Workers’ compensation stories rarely make “front page” news or the “top stories” lists on newsfeeds. Many stories that do attain headline status have a workers’ compensation connection that is often overlooked, missing an important “teachable moment.”
The recent riot in Vancouver that followed the final Stanley Cup game certainly made headlines around the world, but few will hear about the dozens of workers who suffered injuries as a result of that event. That number may well grow because workers have up to a year to file a claim with WorkSafeBC. So far, I haven’t read anything in the media regarding the effectiveness of risk assessments employers undertook before or after the riot, and the plans to protect workers from future risks of violence.
The weather in most of North America is another headline story with very little reference to the protection of workers. Record-breaking heat and humidity are not only uncomfortable, they can be dangerous particularly to workers who have to spend their work hours in that environment. US Labor Secretary, Hilda Solis, issued a news release on July 20, 2011 to remind employers of their duty to protect workers saying:
“Employers must take the precautions needed to protect outdoor workers:
§ Have a work site plan to prevent heat-related . . .
§ Provide plenty of water at the job site and remind workers to drink small amounts of water frequently - every 15 minutes.
§ Schedule rest breaks throughout the work shift and provide shaded or air conditioned rest areas near the work site.
§ Let new workers get used to the extreme heat, gradually increasing the work load over a week.
§ When possible, schedule heavy tasks for earlier in the day.
Tell workers what to look for to spot the signs of heat exhaustion or heat stroke in themselves and their co-workers, and make sure they know what to do in an emergency.”
All of this is great advice, but is the story reaching the intended audience? A simple search on Google News will show more than 10,000 recent stories on the heat wave; only a dozen or so mentioned employers’ responsibilities for their workers. From a random sampling of stories with some reference to employers’ responsibilities or practical advice for workers, the references were well down in the text and far below the newsfeed summary or Tweet limit of 140 characters.
Hazard Alerts and other targeted communications have the potential to reach audiences who need the information but these rely heavily on employers and safety officers self-selecting to receive this sort of communication.
Now that most of us are headline news consumers, even stories that do contain great information may not be reaching the people who need to hear the message and learn from it. I’m not suggesting we abandon rapid response and “push” feeds of safety and health information related to headline events; these strategies work for the thoughtful reader who clicks beyond the headline. And there is no doubt in my mind that linking employer responsibilities and safety advice to headline stories is a potentially strong learning opportunity. I am suggesting that new approaches to disseminating timely safety and health information need to be developed to reach receptive audiences. In the age of Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, effective use of social media needs to be part of the answer.
Next time you are looking at your newsfeed, Flipboard app or Google News summary, look at some of the local headline stories and ask yourself, as a worker or employer, what would these circumstances mean to my occupational safety and health? If you find a good story that does use a current headline as a teachable health and safety or workers’ compensation moment, re-tweet the story or share it with a friend.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
More about older workers, incentives to work to an older age
My post from April 12 on Canada Pension Plan (CPP) changes generated some discussion. I received quite a few questions on the likely impact the changes and the apparent rise in the numbers of older workers in the labour force will have on our organization.
You may recall that CPP retirement benefits have changed. Up until last year, someone expecting to retire at age 65 with a CPP monthly benefit of $900 could take the pension as early as age 60 but the pension amount would be reduced by 30%. The same person could also choose to delay taking CPP. For every month beyond the month that person turned 65, the pension amount would increase to a maximum at age 70 of 30% more than the base amount at age 65. Starting this year, the penalties for taking CPP early and the incentives for delaying taking a pension are increasing. By 2016, the “penalty” for taking CPP at age 60 will be 36% while the “bonus” for waiting to age 70 will be increase to 42% in 2013.
Not every worker will delay starting their CPP to age 70 but the financial incentives to do so are attractive. Using that hypothetical case of someone with an eligibility at age 65 of $900, taking the pension early when the changes are fully in effect will reduce the monthly pension at age 60 to just $576 while waiting to age 70 will see the monthly amount rise to $1278. As long as the worker still has enough income from employment or other sources, the incentive to keep working to age 70 looks pretty attractive.
After my earlier posting on this, the number one question I was asked was, “Which is the better thing to do, take CPP early or to delay?” If the answer is clearly in favour of delaying, more workers are likely to continue working past age 65. As with almost all such questions, the best answer will depend on individual circumstances. Health, family issues, living costs, financial resource, life expectancy, taxation situation and other effects will certainly come into play.
A BMO Retirement Institute report put it this way:
One can calculate the “break-even” or “cross-over” point at which one choice proves to be more advantageous, in terms of lifetime earnings, than the others. While it is impossible to predict life expectancy, to put it in perspective, individuals whose life expectancy does not exceed age 73 would be better off drawing their CPP at age 60 – notwithstanding the 36 per cent reduction in benefits under the new rules. Conversely, those who live beyond 81 would be better off drawing their pension at age 70 and taking advantage of the 42 per cent increase in benefits. For everyone in between, the best choice is to draw one’s pension starting at age 65.
If life expectancy is age 90, the report calculates that “. . . the person who began drawing CPP at age 70 will collect about $100,000 more from the CPP than the early retiree who began collecting CPP at age 60.” For many, this may constitute an attractive incentive to continue in the labour force to age 70.
The next most common question I was asked concerned what is actually happening out there in the labour force: “Are more workers actually working beyond the age of 65?” To find out the answer to this question, I downloaded data from Statistics Canada based on the Labour Force Survey. The time series looks only at workers age 65 and older. I split the workers into full and part-time categories. I got the following:
[caption id="attachment_232" align="alignnone" width="450" caption="Workers 65 and over by employment type Jan 1996-Jan 2011 Canada"]
[/caption]As you can see, the lines were relatively flat between 1996 and 2001. Since then, however, we have more than doubled the number of full-time older workers, and tripled the number of older part-time workers. What’s fascinating to me is that this chart does not reflect the baby-boom generation. By definition, that generation was born in and after 1946. Add 65 to 1946 and you get 2011; the first baby-boomers are just turning 65 this year. Even if the participation rate among the post-65 population were to remain flat, the sheer volume of people entering that category over the next few decades will see this upward trend continue.
Finally, I was asked, “What are the implications for prevention and compensation?” I think it is pretty clear we are going to see an increased number and proportion of older workers in the labour force. Older workers are more vulnerable to a somewhat different array of work-related injuries than their younger counterparts. The severity of injuries among older workers is often elevated, because of other conditions like diabetes and obesity that complicate treatment and prolong recovery. A recent presentation by NCCI provided the top ten diagnosis codes, amongst younger and older workers with lost-time claims paid for temporary benefits closed within 24 months of the date of injury, for accident year 1996-2007 for NCCI states. The nature of these injuries is indicative of the vulnerabilities as we age, and provide some indication of where prevention efforts should be directed.
| Ages 20—34 | Ages 45—64 |
| 1. Sprain Lumbar Region2. Lower Leg Injury, not otherwise specified 3. Sprain of Ankle, not otherwise specified 4. Unilateral Inguinal Hernia 5. Cervicalgia 6. Lumbar Disc Displacement 7. Carpal Tunnel Syndrome 8. Lumbago 9. Sprain Lumbosacral 10. Sprain of Neck | 1. Sprain Rotator Cuff 2. Unilateral Inguinal Hernia 3. Carpal Tunnel Syndrome 4. Tear Medial Cartilage/Meniscus of Knee 5. Lower Leg Injury, not otherwise specified 6. Sprain Lumbar Region 7. Cervicalgia 8. Rotator Cuff Syndrome, unspecified 9. Lumbar Disc Displacement 10. Lumbosacral Neuritis, not otherwise specified |
While the largest proportion of injured workers will continue to be in their thirties and forties, the combination of fewer younger worker injuries and increasing numbers of older worker injuries will result in an overall increase in complexity, and upward pressure on duration and medical costs.
If "70 is the new 65," awareness and sensitivity to the vulnerabilities of older workers will have to increase.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
What were the hightlights from the Six Steps to Success Conference?
Last week I spoke at the Six Steps to Success conference in Whitehorse, Yukon. My contribution to the program was to bring the 300 member audience (from Canada, the U.S. and as far away as New Zealand), up to date with the demographic changes now underway that will change and shape the labour force for the next few decades. I highlighted why skill shortages are a growing concern, and the business case for making workplaces more accommodating to age-related conditions, acquired impairments, and an increasingly diverse workforce.
The lineup of other speakers was like a who’s who of the disability management and return to work experts, advocates, and role models from across North America. There is no way I can cover all the speakers and their messages but here are a few of the highlights.
Most readers will be familiar with Richard Pimentel either from his many speaking engagements or the movie about his life, Music Within. This retelling of his life story and his life’s work was entertaining, humorous, and poignant. His personal experience of being told that his brain injury and hearing impairment would make it impossible for him to go to college and his adventures with his friend, Art Honneyman, took the audience through a range of emotions and to resolve to see the person, not the disability.
John Kemp’s talk was just as engaging. I had read about him but this was the first time I had the opportunity to hear him. He was immensely entertaining and engaging. He co-founded American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) and continues to be actively involved in that organization.
I’ve heard Gary Karp before but this session allowed the audience to view disability through his real life experience. His four books will be of interest to those with and without disabilities. He literally shows the audience what it means to “juggle” personal and societal issues of access, accommodation, and acceptance of people with disabilities as just people.
Each of the above speaks with authority from either a congenital or acquired disability. Others, such as Denise Bissonnette, spoke directly to those of us who work with and for people with disabilities. Poet, author, and an expert practitioner of true “job development,” her keynote address and workshop gave a practical yet novel point of view on identifying the unique genius and gifts of every client, and turning that into an advantage for employers. For those of us with a vocational rehabilitation background, her talk really resonated.
Speakers that will be familiar to those working in the workers’ compensation community in B.C. included Wolfgang Zimmerman, Blake Williams, and Winston Leckie. The Workers’ Compensation Board of the Yukon’s CEO, Valerie Royle, was not only a sponsor and a speaker, she and her band opened for Susan Aglukark. Susan made reference to the healing that is continuing in the aboriginal community through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The health outcomes of those who suffered in the residential school programs will continue to reverberate as disabilities for years to come.
A real surprise for me was the talk by Deb Russell. She is a Corporate Manager for Walgreen Co., the big U.S. drugstore chain. She told the story of a Walgreen’s vice-president who, because of his familiarity with the challenges of employment for his own child with autism spectrum disorder, spurred an outreach program to actively recruit, train, and retain people with disabilities. The idea was not to save money, get a competitive advantage, or gain good press. Instead, this was a fundamental commitment by the organization’s leadership to be proactive. Deb was hired to lead the initiative. She provided a DVD full of video and document clips that spoke to the success of the program.
Most interesting to me were Deb’s first-hand experiences of addressing the apprehensions of managers, staff and even the advocate community when dealing with the challenges of persons with epilepsy, autism, hearing loss, mobility, cognition, etc. She related these experiences in the real and practical terms of the workplace. She noted that none of the fears anticipated by the managers have happened in over five years of the program. Her willingness to share these practical experiences disarmed every objection I have ever heard on why firms can’t accommodate workers with particular disabilities. All of this has been accomplished without violating privacy concerns, lowering job standards or incurring large costs. Even the safety record shows workers with identified disabilities have no more time-loss injuries than their able-bodied counterparts; in fact, average time loss injuries are of shorter duration. This is a great example of corporate citizenship both in the practice and the sharing.
This was a great conference and the promised availability of presentations will be a great resource for participants, and ultimately for our communities.
The lineup of other speakers was like a who’s who of the disability management and return to work experts, advocates, and role models from across North America. There is no way I can cover all the speakers and their messages but here are a few of the highlights.
Most readers will be familiar with Richard Pimentel either from his many speaking engagements or the movie about his life, Music Within. This retelling of his life story and his life’s work was entertaining, humorous, and poignant. His personal experience of being told that his brain injury and hearing impairment would make it impossible for him to go to college and his adventures with his friend, Art Honneyman, took the audience through a range of emotions and to resolve to see the person, not the disability.
John Kemp’s talk was just as engaging. I had read about him but this was the first time I had the opportunity to hear him. He was immensely entertaining and engaging. He co-founded American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) and continues to be actively involved in that organization.
I’ve heard Gary Karp before but this session allowed the audience to view disability through his real life experience. His four books will be of interest to those with and without disabilities. He literally shows the audience what it means to “juggle” personal and societal issues of access, accommodation, and acceptance of people with disabilities as just people.
Each of the above speaks with authority from either a congenital or acquired disability. Others, such as Denise Bissonnette, spoke directly to those of us who work with and for people with disabilities. Poet, author, and an expert practitioner of true “job development,” her keynote address and workshop gave a practical yet novel point of view on identifying the unique genius and gifts of every client, and turning that into an advantage for employers. For those of us with a vocational rehabilitation background, her talk really resonated.
Speakers that will be familiar to those working in the workers’ compensation community in B.C. included Wolfgang Zimmerman, Blake Williams, and Winston Leckie. The Workers’ Compensation Board of the Yukon’s CEO, Valerie Royle, was not only a sponsor and a speaker, she and her band opened for Susan Aglukark. Susan made reference to the healing that is continuing in the aboriginal community through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The health outcomes of those who suffered in the residential school programs will continue to reverberate as disabilities for years to come.
A real surprise for me was the talk by Deb Russell. She is a Corporate Manager for Walgreen Co., the big U.S. drugstore chain. She told the story of a Walgreen’s vice-president who, because of his familiarity with the challenges of employment for his own child with autism spectrum disorder, spurred an outreach program to actively recruit, train, and retain people with disabilities. The idea was not to save money, get a competitive advantage, or gain good press. Instead, this was a fundamental commitment by the organization’s leadership to be proactive. Deb was hired to lead the initiative. She provided a DVD full of video and document clips that spoke to the success of the program.
Most interesting to me were Deb’s first-hand experiences of addressing the apprehensions of managers, staff and even the advocate community when dealing with the challenges of persons with epilepsy, autism, hearing loss, mobility, cognition, etc. She related these experiences in the real and practical terms of the workplace. She noted that none of the fears anticipated by the managers have happened in over five years of the program. Her willingness to share these practical experiences disarmed every objection I have ever heard on why firms can’t accommodate workers with particular disabilities. All of this has been accomplished without violating privacy concerns, lowering job standards or incurring large costs. Even the safety record shows workers with identified disabilities have no more time-loss injuries than their able-bodied counterparts; in fact, average time loss injuries are of shorter duration. This is a great example of corporate citizenship both in the practice and the sharing.
This was a great conference and the promised availability of presentations will be a great resource for participants, and ultimately for our communities.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
What does discriminatory action in worker's compensation look like?
I was asked in a meeting last week to give an example of a “discriminatory action” case under the Workers Compensation Act. In the discussion that followed, I realized there was considerable confusion over what that meant.
The word “discrimination” captures the concept of being treated unfairly, or differently, relative to others. The term “discrimination” has a specific meaning in the B.C. Human Rights Code, which prohibits “discrimination” on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, or age. “Discriminatory action” under the Workers Compensation Act involves an employer’s retaliatory action against a worker for reason that the worker raised health or safety concerns and is regulated by the WorkSafeBC.
WorkSafeBC receives over two hundred discriminatory action complaints a year. Consider the following cases:
Making a claim is relatively straight forward. A worker may establish a “basic case” of discriminatory action by providing evidence the employer engaged in “discriminatory action” and the worker engaged in activities under section 151 of the Act, of which the employer was made aware, and there is a connection between the two such that the employer’s actions were in retaliation for the worker’s actions.
Assuming the complaint is within the Board’s authority to address, and that the worker’s evidence on its own establishes a basic case of discriminatory action, a WorkSafeBC prevention officer will contact the employer and share the concern.
In some cases, the prevention officer is able to settle the matter directly between the worker and the employer. In others, the prevention officer will complete an investigation and forward it to the Compliance Section at WorkSafeBC where investigations legal officers will generally first refer the complaint to mediation. If not settled at mediation, the investigations legal officers will then adjudicate the complaint after offering the parties an opportunity to provide submissions and further evidence.
Both the worker and the employer may appeal the decision of the investigations legal officer to the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT).
Claims of employer retaliation against workers for raising health or safety issues may not have a high public profile but they are important. Too often cases like these go unreported. Not only is the employer’s retaliation illegal, it hurts more than the worker. Other workers who observe such actions may be dissuaded from raising similar concerns. Even more critically, the health or safety issues may not be raised or corrected putting workers and other persons in the workplace at greater risk of injury, disease or even death.
For more information on this aspect of worker’s compensation, take a look at the resources on the WorkSafeBC website page on Discrimination Complaints.
The word “discrimination” captures the concept of being treated unfairly, or differently, relative to others. The term “discrimination” has a specific meaning in the B.C. Human Rights Code, which prohibits “discrimination” on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, or age. “Discriminatory action” under the Workers Compensation Act involves an employer’s retaliatory action against a worker for reason that the worker raised health or safety concerns and is regulated by the WorkSafeBC.
WorkSafeBC receives over two hundred discriminatory action complaints a year. Consider the following cases:
- A young worker burns her forearm operating a deep fryer in a local kitchen. There are no first aid supplies in the area so she leaves to get medical attention at the local emergency. She gets the treatment she needs and returns to work. She complains to her boss about the lack of first aid supplies. The next week, she finds her shifts have been cut, while everyone else’s shifts remain about the same.
- A worker has a job delivering and installing appliances. The employer requires home delivery staff to don disposable paper slippers when entering customer’s homes. The work says he is willing to put disposable booties over his work shoes, but refuses to remove his steel toed shoes for safety reasons. The employer insists on his workers removing their shoes when delivering and installing appliances and tells the worker he either complies or he will be fired. The worker refuses and his employment is terminated.
- A worker is directed by his lead hand to operate a particular piece of equipment. The worker refuses because he has not been trained on how to safely use the equipment in question. The worker, having refused the work, is sent home without pay for the rest of the day.
Making a claim is relatively straight forward. A worker may establish a “basic case” of discriminatory action by providing evidence the employer engaged in “discriminatory action” and the worker engaged in activities under section 151 of the Act, of which the employer was made aware, and there is a connection between the two such that the employer’s actions were in retaliation for the worker’s actions.
Assuming the complaint is within the Board’s authority to address, and that the worker’s evidence on its own establishes a basic case of discriminatory action, a WorkSafeBC prevention officer will contact the employer and share the concern.
In some cases, the prevention officer is able to settle the matter directly between the worker and the employer. In others, the prevention officer will complete an investigation and forward it to the Compliance Section at WorkSafeBC where investigations legal officers will generally first refer the complaint to mediation. If not settled at mediation, the investigations legal officers will then adjudicate the complaint after offering the parties an opportunity to provide submissions and further evidence.
Both the worker and the employer may appeal the decision of the investigations legal officer to the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT).
Claims of employer retaliation against workers for raising health or safety issues may not have a high public profile but they are important. Too often cases like these go unreported. Not only is the employer’s retaliation illegal, it hurts more than the worker. Other workers who observe such actions may be dissuaded from raising similar concerns. Even more critically, the health or safety issues may not be raised or corrected putting workers and other persons in the workplace at greater risk of injury, disease or even death.
For more information on this aspect of worker’s compensation, take a look at the resources on the WorkSafeBC website page on Discrimination Complaints.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Will changes to CPP alter retirement and working patterns?
Canada’s social security program, the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is changing. The changes could alter the retirement plans of those nearing retirement age and this may have consequences on the number of older Canadians who chose to continue to work past “normal retirement age”. Because some workers’ compensation systems use planned retirement ages for the determination of benefits and because the health and safety issues of older workers are complex, these changes may have important implications.
What are the changes? There are several but I want to focus on (a) changes regarding the penalties, and (b) incentives regarding the start of retirement benefits.
Prior to 2011, CPP retirement pensions were reduced by 0.5% per month for each month before age 65 that a contributor started to receive the CPP retirement benefit. For each month beyond the age of 65 that a contributor to the plan delayed the start of retirement benefits, a 0.5% increase per month was applied to the base retirement pension amount payable at age 65. So, prior to 2011 and using CPP at age 65 as the comparison, your CPP amount would be 30% lower if you started your CPP at age 60 or 30% higher if you delayed the start of your CPP to age 70.
Beginning in 2011, there are some increased incentives for delaying retirement beyond 65, and, beginning in 2012, there are some larger penalties for starting CPP retirement pensions under 65. The reductions and increases are being phased in but by 2016 that phase-in process will be complete. Here are the tables summarizing the changes:
• percentage reduction in monthly CPP commenced under 65:
Year % (monthly reduction)
2012 0.52
2013 0.54
2014 0.56
2015 0.58
2016 0.60
• percentage increase in monthly CPP commenced over 65:
Year % (monthly increase)
2011 0.57
2012 0.64
2013 0.70
By 2013, there will be a 42% advantage to starting CPP at age 70, and by 2016 a 36% disadvantage to commencing CPP retirement benefits at age 60 when compared to the benefit payable at age 65.
That’s the background. Now, what will this do to retirement patterns?
Some people are going to be re-thinking their retirement plans. For those who are or will be 60 in 2011 and were thinking about starting CPP, they may decide to commence CPP retirement benefits before the slightly larger reductions come into play. The difference is not great but starting in 2012, the penalties are just a little larger for each month before age 65 you retire...and the incentives just a little bigger for each month you delay.
Clearly, these changes are intended to encourage those in the labour force to continue working longer than at present. Other changes, including the post-retirement benefit for those who have retired then return to work, have the same impact of encouraging longer participation in the labour force.
Overall, these changes are not likely to cause a massive swing in retirement patterns. For those with large RRSP or defined benefit plans, these changes are not likely to have a big impact on their retirement plans. The changes will, however, be important to many workers for whom CPP will be the main source of retirement income, particularly those who turn 60 after 2011 and those still working over the age of 65.
The average retirement age for Canadians is about 63 at present. For those planning on using CPP retirement as a major part of their retirement income, age 70 may become an attractive target as their planned retirement date. And that will raise important issues in both compensation policy and prevention efforts for older workers.
For more information on the amendments to CPP, see the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada web page
What are the changes? There are several but I want to focus on (a) changes regarding the penalties, and (b) incentives regarding the start of retirement benefits.
Prior to 2011, CPP retirement pensions were reduced by 0.5% per month for each month before age 65 that a contributor started to receive the CPP retirement benefit. For each month beyond the age of 65 that a contributor to the plan delayed the start of retirement benefits, a 0.5% increase per month was applied to the base retirement pension amount payable at age 65. So, prior to 2011 and using CPP at age 65 as the comparison, your CPP amount would be 30% lower if you started your CPP at age 60 or 30% higher if you delayed the start of your CPP to age 70.
Beginning in 2011, there are some increased incentives for delaying retirement beyond 65, and, beginning in 2012, there are some larger penalties for starting CPP retirement pensions under 65. The reductions and increases are being phased in but by 2016 that phase-in process will be complete. Here are the tables summarizing the changes:
• percentage reduction in monthly CPP commenced under 65:
Year % (monthly reduction)
2012 0.52
2013 0.54
2014 0.56
2015 0.58
2016 0.60
• percentage increase in monthly CPP commenced over 65:
Year % (monthly increase)
2011 0.57
2012 0.64
2013 0.70
By 2013, there will be a 42% advantage to starting CPP at age 70, and by 2016 a 36% disadvantage to commencing CPP retirement benefits at age 60 when compared to the benefit payable at age 65.
That’s the background. Now, what will this do to retirement patterns?
Some people are going to be re-thinking their retirement plans. For those who are or will be 60 in 2011 and were thinking about starting CPP, they may decide to commence CPP retirement benefits before the slightly larger reductions come into play. The difference is not great but starting in 2012, the penalties are just a little larger for each month before age 65 you retire...and the incentives just a little bigger for each month you delay.
Clearly, these changes are intended to encourage those in the labour force to continue working longer than at present. Other changes, including the post-retirement benefit for those who have retired then return to work, have the same impact of encouraging longer participation in the labour force.
Overall, these changes are not likely to cause a massive swing in retirement patterns. For those with large RRSP or defined benefit plans, these changes are not likely to have a big impact on their retirement plans. The changes will, however, be important to many workers for whom CPP will be the main source of retirement income, particularly those who turn 60 after 2011 and those still working over the age of 65.
The average retirement age for Canadians is about 63 at present. For those planning on using CPP retirement as a major part of their retirement income, age 70 may become an attractive target as their planned retirement date. And that will raise important issues in both compensation policy and prevention efforts for older workers.
For more information on the amendments to CPP, see the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada web page
Friday, March 25, 2011
Is the blitz an effective prevention technique?
The following story was posted on the Australian Broadcast Corporation news website:
The story highlights a couple of important points. First, is that asbestos is the once and continuing threat to the long-term health of workers. Despite what we know about asbestos and what we can do to protect workers, workers are still getting exposed to asbestos without the protection they need. The second point is that we know many places where asbestos likely exists but that information is not always transmitted to everyone who might need to know.
The third aspect of this story is the compliance/enforcement technique employed: the blitz. By focusing attention on a few key issues (often in a particular region or industry) and publicly declaring their intention to enforce, the prevention organization heightens awareness. This may trigger questions in advance of the action that create consultation and education opportunities, and generates greater workplace vigilance and adherence to safe work procedures.
This technique is not unique to Australia. Other jurisdictions are using similar techniques but rarely do these initiatives gain the profile they do in Australia. Part of that may be timing. It is no coincidence that asbestos exposure stories—particularly in schools—have gained significant profile in the Australian press. The death of a young service station attendant in B.C. generated a lot of press, and a blitz of training and safety procedures in that industry. It also resulted in Canada’s first pay-before-you-pump standard.
I think the blitz is an important and effective prevention technique. It is important that people understand the blitz is just one technique of many, and one that will have a different impact on different workplaces. It certainly can heighten awareness and get people thinking and talking about safety. For workplaces with great safety cultures, the blitz will have little effect. Workers and employers in these workplaces know what to do and are doing it every day. The advance notice of a blitz will help other workplaces where the participants in the workplace mean well but do not have the knowledge or lack the skill or resolve to make safety a priority. The blitz announcement can be the impetus to make changes. For the minority of workplaces where participants know better (or should know better), advance notice of the blitz may cause some workplaces to take note, but it is unlikely to make any difference at all to places that routinely ignore safety precautions. For these workplaces, the orders or “improvement notices” issued when the blitz actually takes place, may prove to be the wake-up call that will start the workplace on the road towards a changed safety culture.
WorkSafe warns of asbestos blitz Posted Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:13pm AEDT
WorkSafe [Western Australia] will inspect a number of work sites across regional Western Australia to check safety provisions for asbestos.
Inspectors will target the construction and demolition industries over the next two months, checking licenses, protective equipment and waste procedures are up to standard.
Acting WorkSafe commissioner Lex McCulloch says businesses can face serious fines if they knowingly break the law.
"If they are made under 'duty of care' provisions of the Act then it can be up to $400,000," he said.
"If they are made under the regulations for an individual it can be $25,000 and for a company it can be $50,000, it just depends."
The story highlights a couple of important points. First, is that asbestos is the once and continuing threat to the long-term health of workers. Despite what we know about asbestos and what we can do to protect workers, workers are still getting exposed to asbestos without the protection they need. The second point is that we know many places where asbestos likely exists but that information is not always transmitted to everyone who might need to know.
The third aspect of this story is the compliance/enforcement technique employed: the blitz. By focusing attention on a few key issues (often in a particular region or industry) and publicly declaring their intention to enforce, the prevention organization heightens awareness. This may trigger questions in advance of the action that create consultation and education opportunities, and generates greater workplace vigilance and adherence to safe work procedures.
This technique is not unique to Australia. Other jurisdictions are using similar techniques but rarely do these initiatives gain the profile they do in Australia. Part of that may be timing. It is no coincidence that asbestos exposure stories—particularly in schools—have gained significant profile in the Australian press. The death of a young service station attendant in B.C. generated a lot of press, and a blitz of training and safety procedures in that industry. It also resulted in Canada’s first pay-before-you-pump standard.
I think the blitz is an important and effective prevention technique. It is important that people understand the blitz is just one technique of many, and one that will have a different impact on different workplaces. It certainly can heighten awareness and get people thinking and talking about safety. For workplaces with great safety cultures, the blitz will have little effect. Workers and employers in these workplaces know what to do and are doing it every day. The advance notice of a blitz will help other workplaces where the participants in the workplace mean well but do not have the knowledge or lack the skill or resolve to make safety a priority. The blitz announcement can be the impetus to make changes. For the minority of workplaces where participants know better (or should know better), advance notice of the blitz may cause some workplaces to take note, but it is unlikely to make any difference at all to places that routinely ignore safety precautions. For these workplaces, the orders or “improvement notices” issued when the blitz actually takes place, may prove to be the wake-up call that will start the workplace on the road towards a changed safety culture.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Does a timely First Report of Injury really matter or is it just a bureaucratic requirement?
My last post was about the requirements many jurisdictions have for timely reporting of work-injury claims to the workers’ compensation authority. I stated my reasons in support of timely reporting and compliance with whatever standard set by the jurisdiction: health and safety of other workers, timely treatment and benefits for the workers. A number of people commented to me about the post. Most agreed that there was some value in requiring employers report injuries on a timely basis but thought short legislative reporting requirements imposed by the workers’ compensation authority were simply a bureaucratic requirement. They argued there is no real harm done to the worker, the authority or the system if firms failed to comply with the first report of injury (FROI) requirements. Some also suggested that the penalties imposed and the fines collected in some jurisdictions looked more like a “money grab”.
As if in answer to these criticisms, a summary of recent research on this topic arrived in my inbox. Under the heading “Benefits of Early Reporting”, the article from the Utah Workers’ Compensation Fund noted:
· The faster the claims process is started, the lower the workers compensation costs.
· When there was a delay in reporting, there were higher medical costs, higher rates of attorney involvement and litigation, and disputes over causation, and longer than normal periods of disability for a particular injury.
· After seven days, claims costs began to escalate, and when reporting was delayed 29 or more days, the claims costs were about 45 percent higher.
· A study by a private insurer on back injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and other nerve disorders, they discovered the claims filed five or more days after an injury cost an average of 15 percent more than similar claims filed within 48 hours
· Injuries reported within 10 days cost an average of $12,082. Injuries reported between 11 and 20 days cost $15,582, and those reported between 21 and 30 days cost $17,920 -- an increase of 48 percent more than those reported in 10 days or less.
I think this evidence is compelling. Holding employers to a timely FROI is not just a bureaucratic requirement. It has the proven potential to reduce both the human and financial costs of injury.
Regardless of any jurisdictional requirement for early reporting, getting that FROI in is a benefit to both workers and employers.
As if in answer to these criticisms, a summary of recent research on this topic arrived in my inbox. Under the heading “Benefits of Early Reporting”, the article from the Utah Workers’ Compensation Fund noted:
· The faster the claims process is started, the lower the workers compensation costs.
· When there was a delay in reporting, there were higher medical costs, higher rates of attorney involvement and litigation, and disputes over causation, and longer than normal periods of disability for a particular injury.
· After seven days, claims costs began to escalate, and when reporting was delayed 29 or more days, the claims costs were about 45 percent higher.
· A study by a private insurer on back injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and other nerve disorders, they discovered the claims filed five or more days after an injury cost an average of 15 percent more than similar claims filed within 48 hours
· Injuries reported within 10 days cost an average of $12,082. Injuries reported between 11 and 20 days cost $15,582, and those reported between 21 and 30 days cost $17,920 -- an increase of 48 percent more than those reported in 10 days or less.
I think this evidence is compelling. Holding employers to a timely FROI is not just a bureaucratic requirement. It has the proven potential to reduce both the human and financial costs of injury.
Regardless of any jurisdictional requirement for early reporting, getting that FROI in is a benefit to both workers and employers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
