I don’t think so.
Nick Smith has announced he will be implementing a new experience rating scheme under ACC saying that this will bring down our high rates of workplace deaths and injuries. He’d better be sure of that, because hardly anyone else is.
The evidence suggesting that experience rating sends a signal to employers and incentivises safer behaviour is tenuous and unproven at best. Most researchers have been cautious about crediting experience rating for lowering overall actual injury rates. Experience rating can provide an incentive for injury under-reporting and employers are more likely to dispute whether personal injuries are work-related and therefore, contribute to its claims record.
Experience rating is a concept from private insurance where the events to be insured against and the potential size of the losses must be measurable and defined clearly. But workplace health and safety can be complex and responsibility hard to apportion. An experience rating approach assumes that costs can be sheeted home to those who are responsible for them and there is no cross-subsidisation, yet our ACC scheme is based on the principle of ‘community responsibility’, where cross-subsidisation can and does occur because :
- one person’s job often depends on another person’s job making responsibility hard to allocate.
- an injury that occurs in one environment (eg work) might be aggravated or caused by an injury that occurs in another environment (eg sport).
- in many cases neither the employer nor the worker can influence the outcome.
Nick’s racing ahead with this, along with his secret “Stocktake” on privatising the work account, even although his officials told him that it would take two years to design an experience rating scheme, and before that more research should be done.
I’m already getting an increased number of ACC cases through my Northcote office due to the changes the government’s made to ACC. I reckon there’s a lot more to come.
It’s blackmail, punishing people who put in claims!
My students are stunned when I tell them each year that more people die in the work place each year than are murdered….but because the news doesn’t highlight the former we think the later is what really matters.
Spud, its not blackmail.
People already pay higher premiums depending on the risk level of the employer. Using your logic thats extortion.
What this is doing is building on what is already there making it fairer, and will motivate people to improve their H+S in the workplace.
Basically basing the ‘risk’ on the quality of the employers record – not just a blanket premium because of what field they may fall into (say office work vs construction)
A couple of months ago I expressed doubt about a figure reported here saying there was one workplace accident a month. I have since had confirmed that that is accurate and this has been the case for several years +/- a few either way.
Given the cost of ACC to business I think proposals to reward the businesses that get it right are well overdue and an incentive will be a positive thing. Therefore there must also be penalties for thos who get it wrong. If a business lies or mis-leads about a work place accident then like under tax law they should be severly dealt with.
Rewarding good companies is a positive thing. I currently am working in a large organisation who take H&S very seriously – and we are ensuring all our contractors are doing the same. get it wrong and they stand to lose a major contract.
Bt what I get sick of is Labour’s persistent anti to everything that is suggested by the Nats. Why not for once try and be positive and come in with constructive feedback rather than forever trying to rubbish everything that is suggested? You are going to be in opposition for a very long time – much better to try and build credibility constructively – or are you under union orders?
@Tracey – I know and I can’t believe the government thinks that having a Business Leaders Forum on Workplace Health and Safety will make any difference (like they were trumpeting about today) while meanwhile, they have cut workers education in health and safety by 56% and are scaling back other things, like leave and rest breaks, that help health and safety. I think National is returning to their old fashioned view that health and safety and workplace accidents are best managed by the bosses, even though it is the workers themselves who actually know where the problems
@ Monty – I will always be constructive if there is something to be constructive about, just as I am sure you are about the good things the Helen Clark led Labour government did over nine years. Or did I get that wrong? Under union orders? Hahahahahaha
KaPow! N1 D.F.
Down here at the new Dunedin Stadium development, scaffolders get paid extra when its raining, in recognition that the job is more dangerous when the scaffolds are wet and slippery.
Just think about that for a second.
Monty is confusing ‘ sudden deaths at work’ with all those who die due to workplace causes. Some might die a few months later , others die after many years.
And Monty doesnt even realise the deaths number one a week NOT one a month . This is only for those who die on or near their place of work. Many more die many years later due to illness or poisoning that occurred at work
http://www.osh.govt.nz/resources/stats/fatals/index.shtml
The Labour Government did 2 good things during their nine years. Kiwisaver and no smoking in public places. There is no doubt stuff that was well under the radar that did have constructive support from National.
This bill/ change to ACC is one such issue where there should be cross party support – but instead you straight away look to the negative.
Sorry – original post I meant to say there is one death a week – at the time I thought it was more like one a month. (When will you guys introduce an edit function????)
While there is no accounting for stupidity, one death a week is far too high – and on top of that there are serious work place accidents. Most work place accidents are preventable – and What the Nats are trying to do is incentivise businesses to invest more in this area. You on the left may be foreign to the concept of carrot – not stick!
@Monty : problem is there is no evidence to show that “carrot” works any better. This is what the DOL told the Minister, but he ignored it.
@Chris – people may be too afraid to put in genuine claims!
@Loota – somebody told me that that in light of the fact that Wellington has the cake tin, Dunedin’s one should be called the fish tank
Dont forget the deaths at work dont include road deaths, so there would be 10-20 truck drivers a year killed on the job
Am I right in reading that Smith will only apply ‘experience ratings’ for employers when there is claims for income compensation.
So if you are killed , no income compensation, so it wont effect your rating ??
@Ghost one – yeah it must have been the “speed” at work!
No, it won’t stop or prevent accidents. I remember employers offering $$$ workers to prevent them reporting the accidents last time we had this in the late 1990’s – because what they were offering workers was far less than the increase in levies.
Loota makes a pertinent point which many seem to have overlooked. Paying higher hourly rates to compensate higher risk doesnt prevent workplace accidents.
IF they achieve it all power to them. I wonder, given who was invited to the forum, what mechanisms and budget to overseeing/investigating/policing?
Westie – agree. I know of employers who made lump sum payments to “compensate” and keep the lid on the accident.
Westie, I’m glad you brought that up. I also personally know that employers, including city councils, will bow to bullying employees to keep their injury numbers down. This law is a no-no.