How risky is your job… really?

There are hazards in every job and every workplace.  Despite barriers, safeguards, and defenses, exposure to those hazards can harm workers and others in the workplace.  The possibility of injury (including illness, disease and even death) is a reality of work but specific job or task risk data necessary to assess the risk are rare.    Data on the past frequency and impact of work injury that do exist are often industry-based rather than specific to a job or task.  Unfortunately, supervisors and workers may equate the lack of accurate, accessible, and appropriate risk data with minimal risk; they may believe, “If this job or task was risky, I am sure someone would warn me”. 

Why risk awareness is important

Whether it’s your investments, sports activities, or medical treatments, having access to and an understanding of risk data are essential to decision making.  Depending on your risk tolerance and  armed with an understanding of the risks, you can decide whether or not to invest in a particular mutual fund, take up a particular sport, or undergo a particular therapy or treatment.  Knowing the risks, you can also make choices to mitigate them (diversification in your investments, classroom training for your chosen sport, and performing specific stretching exercises between physical therapy treatments, for example).  

Knowing the risks in your work is no less important.  Few employment engagements include explicit and precise information about risks.  Yes, employers have a duty of care and a general duty to inform workers about workplace and job-specific risks but few job interviews cover your risk of occupational injury, illness, disease or death.  Your job does not come with a warning sticker outlining the risks.  Under-stated, misrepresented or incomplete risk data may lead to incorrect judgements about precautions you ought to take or dissuade you from exercising your right to refuse unsafe work. 

Assessing Risk

So, how risky is your job?  What tasks in my job are risky?  Is working in healthcare riskier than working in construction?  How would you know?

Some jurisdictions require formal "risk assessments”.  These often involve examining the likelihood and impact of harm from a given task.  (see WorkSafeBC, Assessing Risks, for example).  A risk assessment will include an analysis of who might be harmed, how that harm might occur, and what to do to eliminate, minimize or otherwise manage the risks, particularly those with the highest probability and impact.  

Risk Matrix.  Source:  WorkSafeBC, Assessing Risk

This type of risk matrix is typically applied to very specific job tasks and often relies on a subjective estimation of probability and impact.  At their best, words like "low", "unlikely" , "minor" are useful in relative terms but lack precision  and may, at worst, be misinterpreted as "not worth worrying about".  Even if the probability  is rare, the consequences may be extreme and warrant some form of mitigation.  This is particularly true for biological toxins where the probability of exposure is low but the consequences may be severe illness or death--a combination that may warrant a "high" rather than "medium" subjective risk rating. 

Quantifying and Comparing Risks

At the enterprise or sectoral level, performance data may exist to add objectivity to the risk analysis. Statistical measures help quantify both probability and impact in risk analysis.  Impact may be quantified by workers' compensation costs, average days away from work (calendar or working days), or thresholds that exceed a particular level or case definition such as "serious injury".  Probability may be quantified as a ratio based on exposure (cases per million hours worked or 100 employees).  

The lack of data at the jobsite, enterprise or sectoral level may be due to a number of factors.  Workplace injuries and deaths are (thankfully) relatively rare events.  With small numbers, it is often difficult to calculate an accurate frequency rate that adequately represents risk.  There are also counting issue.  Most risk data come from workers’ compensation administrative information or “OSHA Log” surveys but not all work injuries are recorded or result in workers’ compensation claims.  Poor record keeping, intentional under-reporting, claim suppression, high denial rates for some types of injuries and occupational diseases are among the main reasons that reported injury rates may not adequately reflect actual workplace risk.

Many sectors and employers use “injury rate”  or “incidence rate” data a way to quantify risk.  These are admittedly trailing indicators of safety and, (as we are always told when assessing risk in our investments), past performance may not be indicative of future results. 

The idea behind injury and incidence rates is to provide a standardized expression of risk in terms of injury (illness, disease or death) events relative to a quantity of exposure (a measure related to a quantity of employment such as “person years”).  The US Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes “incidence rates” (among other statistics) that provide data at an industry level.  Here are the top ten for 2016:

TABLE SNR02. Highest incidence rates1 of nonfatal occupational injury and illness cases with days away from work, restricted work activity, or job transfer, 2016  [Extracted from Supplemental News Release Tables, 2016]
Industry2	NAICS Code3	Incidence Rate
Nursing and residential care facilities (State government)	623	8.4
Other nonferrous metal foundries (except die-casting) (Private industry)	331529	6.0
Fire protection (Local government)	92216	5.9
Heavy and civil engineering construction (Local government)	237	5.8
Frozen cakes, pies, and other pastries manufacturing (Private industry)	311813	5.8
Couriers and express delivery services (Private industry)	4921	5.8
Scheduled passenger air transportation (Private industry)	481111	5.7
Truss manufacturing (Private industry)	321214	5.6
Amusement and theme parks (Private industry)	71311	5.5
Police protection (Local government)	92212	5.5

1 The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers  and were calculated as: (N/EH) x 200,000, where
N = number of injuries and illnesses
EH = total hours worked by all employees during the calendar year
200,000 = base for 100 equivalent full-time workers (working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year)
2 High rate industries were those having the highest incidence rate of injury and illness cases with     days away from work, restricted work activity,
or job transfer and at least 500 total recordable cases at the most detailed level of publication,  based on the North American Industry Classification System -- United States, 2012.
3 North American Industry Classification System -- United States, 2012

Note the limitations of these data.  The “cases” relate to recorded cases; if record keeping is poor or cases are not reported, then the published incidence rate will under-represent the risk.  Also, note the calculation methodology; the specific calculation of the  100 full-time equivalents used as the denominator for this incidence rate is only one way to calculate risk.  Other sources may use different calculations and definitions. 

Rather than using an approximation for 100 full-time workers, SafeWork Australia use both Frequency rates (serious injuries per million hours worked) and Incidence rates (serious injuries per 1,000 employees).  Here are the top 10  from the 2016 tables [Extracted from Australian Workers’ Compensation Statistics 2015-2016] :

Table 22: Frequency rate (serious claims per million hours worked) by industry,
2000–01 and 2010‑11 to 2015–16p  [Top 10 extracted and re-ordered based on 2015-16 column]

Industry	2000-01	2010-11	2011-12	2012-13	2013-14	2014-15	% chg	2015-16p
Agriculture, forestry and fishing	14.3	10.5	10.8	10.7	9.1	9.9	-31%	8.9
Manufacturing	13.9	10.5	10.7	9.5	8.8	8.8	-37%	8.4
Construction	13.5	9	9	8.4	7.8	8.1	-40%	8
Transport, postal and warehousing	14.9	11.8	12.2	10.4	9.6	8.6	-42%	7.7
Health care and social assistance	12.1	10.7	10.5	10	9.1	8.7	-29%	7.4
Arts and recreation services	13.7	9.8	9.7	8	9.2	8	-41%	7.1
Wholesale trade	8.2	7.7	7.1	6.5	6.6	6.6	-20%	6.6
Public administration and safety	8.8	9.1	8.1	8.3	7.2	6.9	-22%	6.1
Accommodation and food services	8.9	7.2	7.5	7	6.6	6.1	-31%	5.9
Administrative and support services	11.6	9.4	8.3	7.4	6.7	5.6	-52%	5.8

Table 23: Incidence rate (serious claims per 1000 employees) by industry,
2000–01 and 2010–11 to 2015‑16p [Top 10 extracted and re-ordered based on 2015-16 column]

Industry	2000-01	2010-11	2011-12	2012-13	2013-14	2014-15	% chg	2015-16p
Agriculture, forestry and fishing	27.8	20.6	21.4	20.7	18.1	19.1	-31%	17.5
Construction	27.7	18	18	17.1	15.9	16.1	-42%	16
Manufacturing	27.2	20.2	20.7	18.1	16.4	16.6	-39%	15.5
Transport, postal and warehousing	29.3	22.4	23	19.7	18.1	16.3	-44%	14.4
Wholesale trade	16.1	14.7	13.4	12.2	12.5	12.7	-21%	12.3
Health care and social assistance	17.8	15.3	15.3	14.3	13	12.3	-31%	10.7
Public administration and safety	15.5	15.3	13.9	14.2	12.1	11.5	-25%	10.2
Arts and recreation services	18.6	12.4	12.8	10.7	12	10.1	-46%	9.7
Administrative and support services	19.1	15.2	13.5	12.1	10.8	9	-53%	9.2
Mining	25.1	12.5	12.2	11.9	11.1	9.9	-61%	9.2

Note these data relate to accepted workers’ compensation claims.  By definition, denied claims (and unreported injuries) are not included.  The definition of “Serious” is also important. In this context, only injuries resulting in absences of a working week or more are considered. The definition of serious is not standardized.

Note also that the rank order changes depending on the method of calculation.  Using both incidence and frequency rates provide a richer depiction of risk. 

Risks for males and females are more similar than injury counts might suggest

Frequency and incidence rates provide similar but different representations of risk.  A frequency rate may be more appropriate where there is wide variation in the hours worked by particular groups.  Men tend to work more hours in a work week than women.  On an incidence basis, the injury rate for women would under-represent risk.    The same Australian report notes the frequency rate (serious injury claims per million hours worked) for men and women differs:  4.9 for women and 6.2 for men.  

The injury frequency rates for men and women are much closer than conventional wisdom might suggest. One often quoted statement presents a wide variation in risk for men and women:

 "Women incurred less than one-tenth of the job-related fatal injuries and one-third of the nonfatal injuries and illnesses that required time off to recuperate in 1992-1996".  US Department of Labor,   "Women Experience Fewer Job-related Injuries and Deaths than Men",  Issues in Labor Statistics, Summary 98-8, July 1998

In the two decades since this analysis was published, women have increased their participation in the labor force.  Although most North American jurisdictions do not publish frequency or incidence rates specific to males and females, data representing risks by sex may provide valuable insights.  Women now account for about half the labour force in Canada, the US and Australia, although average hours worked per week are higher for men than women.  The apparent lower number of accepted workers’ compensation claims for women arises from a lesser exposure (the smaller pool of hours worked).  

I asked WorkSafeBC to apply the Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR) calculation to its data and data on work hours from Statistics Canada.  In this case, all accepted time loss injuries (rather than just serious injuries as used in the Australian study) were used in the calculation. 

WorkSafeBC  Unofficial Injury Rates and Estimated LTIFR for Males and Females - 2016

	2016  Injury Rate (Accepted time loss claims per 100 person years of employment)	2016 LTIFR (Accepted time-loss claims per 1,000,000 hours of employment)
Males	2.61	13.9
Females	1.75	11.6

Comparing LTIFR to the traditional Injury Rate (per 100 persons years of employment calculation) reinforces the point.  LTIFR may present a more accurate and compelling representation of work-injury risk for women. 

Risks and consequences

Risk calculations noted above may carry a level of consequence in the case definition.  The US analysis uses a definition of "work absence or restricted duties" while the Australian data includes "accepted workers’ compensation claims with a week or more away from work". Many state and provincial jurisdictions publish workers’ compensation injury rate statistics but the case definitions used to calculate the risk indicator will vary.    WorkSafeBC publishes an annual Statistics Report with subsector injury rates and claim durations.  Cases are accepted time-loss claims and this is a no-waiting period jurisdiction so claims cover wages lost beyond the day of injury.   Here are the top 10 from that jurisdiction. 

WorkSafeBC Top Ten Subsectors by injury rate and duration
[Based on data extracted and re-ordered from the WorkSafeBC Statistics 2016 edition, Table 2-11] 

Note that this analysis does not consider sectors that are “self-insured” (Deposit account employers including the provincial government).  

The duration part of the table is useful in considering conditional risk:  if you work in warehousing and  have an accepted time-loss workers’ compensation claim then, on average, you will miss 42 paid days from work (a bit more than eight calendar weeks).

Risk varies with age

The risk of work-related injury also varies with age.  Many studies point to the high risk associated with young male workers.  This table,extracted from an Australian study, reinforces this fact but it also demonstrates that risk varies with age.  Also, note the frequency of injury for females is essentially the same as males for ages 50 and above.  

Table 4: Frequency rate (serious claims per million hours worked) by injury or disease, sex and age group, 2015–16p    [Extracted from Australian Workers’ Compensation Statistics 2015-2016]  

Age group	Injury and musculoskeletal disorder claims [per million hours worked]
		Male	Female	Total
< 20 years		7.7	3.4	5.7
20-24 years		6.5	3.3	5.1
25-29 years		5.1	2.7	4.1
30-34 years		4.6	2.9	4.0
35-39 years		4.8	3.5	4.3
40-44 years		5.3	4.3	4.9
45-49 years		5.6	5.0	5.3
50-54 years		6.1	5.9	6.0
55-59 years		6.4	6.3	6.4
60-64 years		6.9	6.6	6.8
65 years+		5.1	5.7	5.3
Total		5.6	4.3	5.1

Demographic change in the US, Canada, Australia and many other countries is driving dramatic shifts in the age profile of labour force participants.  More women, more older workers, fewer younger workers are driving changes in the risk in the labour force.  Frequency and mix of injuries as well as the duration of disability are all likely to increase as a result.

Risk data may under-represent actual risk

All representations of risk using workers’ compensation administrative data are subject to several important caveats.  As pointed out in previous posts, exclusions from coverage, under-reporting (including  claim suppression), claim denial rates result many potential cases of work injury missing from the calculation .  As a result, statistics like those in this post may well understate the actual risk.  

Categories of classification also vary by jurisdiction making simple apples-to-apples comparisons very difficult.  That said, data from multiple sources may provide a better sense of the risks.  Just like data from multiple medical trials or rating agencies can better inform your decisions regarding your health and investments, work-risk data from multiple sources may help workplace participants better understand and mitigate work-related risk.   

Your workplace is unlikely to have a warning sticker on the entrance providing risk data.  Your risk in your job on your worksite is going to be very specific, subject to a lot of factors,  and difficult to estimate accurately.  Risks associated with your demographic characteristics and your industry’s (and maybe even your firm’s) experience are likely more available and may provide guidance on just how risky your job really is. 

Providing risk data may not be formal regulatory requirement but sharing the risk data that are available with supervisors and workers may lead to a more accurate appreciation for the risk of workplace injury, illness and disease.  And that may lead to safer and healthier workplaces.   

Are weekend workers adequately served by workers’ compensation and Occupational Health & Safety agencies?

On a recent weekend morning, I passed a crew working on water system pipes in an enclosed space below the road surface. When the flagger signalled me forward, she was clearly in a work situation that was at least as hazardous as her unseen coworkers in the confined space below.  Another crew was replacing an electrical transformer in the next block.  Near the mall, there was a roofing crew installing standing-seam roofing on a steep slope.  As I drove home I notices the neighbour’s new garage door being installed by another crew of young workers…  Weekend workers seemed to be everywhere.

In the course of my weekend, I saw shopkeepers, clerks, maintenance workers, delivery drivers, landscapers, arborists, installers and many other workers.  I saw farmworkers pruning and maintaining drainage in the nearby fields and a crew of greenhouse workers coming off shift.  The cement plants visible in the distance were both in operation and I heard the ferry whistle sound with another full load typical of weekends.  I passed the hospital and thought of the doctors, nurses, therapists, technicians, cleaners, food service staff working weekends.  The emergency medical services technicians manning the ambulances at the emergency and the police cars in the parking lot reminded me of their 24/7 responsibilities and service.

Weekend work: Not exceptional

Weekend work generally used to be the exception.  The tradition of Sunday as a “day or rest” predates Roman Emperor Constantine’s 321 decree but that edict solidified the tradition in western society.  Henry Ford’s introduction of the five-day work week in 1926 marked a major turning point in establishing the Monday to Friday workweek for industrial workers, although other employers had adopted Saturday and Sunday non-work cycles, often to accommodate religious observances of workers.  The Fair Standards Act (1938) in the US helped standardize the 40 hour workweek and two-day weekend in the early 1940s.

Of course, a few manufacturing processes always required continuous operation and security occupations like firefighting, defense and police work have always operated seven days a week.  At the turn of the twentieth century, legislation designating Sunday as a day of rest was fairly common, although the enforcement varied widely.  Societal attitudes, technological change and the evolution of the law contributed to the greater prevalence of work on weekends.  In Canada, Lord’s Day Act of 1906 was ruled as unconstitutional in 1985 and similar statutes in many jurisdictions have been abandoned as public pressure for access to goods and services on weekends increased.

Work-related injuries occurred on weekends but perhaps the small numbers were seen as a rounding error and not significant enough for programmed inspection or access to workers’ compensation claims services. A 20 year study  occupational injuries by hour of day and day of week from 1968/69 to 1987/88 (using Queensland and British Columbia data) noted “The data for Saturdays and Sundays were not included since they aggregated to less than 5% of the total…” (see Wigglesworth, Eric;  Occupational injuries by hour of day and day of week: a 20-year study, AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 2006 vol. 30 no. 6)

The reality of work in the 21^st century is that many workers are actively working weekends and statutory holidays.  Sometimes the work is a regular part of the schedule but often weekend work is unique to an event or function.  Examples of weekend work and workers include:

• Rotating shift workers with weekend shifts part of the rotation
• Regular work-weeks that include weekends
• Regular weekend-only workers
• Occasional and on-call workers (including casual, seasonal and event workers)
• Maintenance, installation and repair workers (often deployed on weekends to minimize disruption or down-time)
• Essential service workers in hospitals, law enforcement, first response fire/emergency services
• Infrastructure workers (with 24/7 responsibilities)
• Multi-job holders with weekend positions or “gigs”
• Security and custodial workers
• Hospitality and entertainment workers
• “Event” staff

Workers’ compensation and occupational health and safety personnel will often responds to serious injury events and imminent dangers on weekends; how much effort is directed to inspection, prevention  and claims/rehabilitation activities outside the Monday to Friday, nine-to-five traditional work-week?   Surprisingly little in proportion to the risk exposure, fatal injury reports, and distribution of claims that actually occur.

Significant Risk Exposure on Weekends

Weekend workers have similar or even higher exposure to hazards than workers doing equivalent work on regular workdays (at least during daytime hours).  For example, many regular Monday to Friday workers have job demands that take them to the office or plant on weekends; these workers face health and safety risks associated with fatigue, work pressure, often working alone or in isolation.  They may also face risks associated with a changed work environment.  The typical resources available during their regular workweek (such as first aid attendants) may be unavailable on weekends.  In many organizations, staff working weekends to meet deadlines, conduct repairs, or implement new systems are given no orientation or instruction regarding health and safety for weekend work.

A recent international survey found nearly a third of US workers report working at least some weekends (Daniel S. Hamermesh & Elena Stancanelli, 2015. "Long Workweeks and Strange Hours," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 68(5), pages 1007-1018, October).   Statistics Canada data from a 2005 survey of employee shows 25.3 percent of men and more than 30.3% of women had work arrangements that included work on Saturdays or Sunday (Statistics Canada, 2005 Workplace and Employee Survey, Table 1.4).

Australian data provide an interesting insight into the pattern of exposure on weekends (see: Government of Australia, , “6342.0 Working Time Arrangements,  Australia”, Australian Bureau of Statistics, November 2012) :

For single-job holders,

• 29% worked both weekdays and weekends

• 4% usually worked seven days a week, and a further 7% usually worked six days a week;

• 14% usually worked on Saturdays and 8% usually worked on Sundays;

For multiple-job holders (one main job and one or more additional jobs),

• 19% usually worked seven days a week, and a further 19% usually worked six days a week;

• 37% usually worked on Saturdays and 26% usually worked on Sundays;

• 57% worked on both weekdays and weekends

Work Fatalities on Weekends equal the Average for Weekday fatalities

US data on workplace fatalities for a recent 20-year period confirms weekend work can be deadly.  For fatalities 1992 through 2011, (excluding Sept 11, 2001 fatalities and missing data reports), there were 95,716 fatalities reported on weekdays (Monday to Friday), an average count of fatalities on weekdays was 19,143.  Saturday and Sunday combined accounted for 19,283 occupational fatalities, equivalent to the average for regular workdays. [Chart Data adapted from  BLS, Fatal occupational injuries by day of week and month, 1992–2011, TED: The Economics Daily, DECEMBER 01, 2014 https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2014/ted_20141201.htm ].

Time-loss injuries on Saturdays, Sundays and Statutory Holidays Disproportionally Impact Women

Data supplied by WorkSafeBC for 2017 injuries shows the combined number of accepted time-loss claims that occurred on weekends and statutory holidays were roughly equivalent to claims accepted for injuries occurring on any Monday-to-Friday weekday.  Women, who account for about 37% of accepted claims overall in that province, were disproportionately represented in the weekend stats, accounting for:

• 48% of accepted time-loss injuries that occur on Saturday
• 49% of accepted time-loss injuries that occur on Stat Days
• 55% of injuries that occur on Sunday

Limited Loss-prevention, Planned Inspections and Service Access for Weekend Workers

Loss prevention initiatives are diverse and an important part of protecting workers.  Access to on-line tools and publications is available 7 days a week but few agencies have regular plans or programs to provide in-person or even phone or chat access to safety professionals for non-emergent, non-imminent risk situations on weekends.  Planned or programmed inspections are an essential component of comprehensive prevention strategies.  Unannounced planned and random inspections are components of effective loss prevention strategies.  If the risk of detection of unsafe work is non-existent on weekends, the deterrent effect approaches zero. 

I contacted a sample of workers’ compensation authorities with and occupational safety-health inspectorates to determine if the services available to workers who work weekends.  Most replies included a commitment to be “responsive” to imminent threats or serious injury incidents on weekends but none reported broad-based prevention inspections or claims access to serve workers on weekends.  A few jurisdictions noted specific projects in specific industries where inspections on weekends would be carried out.  The following response (from a US state agency) was typical:

We do weekend work, but it’s often the result of a fatal notification. Our toll-free number for reporting fatalities, hospitalizations, etc., is covered 24/7.
During construction season, we try to have our compliance safety officers pair up and work an occasional Saturday or Sunday, but it’s on an irregular basis.
So basically, the answer is no, our agency is not able to provide the weekend resources you describe.

Most workers’ compensation agencies referred me to online and “self-serve” resources but few had options for workers to speak directly with someone about a claim outside the regular Monday to Friday workweek.  WorkSafeBC’s TeleClaim service (where workers can call to report injuries rather than having to fill out and submit forms, receive information, ask questions and get help to obtain other services) for example, states on WorkSafeBC.com:

Claims Call Centre/Teleclaim
Contact us with any questions about the claims process. Phone toll-free (Canada):1.888.967.5377 (1.888.WORKERS)
Monday to Friday 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. 

Limited data on weekend risks, injuries and claims

Data on work injuries by day of week are not regularly published by most workers’ compensation and occupational safety and health authorities.  Aside from special analysis such as those cited here, there are few sources of current information on the weekend workforce, risks and injuries. Despite every reported workplace injury and workers’ compensation claim having a mandatory “date of injury” field, few agencies routinely report statistics on injuries or accepted claims by day of week.
The lack of routine reporting may mask the magnitude of the risk and contribute to the lack of resources and services assigned or available to support the health and safety of weekend workers.

Proportionate service and access for weekend workers

Weekend work is now a typical aspect of the labour force.  There is evidence that women are disproportionately represented in weekend work.  Work on weekends exposes workers to risks without the same level of loss prevention and inspection services or workers’ compensation access and support afforded Monday-to-Friday workplace risks and injuries.

What level of service and support should weekend workers receive from workers’ compensation and occupational health and safety (OH&S) agencies?  There is no one right formula but proportionality provides a reasonable guide.  Reporting the proportion of the workforce working weekends and the proportion of injuries occurring outside the Monday-Friday traditional workweek in every jurisdiction should be a routine and transparent process.  Workers compensation and OH&S authorities should be able to justify the level of services they provide to weekend workers based on these data.  If one sixth of reported injuries and fatalities occur on weekends, then deploying one sixth of the loss prevention resources, inspection services and workers’ compensation resources ought to be reasonable targets.

Does workers’ compensation cover the full cost of a funeral for a work-related death?

Every workers’ compensation system provides certain payments in the event of a work-related death of a worker.  The expectation that workers’ compensation insurance will cover the full cost of a funeral and burial of an injured worker, however, is not the reality in all jurisdictions.

Most commonly, the amount to cover funeral and burial expenses is a separate benefit from payments or compensation that might be available to survivors and dependents.  Where there are no survivors or dependents, the funeral or burial amount may be the only workers’ compensation payment made with respect to the work-related death.  Statutory dollar limits or policies that exclude items connected with funeral or burial costs result in many jurisdictions falling far short of coverage of the full cost of a funeral and burial. 

Statutory provisions vary widely

The exact statute wording varies by jurisdiction.  Here is a typical section from the Colorado code:

When, as a proximate result of an injury, death occurs to an injured employee, there shall be paid in one lump sum within thirty days after death a sum not to exceed seven thousand dollars for reasonable funeral and burial expenses. Said sum may be paid to the undertaker, cemetery, or any other person who has paid the funeral and burial costs, if the director so orders. If the employee leaves no dependents, compensation shall be limited to said sum and the compensation, if any, which has accrued to date of death and the medical, surgical, and hospital expenses provided in articles 40 to 47 of this title. If the deceased employee leaves dependents, said sum shall be paid in addition to all other sums of compensation provided for in this article.

 CO Rev Stat § 8-42-123 (2016)

Allowed expenses for burial and funeral costs may be paid directly to providers such as funeral homes and memorial societies; they are often paid very quickly; other benefits or compensation for dependents and survivors which may take longer to adjudicate and conclude.

Lump-sum payments may be intended to cover funeral or burial expenses

Some jurisdictions make lump sum payments to the estate upon the work-related death of a worker.  The specified amount may be a significant sum for dependents and survivors at a time of need. In a few cases, as in Kentucky, the lump sum may be the only amount payable because of a work-related death. Kentucky’s statute, for example, makes this statement:

If an employee’s death occurs as a result of the injury, a lump sum payment is made to the employee’s estate, from which burial expenses are to be paid. The amount of the lump sum payment changes annually.

Guidebook to Workers’ Compensation, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Workers’ Claims

The lump-sum value in Kentucky increases annually with inflation.  (2017:  $82,022.93 $US). 

Lump-sum provisions for surviving spouse and dependents are more common in Canada and Australia and are typically paid in addition to funeral and burial expenses.  In some cases, lump sum payments are independent of survivor or dependent benefits.  In Quebec, if a worker dies without dependents, the father and mother (or the estate if both are dead) are entitled to a lump sum of $26,986 each ($CDN 2015).

In Australia, the lump-sum payment amount varies by state.  In New South Wales, for example, the lump sum a lump sum payment (currently $791,850 $Aus) in addition to a weekly payment per dependent child (currently  $141.80 $Aus).  The lump sum is payable to the estate if there are no financial dependents.  The funeral expense reimbursement in NSW is limited to a maximum of $15,000 $Aus and covers typical items including funeral director's professional fees, cost of the funeral service (including cremation or burial), mourning car, cemetery site, flowers, and newspaper notice.  

Components of a typical funeral and burial may not be covered

Components of a typical funeral and burial may be excluded from consideration by workers’ compensation law or policy.  WorkSafe Victoria, for example, explicitly excludes some items from coverage:

WorkSafe [Victoria] will not pay for:…

services or items not considered reasonable - WorkSafe does not generally consider the following items to be part of the reasonable costs of a burial or cremation:

·         vault or crypt

·         elaborate monument/tombstone/memorial chosen for personal or cultural reasons

·         mourning cars, and

·         catering.

More About Burial or Cremation Expenses, WorkSafe Victoria (2015) Publication Keycode: WSV1555/01/05.13

Dollar limits on funeral and burial expenses are common…but vary widely

Some jurisdictions are less specific about what services will be paid for and may separate some expenses from the maximum allowed expense.  WorkSafeBC’s policy states:

The employer of the worker is required to bear the cost of transporting the body to the nearest business premises where funeral services are provided, and if burial does not take place there any additional transportation may, up to the sum set out below, be paid by the Board.

·         Funeral And Related Expenses  [January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2018]  $9,268.72

·         Transportation of Body [January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2018]  $1,464.39

…

No action for an amount larger than that established by the above provisions lies in respect of the funeral, burial, or cremation of the worker or cemetery charges in connection with it.

Rehabilitation Services and Claims Manual Volume II Chapter 8 Section 54.00

Although cultural, religious, social, and economic factors determine the cost of a funeral and burial, one might expect workers’ compensation systems to have similar dollar limits regarding burial and funeral expenses.  However, the funeral and burial maximum expense covered in US, Australian and Canadian workers’ compensation jurisdictions varies widely. 

Using published data from IAIABC/WCRI survey of State Workers’ Compensation Laws: 2016, AWCBC Dependency Benefits and Fatalities, SafeWork Australia publication Comparison of workers’ compensation arrangements in Australia and New Zealand (2017) and individual workers’ compensation jurisdiction websites with rates between 2014 to 2016, a quick survey illustrates this variation. 

• In the US, the median burial benefit is specified as having a maximum of $7500 but the range is quite broad:  South Carolina has a maximum only $2500; Rhode Island pays up to $20,000 ($US).
  
• In Canada, Nova Scotia has the lowest funeral benefit maximum at only $5000 while the adjacent province of New Brunswick has a maximum benefit of $16,246.  Interestingly, Ontario has a minimum funeral benefit of $2948.10 but no statutory maximum.  Reasonable costs will be reimbursed. ($Can)
  
• In Australia and New Zealand, the range is a little narrower.  ComCare, the federal workers’ compensation system, is in the mid-range at $11,459.25 while New South Wales and Northern Territories are at or about $15,000 (Aus$).
  
• New Zealand has a $6021 (NZ$) maximum

It is not clear in policy documents I could review why jurisdictions with low maximum amounts for funeral/burial expenses are so restrictive.  Nor is it clear why a particular value has been chosen as a maximum in states with higher maximums.  Many amounts are fixed in legislation while others are adjusted by automatic formula.  The Northwest Territories and Nunavut is to link the maximum funeral expense to 13% of the yearly maximum insurable earnings (currently $90,600 so, 13% would be $11,778 ($Can)).

Unduly restrictive burial or funeral costs can add stress to grieving survivors and family. Funeral and burial expenses exceeding an arbitrarily low limit will have to be paid from some other source, often out of the benefits family members might otherwise need for their own support. 

Costs of a “normal” funeral and burial

The United Nations agency, the International Labor Organization (ILO), provides guidance on what member states should mandate in the event of a work-related death. Convention: 

In addition [to the cash benefit to widow, widower, dependent], a funeral benefit shall be provided at a prescribed rate which shall not be less than the normal cost of a funeral…

Section 2 of Article 18 of the C121 - Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 [Schedule I amended in 1980] (No. 121) [Convention concerning Benefits in the Case of Employment Injury (Entry into force: 28 Jul 1967)]

[Note: Canada, the US and Australia are not signatories to this convention.]

What is the “normal cost of a funeral” ?  According to the National Funeral Directors Association website ( http://www.nfda.org/news/statistics ), the 2014 “National Median Cost of an Adult Funeral with Viewing and Burial” including vault was $8,508 (US).  This amount includes the typical things you would expect:  transfers, embalming, casket, viewing, hearse, printed memorial package, etc. 

What’s not included in the direct cost survey are some common expenses normally associated with funeral and burials in the western, predominantly Judeo-Christian tradition.  Church services (including costs for organist, choir), religious officiant (priest, rabbi, minister) for grave-side internment, reception with catering for grievers, and grave marker. Also not include are indirect costs which may include travel and accommodation for non-dependent family members and relatives.  There may be additional fees depending for items such as certified copies of the death certificate and other documentation often provided by the funeral home.

The median cost used in this analysis, therefore, understates the full cost associated with a normal funeral.  It is, by definition, a midpoint in a distribution of costs for a particular set of services and products covered by the survey. 

Half of US WC systems have dollar limits less than the median cost of a funeral and burial

Using $8,500 as the NFDA median cost reference point for normal funeral costs in 2014, I used data from the IAIABC/WCRI 2016 survey of Workers’ Compensation Laws to determine which US states failed to meet or exceeded this standard.  Twenty-seven US state workers’ compensation authorities reported maximum funeral benefits that fell below the $8,500 threshold, often by a significant amount; 18 states had maximum burial benefits of $8500 to $10,000.  Only 4 states had maximums greater than $10,000.   These later two groups exceed the ILO standard of “not less than the normal cost of a funeral.”

Kentucky is excluded from this analysis because its workers’ compensation statute does not have a stated maximum.  As noted earlier, Kentucky’s statute related to funeral expenses is KRS 342.750 (6) provides for a “death benefit” from which it is intended funeral, burial and other expenses would be paid.  The 2014 value for that benefit was $75,541.95 ($US).

Funeral and Burial costs may be the only workers’ compensation expense

In some cases, the benefit paid to offset the funeral or burial expenses may be the only compensation payable under a workers’ compensation claim.  This is commonly the case where death in the course of employment is immediate and there is no spouse or dependents.  In such cases, there will be no medical or hospital expenses and no temporary or permanent disability workers’ compensation costs.  As one jurisdiction explains:

It sometimes happens that a childless, unmarried worker is killed on the job leaving no dependents. In that case, his or her estate receives a burial allowance of up to $6,000 but nothing else.

An Overview of Workers' Compensation in Michigan [(2000: November) Bureau of Workers' Disability Compensation, Michigan Department of Consumer & Industry Services, Lansing, Michigan] 

I contacted Michigan’s Workers’ Compensation Agency regarding the limitations of their statute with the following hypothetical case:

N. is a 50-year-old land surveyor.  She is unmarried with no children or other dependents.  She has no living siblings or parents. While surveying along a river, the bank gives way.  She is observed falling into the rushing river and swept away in the torrent.  Her body is never recovered. Her executor files a workers' compensation claim but is unsure if there is anything payable.  There were no funeral or burial expenses.

Michigan authorities confirm that no workers’ compensation costs would be incurred in such a case.  Even costs associated with a “memorial service” would likely be denied as the statute provides only for, funeral and burial expenses.

Employer Impacts

The emotional and financial impacts of a staff member’s work-related death cannot be ignored.   There may be broader mental health consequences for co-workers and other staff members as well as investigation costs, operational costs to the employer.  Except for the potential costs associated with accepted claims from other workers physically and/or psychologically injured in association with the event, these costs are not covered by workers’ compensation. If there are minimal or no workers’ compensation claim costs associated with the death of a worker, employers may still experience higher premiums. 

In the Michigan example noted above, the death event may place the employer in a high-risk category that results in higher premiums.   In some jurisdictions, the average cost of all fatality claims is applied to the employer’s “claims cost, which may in turn impact experience rating (ER also called Ex Mod) that ultimately impacts premium.

WorkSafeBC’s experience rating policy evens the claim cost to employers for work-related fatal claims:

(3) ER [Experience Rating] adjustments are based solely on claims costs. The costs used are those directly associated with compensation claims. The cost used for fatal claims is the five-year moving Board-wide average rather than the actual cost of each claim.

-WorkSafeBC, Assessment Manual 1-42-1

Underwriting or direct premium costs may not be the only impact.  Many workers’ compensation systems offer rebates or safety “dividends”; a traumatic work-related death may disqualify the employer from receiving this payment.  In Ontario, for example, the employer may be disqualified from receiving its share of a “safety group” rebate or other rebates from WSIB (see WSIB Fatal Claim Premium Adjustment Document No.: 14-02-17)  

Recommendation: Flexibility and compassion

Every work-related death has unique emotional and financial impacts on families, friends, co-workers and employers.  The years of potential life lost to a work-related death are priceless; the workers’ compensation insurance consequence should never be costless.  As noted, cultural, social, and traditional factors can impact cost of an appropriate funeral and burial.  These factors may result in variation over and under the normal or average cost of a funeral and burial.  A worker’s family or estate may have recourse to other sources of reimbursement or payment for a funeral, however, in my view, workers’ compensation should be the first payer for work-related death. 

Policies on reimbursement should not be overly restrictive nor should the overall maximum cost be strictly limited to the median cost used in this analysis or dismissive of the additional service and items that may be required.  A policy guideline that allows for some discretion to exceed a policy maximum and cover the full cost of a funeral and burial in certain circumstances seems appropriate. 

The idea that a worker’s work-relate death can be costless (or near costless) from a workers’ compensation insurance perspective is concerning.  The possible inference that a worker’s life has no or little value is clearly in opposition to common sense. Many workers’ compensation systems have policies clearly recognizing that every worker’s life has value.  Demonstrating that recognition with significant compensation costs whether averaged across all fatalities, paid to the estate or provided for the full cost of a memorial, funeral and/or burial reinforces this principle.

Thankfully, the number of work-related fatalities has fallen over the years.  If arbitrarily low limits on funeral and burial expenses were related to the financial costs of higher fatality rate, then that justification no longer exists.  Every worker who passes away as a result of a work-related injury, illness or disease deserves the dignity of a funeral, memorial and proper burial.  Workers’ compensation systems should provide for that. 

Is there a gender bias in workers’ compensation and OH&S?

Women represent about 47% of the employed labour force in United States and Australia, 48% of the employed labour force in Canada.   One might expect the hazards in the workplace to be similar for men and women and that is true for some risks.  Women working in construction doing the same work as men likely face similar risk of injury from falling objects, falls from elevations, lacerations, as well as pinch and “caught-in” injuries.   Many women working in construction are involved as flaggers where transportation/struck-by injuries more common. Women and men working as flaggers face the same hazards from drivers ignoring "cone zone" rules.

Even if women and men face identical hazards, the risk and rate of injury may differ. Variations in exposure, task selection/role assignment and even hours of work can influence published injury rates. 

There are, of course, other variations that change the risk and injury rate profiles for both men and women.  Equitable work for men and women often means different approaches that address the realities of difference between them and the context in which they work.  One OSHA paper [Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH). 1999. Women in the Construction Workplace: Providing Equitable Safety and Health Protection. U.S. Department of Labor. Available at: https://www.osha.gov/doc/accsh/haswicformal.html ] noted differences and health impacts of:

• Workplace culture
• Sanitary facilities
• Personal protective equipment and clothing
• Ergonomics
• Reproductive hazards
• Health and safety training

The differential impact of these issues on the health and safety of women and men may not be fully realized or acted upon.  Inspectors may only note the presence or absences of PPE and not the appropriateness of the range of sizes and fit available for workers.  The standard of sanitary facilities may not be high on the priority list for workplace safety and health officers but, as the study points out, the quality of what’s provided can have greater impact on women’s health.  In the era of “#metoo”, there may be greater awareness of sexual harassment on the worksite, but how many worksite inspections actually address workplace culture, training and enforcement?

These are not trivial issues.  These issues result in real harm to women, harm that may not always meet the traditional threshold for a workplace injury claim.  Psychological injury, bladder infections, ergonomic injuries are often the subject of greater adjudication scrutiny and contribute to a disproportionately high rate of denied workers’ compensation claims made by women.   The common experience of women having claims denied leads to a reluctance to even report harm let alone file claims.  This compounds the harm, perpetuates the problem, and hides the magnitude of gender bias in both prevention and workers’ compensation. 

Although the labour force is almost evenly split between males and females, the pattern of work is not exactly the same.  Women tend to be over-represented in work outside the 9 to 5, Monday to Friday work paradigm—and when most regulatory inspections and access to services take place.  Despite women experiencing a disproportionately high number of injuries on weekends and statutory holidays, there is little evidence that prevention inspections and services are equally available and allocated accordingly.

Inspectorates and prevention agencies need to assess their allocation of resources in just in ways that expose gender bias.  Metrics that show an equitable allocation of resources, access and activities to sectors dominated by women would be a start.  Anecdotally, the expectation of women and men expecting to see a workplace health and safety officer on their worksite is vastly different and begs the question, why. Measurement matters.

Measurement is the first step that leads to control and eventually to improvement.   If you can't measure something, you can't understand it. If you can't understand it, you can't control it. If you can't control it, you can't improve it.

- H. James Harrington (Author, columnist, a Fellow of the British Quality Control Organization and the American Society for Quality Control).  

   

Is there a systemic bias in the system?  It would not be the first time this question has been raised nor would it be surprising to find that workers’ compensation and occupational health & safety have similar inherent bias as shown in drug studies, ergonomic tables and other medical research. 

Some might argue that the risk, as evidenced by injury and claim rates, is higher for men.  The roughly 60/40 split in male/female time-loss injuries should support a similar distribution in prevention resources and efforts; fair argument, but I have seen no agency that reports efforts or activities on this metric.  Nor have I seen any reports of workplace inspectorates being evaluated through a gender lens. 

All workers deserve and receive equal protection through prevention and inspection services.   Saying our current workers’ compensation, prevention, and enforcement systems do that does not necessarily make it so.  It is time to take a hard look at what we are doing and not doing to achieve truly equal OH&S and workers’ compensation protection.

 Sometimes equality means treating people the same, despite their differences, and sometimes it means treating them as equals by accommodating their differences.- Judge Rosalie Abella, Report of the Commission on Equality in Employment, Canada