Employer incentive debate continues

Written by  Michelle Morra 11 January 2009
For over a decade, injured worker groups have met several times with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) to raise concerns about Ontario’s experience rating system. Introduced in the 80s as an incentive for employers to provide a healthy and safe workplace, the program has in many cases had the opposite effect according to its critics.

 
Proving there’s even a problem has been difficult, says Endicott, because studies suggest the system works. But those studies have only been looking at the numbers of no lost-time claims. “Until you really break through that, you don’t know what’s really happening.”

The Ministry of Labour uses “no lost-time incidents” as a measure of severity, which means companies where workers take appropriate time off work to heal are considered hazardous workplaces and get inspected by the ministry.

“The companies that are doing the worst harm are the ones that are escaping the inspections,” Endicott says.

Mahoney admits there’s not much of a human element to those decisions. “Part of the issue here with experience rating is that it is strictly a numerical number at the moment. You add up the premiums they pay you, you add up the impact they have in cost, and you put those numbers in a computer and it spits out a refund or a surcharge.”

What he objects to is that the Ontario Federation of Labour has said employers are liars and cheaters.

“I just don’t accept that,” he says, adding that though there may be a small minority who lie and cheat, just as a small minority of workers might be committing fraud, he believes the vast majority of employers want to see their workers go home safe.

Still, he recognizes the flaws in the current system. “It’s going to change,” he says. “But I don’t believe that any change we make other than scrapping any kind of incentive program will satisfy any of the critics...They just want to kill it.”

The board’s committee is looking at possible ways to alter the system. One option on the table, Mahoney says, is a model like that in B.C., where employers entitled to a rebate get a reduction of premiums on a go-forward basis rather than a lump sum cheque.

Labour groups would prefer to start over with a whole new system, and have suggested as possible models the Excellence Initiative in Germany, which funds research in universities, and one based on the Canadian government’s EnerGuide that would directly subsidize improvements that control or eliminate workplace hazards.

As for Endicott, she would like to see the WSIB stick to claims management and leave prevention to a new, separate “occupational health and safety board.”

We need to talk
Both the WSIB and labour seem to agree that better information exchange among all parties would lead to more responsible decision-making regarding compensation claims. Besides more open communication lines between the WSIB and the Ministry of Labour, there needs to be direct interaction between government decision-makers and the people for whom the compensation system is intended to help.

Steve Mantis, secretary of the Ontario Network of Injured Workers, wants a system that doesn’t pressure injured workers into hiding their injuries or returning to work prematurely. He says that after the media coverage in early 2008, there seemed to be a broader interest in trying to understand this issue.

“The WSIB is developing a new service delivery model that has a closer contact with the injured workers they’re dealing with,” he says. “In some of my discussions with senior management, they’re trying to find ways to build relationships.” In particular, he is referring to a recent meeting he had with WSIB senior managers.

Mahoney wasn’t at that particular meeting, but in the same month, the WSIB chair had “a wonderful meeting” with an injured worker group. As far as he’s concerned, since starting this job two and a half years ago he has always encouraged dialogue with the people the system is intended to help.

“If there have been consequences in the negative, they have been unintended consequences, and we’ll fix that,” he says. “I hope that when they put me in the ground they’ll at least say I listened.”
 

Michelle Morra is a former COS editor and award winning journalist. You can reach her at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .'; document.write( '' ); document.write( addy_text822 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //--> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 

 



<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>
(Page 2 of 2)
Last modified on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 04:31

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

 

Reader Poll
Should Canada impose a total ban on manufacturing and exporting of asbestos products?