing was
also an illusion.
“Prior to 2006 on average, less than one per cent of employers changed
claims agents a year, and since then of course any semblance of employer
choice has disappeared altogether following the shift to a single claims
agent.”
Dr Purse said service to injured workers has been another area of
ongoing concern.
“This is especially so for those whose injuries make an early return
to work unlikely or more difficult,” he said.
“Claims agents have all too often regarded employers as the ‘customer’
and individual workers as nothing more than a ‘claim’. Consequently,
the level of service to workers has fluctuated between indifference
and aggressive claims management.
“An excessively high turnover of claims managers, currently estimated
at more than 20 per cent, hasn’t helped either.
“Perhaps most disturbingly,” he said, “there has been a conspicuous
deterioration in WorkCover’s financial performance.
“Prior to outsourcing, in June 1995, the average premium rate for
employers was 2.84 per cent of payroll and the scheme had a funding
ratio of 70.7 per cent. But by June 2007 the average premium had
increased to 3.0 per cent and the funding ratio had fallen to 64.7
per cent - even though workers’ entitlements were considerably greater
then than now.”
From his research Dr Purse has concluded that the obvious solution
would be to reincorporate the claims management function within
WorkCover’s operations.
“But this is easier said than done, because in 2006 the WorkCover
Board signed off on a five year contract with the current claims’
agent,” he said.
“As part of the deal though, the agent agreed to cut WorkCover’s
claims liability by up to $100 million annually after two years.
However, if this target is not met the SA Government has an opportunity
to step in and revisit in-sourcing.
“This now needs serious consideration, especially as the scheme’s
claims liability has already increased by over $300 million since
2006.”
February 18 2008
New research from UniSA’s Hawke Research Institute has exploded
the myth that outsourcing government services will always make savings.
Research undertaken by economist and workers’ compensation specialist,
Dr Kevin Purse, has shown that the outsourcing of WorkCover's claims’
administration responsibilities has not only failed to meet promised
key financial and other objectives – but costs have actually increased
under the outsourced model.
According to Dr Purse the cost of administering the WorkCover scheme
in 1994, before outsourcing began, was $49.7 million.
“The move to outsourcing was supposed to deliver cost savings of up to
15 per cent a year,” he said.
“Not only was the target never met - there were never actually any cost
savings at all, even though the number of WorkCover claims fell
dramatically from the 39,500 in 1995 to 22,020 in 2007.
“Instead, there was a blow out in scheme administration costs and
by 2007 after adjusting for inflation, South Australian employers
had paid an extra $75 million in administration costs - in effect,
an ‘outsourcing loading’ of more than 10 per cent a year.”
In 1994 the state Liberal government introduced legislation to allow
WorkCover to outsource its core business - workers’ compensation
claims management - to the private sector.
From 1995, claims management was farmed out to nine insurance companies,
then five, then four and now, since 2006, one claims agent.
“At the time, outsourcing was ‘sold’ to the community as something
that would reduce WorkCover’s administration costs, provide greater
choice for employers, improve service delivery, and lift the scheme’s
performance,” Dr Purse said.
“What we know now is that the much vaunted benefits of outsourcing
have simply failed to materialise.”
Dr Purse said the promise of employer choice under outsourcing was
also an illusion.
“Prior to 2006 on average, less than one per cent of employers changed
claims agents a year, and since then of course any semblance of employer
choice has disappeared altogether following the shift to a single claims
agent.”
Dr Purse said service to injured workers has been another area of
ongoing concern.
“This is especially so for those whose injuries make an early return
to work unlikely or more difficult,” he said.
“Claims agents have all too often regarded employers as the ‘customer’
and individual workers as nothing more than a ‘claim’. Consequently,
the level of service to workers has fluctuated between indifference
and aggressive claims management.
“An excessively high turnover of claims managers, currently estimated
at more than 20 per cent, hasn’t helped either.
“Perhaps most disturbingly,” he said, “there has been a conspicuous
deterioration in WorkCover’s financial performance.
“Prior to outsourcing, in June 1995, the average premium rate for
employers was 2.84 per cent of payroll and the scheme had a funding
ratio of 70.7 per cent. But by June 2007 the average premium had
increased to 3.0 per cent and the funding ratio had fallen to 64.7
per cent - even though workers’ entitlements were considerably greater
then than now.”
From his research Dr Purse has concluded that the obvious solution
would be to reincorporate the claims management function within
WorkCover’s operations.
“But this is easier said than done, because in 2006 the WorkCover
Board signed off on a five year contract with the current claims’
agent,” he said.
“As part of the deal though, the agent agreed to cut WorkCover’s
claims liability by up to $100 million annually after two years.
However, if this target is not met the SA Government has an opportunity
to step in and revisit in-sourcing.
“This now needs serious consideration, especially as the scheme’s
claims liability has already increased by over $300 million since
2006.”
Saturday, 14 June 2008
South Australian Workercover Campaign Fact Sheet
This paper has been submitted for those workcover victims in South Australia
The Workers Compensation System in SA was designed in 1986 to provide
rehabilitation and return to work for injured workers and also compensation
for their injuries.
The aim was to create a fair system for workers which neither blames the
worker, or the employer and therefore contains no ability to sue for damages.
The scheme is funded through a levy on employers.
The finances of the scheme have not been good for some time due to the reduction
of this levy by the previous Liberal Government, the outsourcing of claims to
private insurance companies and general poor management.
When the Rann Government came to office they appointed a new Board which
put in place a number of measures which have improved the funding position
of the scheme but not the projected long term liability which is calculated by the
actuary. The levy paid by employers in SA is higher than in other states so there
is pressure from business to reduce their levy payments. Last year the Board
made recommendations to the Minister to change the law by severely cutting
workers entitlements in order to change the liability projection.
The Union Reps on the Board did not support these recommendations and
put in a minority report.
The Minister announced a Review into the Board recommendations which
reported to Government in late December 2007.
Without any consultation with Unions or the community (or Members of
Parliament) a Bill was drafted and put into Parliament with the announcement
that the Government would also move to reduce employer levies.
What does the Government Bill propose?
13 weeks after injury salary is reduced by 20% if not yet returned to work.
Nearly all workers kicked off all payments if still on WorkCover two and a
half years after the injury. This will be retrospective so anyone currently on
the scheme will be affected.
Payments for loss of limb or body function significantly reduced. If a worker
disputes a decision about a WorkCover claim they will have their pay suspended
while they are in dispute. No financial penalty on employers who dispute.
No increased penalties for employers who do not take their injured workers
back and no penalties for service providers who do not fulfill their obligations
to return people to work.
Reduction of democratic control of Parliament with bits of legislation now set
through WorkCover policy. Removal of the obligations for employers to find
work that is similar to the previous work of injured workers making it easier
to give them the bad jobs and force them out. No ability to sue employers for
negligence or damages. Levy cut for employers
What does it mean for injured workers?
If the Bill proceeds, injured workers will have their pay cut and their rights
reduced. Although most work injuries are fixed in under 13 weeks some take
longer. These workers will have to live on 20% less pay while they recover
and this will add financial stress. Low paid workers will be paid lower than
the legal minimum wage. At 2 and a half years there will be a work capacity
test and if there is any capacity to work even if they do not have a job, then
the worker will be kicked off payments. This part of the Bill is retrospective
so anyone currently on the scheme would be affected.
These people will be forced onto Commonwealth benefits It is likely that
workers would no longer be able to afford to complain if they are not happy
with the way their workers comp claim is dealt with as they will have their
pay suspended if they do so
What does it mean for employers?
There will be a reduction in their costs as their levy payments will be reduced.
Also there is a reduction in their obligations to employ their injured workers,
no financial penalty for doing the wrong thing by their workers and it is possible
that they will not bother much with supporting workers to return to work or get
better because they know that if they wait 2 and a half years the worker will be
off the scheme anyway. Those employers who currently are self insured and do
not have financial problems with their workers compensation will get a windfall
as they will have their obligations significantly reduced.
What do the unions want?
Firstly we want meaningful negotiations with the Government which should
have happened before the Bill was drafted or placed in Parliament. We want to
minimize the impact of any changes to the law on injured workers and ensure
that any changes are balanced between the interests of injured workers
and employers. We also want to help with the financial issues facing the scheme
by Improving the management of injured workers including ensuring that
the agent, rehab provider, medical profession and lawyers all do their jobs well
with a focus on speedy safe return to work. Ensure that employers are penalized
for not giving suitable duties for their injured workers. Improving access for
injured workers to retraining. Improving occupational health and safety to
prevent injuries in the first place.
What about the unfunded liability?
In simple terms, the unfunded liability is the balance between the assets of
WorkCover and the future payments to injured workers which are an estimated
over the next 40 years by an actuary.The actuary uses complex calculations,
based on a range of assumptions, to make an estimate of the value in current
dollars of all the costs associated with current claims. This is an amount the actuary
expects will be paid over the life of those claims, but is not payable today, tomorrow
or even this year. The unfunded liability does not effect the state economy or the
AAA rating.
Is it still the fairest scheme in the country?
The Premier has said that this scheme would still be the fairest in the country
if these changes are made. This is not true. Most of these changes are modeled
on the Victorian system which was introduced by Jeff Kennett. The big difference
is that Victorian workers are able to sue their employer for negligence and
damages. This means that they can receive payments from their employer on
top of workers comp payments. This also means that employers often take
out additional insurance on top of their Workers compensation levy which means
they pay more.
This Bill would make it "fairer" for employers but not fairer for
injured workers.
What’s the timeframe?
If the Liberal party supports this Bill it could be made law before July this year.
That is why it is important that we campaign publicly and make our voices heard.
What can be done?
We need to let the Premier know that he should not proceed with the bill in
its current form. Join the campaign.
Go the website; saveworkcovernow.wikispaces.com.
You can also assist by writing letters to the Premier, your
local MP's,Worksafe, signing the petition, helping with
leafleting, talking to your friends, family and workmates
and joining in with the public actions
The Workers Compensation System in SA was designed in 1986 to provide
rehabilitation and return to work for injured workers and also compensation
for their injuries.
The aim was to create a fair system for workers which neither blames the
worker, or the employer and therefore contains no ability to sue for damages.
The scheme is funded through a levy on employers.
The finances of the scheme have not been good for some time due to the reduction
of this levy by the previous Liberal Government, the outsourcing of claims to
private insurance companies and general poor management.
When the Rann Government came to office they appointed a new Board which
put in place a number of measures which have improved the funding position
of the scheme but not the projected long term liability which is calculated by the
actuary. The levy paid by employers in SA is higher than in other states so there
is pressure from business to reduce their levy payments. Last year the Board
made recommendations to the Minister to change the law by severely cutting
workers entitlements in order to change the liability projection.
The Union Reps on the Board did not support these recommendations and
put in a minority report.
The Minister announced a Review into the Board recommendations which
reported to Government in late December 2007.
Without any consultation with Unions or the community (or Members of
Parliament) a Bill was drafted and put into Parliament with the announcement
that the Government would also move to reduce employer levies.
What does the Government Bill propose?
13 weeks after injury salary is reduced by 20% if not yet returned to work.
Nearly all workers kicked off all payments if still on WorkCover two and a
half years after the injury. This will be retrospective so anyone currently on
the scheme will be affected.
Payments for loss of limb or body function significantly reduced. If a worker
disputes a decision about a WorkCover claim they will have their pay suspended
while they are in dispute. No financial penalty on employers who dispute.
No increased penalties for employers who do not take their injured workers
back and no penalties for service providers who do not fulfill their obligations
to return people to work.
Reduction of democratic control of Parliament with bits of legislation now set
through WorkCover policy. Removal of the obligations for employers to find
work that is similar to the previous work of injured workers making it easier
to give them the bad jobs and force them out. No ability to sue employers for
negligence or damages. Levy cut for employers
What does it mean for injured workers?
If the Bill proceeds, injured workers will have their pay cut and their rights
reduced. Although most work injuries are fixed in under 13 weeks some take
longer. These workers will have to live on 20% less pay while they recover
and this will add financial stress. Low paid workers will be paid lower than
the legal minimum wage. At 2 and a half years there will be a work capacity
test and if there is any capacity to work even if they do not have a job, then
the worker will be kicked off payments. This part of the Bill is retrospective
so anyone currently on the scheme would be affected.
These people will be forced onto Commonwealth benefits It is likely that
workers would no longer be able to afford to complain if they are not happy
with the way their workers comp claim is dealt with as they will have their
pay suspended if they do so
What does it mean for employers?
There will be a reduction in their costs as their levy payments will be reduced.
Also there is a reduction in their obligations to employ their injured workers,
no financial penalty for doing the wrong thing by their workers and it is possible
that they will not bother much with supporting workers to return to work or get
better because they know that if they wait 2 and a half years the worker will be
off the scheme anyway. Those employers who currently are self insured and do
not have financial problems with their workers compensation will get a windfall
as they will have their obligations significantly reduced.
What do the unions want?
Firstly we want meaningful negotiations with the Government which should
have happened before the Bill was drafted or placed in Parliament. We want to
minimize the impact of any changes to the law on injured workers and ensure
that any changes are balanced between the interests of injured workers
and employers. We also want to help with the financial issues facing the scheme
by Improving the management of injured workers including ensuring that
the agent, rehab provider, medical profession and lawyers all do their jobs well
with a focus on speedy safe return to work. Ensure that employers are penalized
for not giving suitable duties for their injured workers. Improving access for
injured workers to retraining. Improving occupational health and safety to
prevent injuries in the first place.
What about the unfunded liability?
In simple terms, the unfunded liability is the balance between the assets of
WorkCover and the future payments to injured workers which are an estimated
over the next 40 years by an actuary.The actuary uses complex calculations,
based on a range of assumptions, to make an estimate of the value in current
dollars of all the costs associated with current claims. This is an amount the actuary
expects will be paid over the life of those claims, but is not payable today, tomorrow
or even this year. The unfunded liability does not effect the state economy or the
AAA rating.
Is it still the fairest scheme in the country?
The Premier has said that this scheme would still be the fairest in the country
if these changes are made. This is not true. Most of these changes are modeled
on the Victorian system which was introduced by Jeff Kennett. The big difference
is that Victorian workers are able to sue their employer for negligence and
damages. This means that they can receive payments from their employer on
top of workers comp payments. This also means that employers often take
out additional insurance on top of their Workers compensation levy which means
they pay more.
This Bill would make it "fairer" for employers but not fairer for
injured workers.
What’s the timeframe?
If the Liberal party supports this Bill it could be made law before July this year.
That is why it is important that we campaign publicly and make our voices heard.
What can be done?
We need to let the Premier know that he should not proceed with the bill in
its current form. Join the campaign.
Go the website; saveworkcovernow.wikispaces.com.
You can also assist by writing letters to the Premier, your
local MP's,Worksafe, signing the petition, helping with
leafleting, talking to your friends, family and workmates
and joining in with the public actions
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)