tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8489363879633129568.post8672925573848105510..comments2023-11-13T11:54:56.769-08:00Comments on DePaolo's World: It's My PleasureAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02446191842560064784noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8489363879633129568.post-9926726708283335422013-11-23T13:44:36.079-08:002013-11-23T13:44:36.079-08:00First, David, thank you for sharing something of y...First, David, thank you for sharing something of your personal life that we all will (or already have) face – the gradual disintegration of an elder loved one. It is most poignant because, until now, they were the ones looking out for our well-being. It is additionally poignant because we recognize we will be in that position as well one day. The nagging question is, ‘Will someone be there to respond to our needs?’<br /><br />That having been said, and with your kind permission, I will move on. Since I got involved in the work comp industry in 1989, I have heard one message repeated over and over, ‘The work comp is broken and it needs to be fixed.’ Even though we’ve gone through endless rounds of reform – some major and some minor – the message remains the same.<br /><br />How is it that, after more than two decades of our best efforts, we still cannot ‘fix’ work comp? Are we really that inept and clueless?<br /><br />I would submit to you – work comp doesn’t need to be ‘fixed’. Work comp works exactly as it was designed to work. It does not, however, work as it was intended to work. Work comp doesn’t need to be fixed - it needs to heal itself.<br /><br />At the most basic level, work comp is the ‘Great Covenant’ between Employers and Employees. In exchange for providing a system of benefits (medical and indemnity) to an injured worker the employer is not being sued for work place negligence. The employer gets the benefit of the work comp system being the ‘sole remedy’ for a work place injury. In exchange for access to immediate benefits (medical and indemnity) the injured worker gives up the right to sue the employer for negligence in the work place.<br /><br />I’ve been a work comp consultant since 2003. The laws, rules, and regulations in place at that time allowed me to fulfil the promise of the ‘Great Covenant’ – take care of the injured worker at the lowest cost possible to the employer. Despite two rounds of major reform legislation, and many minor ones, nothing has changed. The laws, rules, and regulations in effect today still allow me to do my job just like it did a decade ago. I can still get the same outcomes for an injured worker today that I could ten years ago.<br /><br />My advice to the employers and injured workers in the system, ‘Shut up, quit whining, and take care of business – according to the rules.’ Everyone else in the system is a ‘hanger-on’ – living off the system and drawing their livelihood from the system. It is your choice to make a meaningful contribution to the system or be a ‘bottom feeder’ – nothing more than ‘pond scum’.<br />billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16030231757371541081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8489363879633129568.post-25431545181854627862013-11-22T15:44:45.796-08:002013-11-22T15:44:45.796-08:00Thank you David. You have expressed thoughts abou...Thank you David. You have expressed thoughts about the management of WC that absolutely need to be said. <br />And consider one additional phenomenon... When you "manage" in WC, the industry, being collectively more clever than any manager, will immediately devise a "work around" for the portions of the control that they object to losing. The manager's analytics will eventually catch up and show him or her that the strategy has been outflanked. The manager's typical response is to attempt to control the work-around, initiating an new cycle of management and avoidance. Two things result - the cost of the system is driven up by all the efforts placed into controlling and avoiding control, and the manager becomes convinced that the people and organizations who are not cooperating with his or her plan are the enemy...and the reaction to that is to tighten the controls even further (because the enemy can't be trusted). <br />There is another way... the intent of the workers' compensation system, the legislation, the political environment or shareholder expectations give us a mandate for what must be done... but why not collaborate with "the managed" on "how" it is accomplished... strangely, when this approach is tried, outcomes improve and costs come down...there are plenty of examples. When David says leadership is empowerment, that is part of what he's saying....Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16789019271896688640noreply@blogger.com