Compo rights slashed for PS workers:
Did you know the Howard Government has just endorsed new laws which radically reduce workers’ compensation rights in the public sector?
The wide-ranging changes will affect public servants who drive, use public transport, ride bicycles or walk to or from work.
They will also make work-related injury claims more costly, contentious and complicated. We need your help to raise awareness about the issue your workplace.
Follow the links to find out more, complete our survey and send a protest letter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
It is concerning to know that the Government is trying to take away my basic rights.
TM, Tax Office
In all my working life getting to and from work has been a part of compensation coverage. It is absolutely ridiculous to remove this coverage from working people. Most people nowadays spend a fair amount of time in travel to and from the workplace, ergo the more time you spend travelling the more at risk of accident you are! If you were not travelling to or from your place of employment you would not have been in the area to be involved in an accident.
RB, Defence
When is a break not a break? That will be the question. I walk at lunch time but I also do a mail run at the same time. If I fell over and got injured would that be covered or not I wonder. There are lots of complications with this.
MP, Defence
I think that it is unreasonable not to be covered. At times I like to take a walk during breaks or ride my bike, promoting a healthy lifestyle. What am I to do if I have a serious fall or hit by another person. I won't be covered under 'third party' insurance.
AB, Medicare Australia
Do the politicians have the same rule! I remember the speaker of the house had a fall in his lunch break (i think) a few years ago.. Leo someone ... the end result was coverage of compo & lump sump payment for permanent disability due to a elbow or shoulder injury.... are they still covered while travelling to & from work in Com cars or Taxis??
PG, Centrelink
Should John Howard be injured while travelling home from his last work point (jet, limo, walking, etc...) late at night (noting he hadn't seen the family for a week) would he and his family reasonably expect to be supported by his employer (the Australian people), therefore allowing him to return to his duties both fit and financially stable to serve the Australian people? I wonder what Janette would expect?
LM, ACT Gov't
I am very concerned to hear that travel to and from work could be exempt from coverage. Both my husband and I ride our bikes to work. This saves us dealing with traffic, paying excessive parking fees and gives us some daily (child free) exercise. Our workplaces encourage this by providing secure storage for our bikes and change rooms. We arrive at work refreshed and ready to start our day.If we were injured on the way to work and were not covered then this could become a very expensive and disruptive time for us as we do not have private insurance or any other form of recompense to helping us through. I understand that the workers comp premiums and outgoings are a large strain on governments and private enterprise but I do not believe that removing this coverage from workers and, therefore, putting the cost of injury onto the families to absorb, or the public health system, is a fair way to solve the issue. Unfortunately, what we've come to expect from this government.
KW, ACT Gov't
10 to 12 hour days are bestowed upon us, even longer at times; you travel home fatigued, a resultant accident caused by fatigue; your not covered - how ludicrous. AWA says “reasonable hours” – what are reasonable hours? No one can define it. AWA says “reasonable time to complete the task” how many tasks at hand – many & growing. May be the question should be – “what are unreasonable hours”? Need a life, cause the lying rodent and his goons have taken mine away!
one thing that people can do is to contact their favourite coalition Senator in their State or Territory and tell them of their concern this Bill will go through unless there are enough wobbly coaltion senators worried about their seats
ACT's Sen Gary Humphries is particularly vulnerable example
Jeff
While I found your article informative it didn't address the issue of coverage for staff travelling for business. Many of my staff travel interstate for meetings. Will they be covered on their way to the meeting locations, no matter how they travel, and on their return?
Veronica
I haven't read the bill, only CPSU's ABS Bulletin for Feb 2007 but I have no problems with removing the right to claim workers compensation for injuries sustained while travelling to and from work, during lunch and while participating in sporting or other activities at lunch time. Unless I am performing an activity in the course of my employment, then I don't expect to be covered and I think the critical issue here is why should I be? Just because it's easier to get compensation out of Comcare than other avenues such as Compulsory Third Party insurance isn't sufficient justification in my view. The employer can't control the drivers on the roads I travel on or the condition of the footpaths I walk on at lunch time, so why should they be liable if I suffer an injury at those times? [I don't want a response, am just expressing my view.]
Tracey (NT)
I have no problem with the review. It is likely to result in a large reduction in the insurance premium which in turn will make pay rises a little easier. In the end, we are all responsible for our own lives and we make choices on where to live and how to travel to work and how to spend our time during lunch. They are our choices, not those of our employer.
The only exception is if you are travelling away from home for work purposes. I think this should be covered.
Sally
I am opposed to the proposed changes to remove workers compensation cover from ACT public servants while travelling to and from work. I suggest that this matter be placed on the agenda as part of the negotiation process regarding the new Certified Agreement.
Regards
David W
On reading the proposed compensation changes by the "Government", I find it un- Australian, family un friendly, and one sided.
It is worth noting that I have never responded to these calls to arms in the past, but find that this proposal is nothing but bullying and a disregard to fair practice within the community.
Normally to work, you must to travel to the office destination, it isn't a pleasure trip it's a requirement (normally) of the employee to attend the work place and for that matter leave the work place at the end of the day's work. By removing the responsibility of the employer in supporting the employees and there families clear lines of definition start to blur. That is, the definition of work place and home comes into question, what is the start time of work? When does work finish? Why would someone work later hours if they are exposed to a higher risk in travelling, such at peak hour traffic, etc... Why would an employee attempt to travel to or from work pending poor weather conditions etc... Why wouldn't an employee stay at work if faced with a higher risk (not an extreme risk but a higher risk), to avoid that risk, in doing this the employer would be faced with potential higher cost of salaries, OH&S requirements, utilities cost, and other operational liabilities.
Change is not something to be concerned about it's how we evolve and advance, but undue/unfair change needs to be addressed. If there are concerns about the blow out of costs to compensation then surely you address the problems of why injuries and other events occur, not discharge responsibilities to the Nation's communities, families and employees.
Les Mac
Hi
I wish to object to this suggestion by our present government. I think our society can afford to support workers on the way to work. Also as you say this is a disincentive to be involved in sport during the lunch period. I will not be voting for this government and hope enough others work to remove them from government in the next election
Thanks
Lesley
This is outrageous. Given the excess travel Centrelink employees in NSO currently have to endure (being spread across over more than 10 sites in Canberra) going from meeting to meeting (and despite the promises of rationalised and centralised accommodation I do not believe the situation is going to reduced as they make out with the introduction of new buildings, one of them 3 years away) I think it is frightening to think whilst we are 'expected' to take our own cars across the city to these meetings that we will not be covered to and from work. (or is there clarification between 'on duty' or 'off duty' - even then I think it is ridiculous).
For example, so if I get hit by a car on the way to work and end up in hospital in traction for weeks and subsequent physiotherapy, I am expected to take months of my own personal leave and fight a legal battle to try and recover costs etc. If I wasn't driving to work then I wouldn't have had that accident in the first place.
Thank you for your support CPSU.
I just read your news about the Govt stomping all over compo rights and wondered how will it affect workers in the NT? I have crashed my motorcycle on the way to work a while ago now but the usual thing in the NT is that the TIO office’s MACA scheme pays out for days off work, injuries, permanent disability etc etc. This is all funded by us car / bike rego payers in the NT yet applies to all road users involved in road trauma. My fear is – under the proposed new legislation, will TIO have the option not to make these payouts any more?
Yours (in unity!!)
Liza
The workcover system in Victoria is the most inept humiliating and dirty system that anyone could wish to deal with. Insurers have a list of preferred doctors whom give them the reports they require to make a workers look like they are malingering. Alliaz would rather pay out $230,000 in costs to prove or insinuate a worker is not suffering a work related injury than pay an injured worker $100,000 to get them off the books to recover in peace. The system is degrading to the injured worker. I've been on compensation for a year and they treat me like dirt and I hate it.
Comment from Tina:
Our worker's compensation system is already a nightmare. I have recently had a case I had to stop fighting due to upcoming AAT court (Lawyer) costs that would outweigh the compensation sought. Comcare based its decision to reject my claim entirely on comments by managers, ignoring the medical evidence. They also asked me to see a Psychiatrist who yawned all the way through the visit and wrote a report to help Comcare in its rejection of the claim. The information from my treating doctors was not included in the report. Comcare also asked me to provide details of all of my doctors and employers, ever. The whole system is in dire need of overhaul. As for CPSU's information that the Government is planning to make its worker's compensation system more "costly, contentious and complicated", I am at a loss to know how it can be made worse. Indeed, the only room and direction left for change is in the direction of improvement.
While I found your article informative it didn't address the issue of coverage for staff travelling for business. Many of my staff travel interstate for meetings. Will they be covered on their way to the meeting locations, no matter how they travel, and on their return?
One thing that people can do is to contact their favourite coalition Senator in their State or Territory and tell them of their concern this Bill will go through unless there are enough wobbly coalition senators worried about their seats.
ACT's Senator Gary Humphries is particularly vulnerable example.
Does the compo law reform apply to all politicians as well! Howard the Coward is not even worth the air we breathe. He is a piece of rubbish. The whole Liberal Party and their dictatorship are a rich persons mate. Has John Howard ever walked the streets at night in the South West of Sydney or is he a girl. The violence is on the increase because of his tightening of payouts- A Fact of Life is - you cut the benefits to people they will need to get their income from somewhere ie for drug use crime is on the increase and gangs are forming in every street terrorising the area I live in Panania. The Police are too frightened to go out at night - this will affect their compo so where is the incentive "Mr John Bloody Howard will have Blood on his hands".
So that effectively with the compensation law changes, if I go and get a sandwich at lunch time and get hit by an uninsured driver, I am no longer covered by Centrelink? Is this for real?
Even if I were a Liberal voter, this attempt by (past his use by date) Johnny would cost him a vote at the impending federal election. Given that he can't afford to lose any votes, this should be another nail in his electoral coffin.
congrats on putting out this bulletin
in the bit:
Issues for drivers: Under the existing Comcare arrangements you are covered for any injury to yourself regardless of whether the accident was your fault. Under the new proposals you’ll have to rely upon compulsory third party insurance (CTP), which may only provide partial cover if you’re at fault.
it's actually worse than you paint it.
CTP will only cover any injured driver or passenger if they live in places that have no-fault schemes, namely Vic, Tas or NT. In other places you're not covered at all unless you can show it was another driver's fault, and if it was partly their fault and partly yours, your payout will be reduced.
in the bit:
Issues for pedestrians: Under the new legislation pedestrians will lose their current protection and will need to consider self-insurance.
cyclists are in exactly the same position
can you please point these things out in the next bulletin
cheers [tears actually]
Sorry, but I don't agree with the union's blanket opposition to these changes. It's always struck me as strange that an employer should be responsible for compensation in relation to any injuries an employee sustains on the way to and from work, and in a lunch break. Travel from and to work is out of the employer's control, as are lunch activities, so why should employers foot the bill for any compensation? Employers have a responsibility to provide a safe working environment when the employee is in the workplace, but that's it. Surely we are responsible for ourselves the rest of the time and carry our own risks, as we do in every other aspect of our lives.
And this scare mongering about discouraging workers from engaging in healthy exercise during the day doesn't stand up either. People exercise at lunch time for lots of reasons, overall health, enjoyment, stress management, etc, not just because it makes them better employees. OK, the employer gets a benefit, but so does the individual. I can't see people stopping lunchtime exercise because the employer won't foot the bill if they hurt themselves.
The only circumstances where I think it's reasonable for an employer to be held liable for something that happens to an employee on the way home is if something about the workplace has contributed to an accident on the way, for example if the employer has required the employee to work excessive hours and a road accident happens because of excess fatigue. In such cases the employer is clearly liable and should continue to be liable.
I'm not familiar with the definition of injury changes, or how it affects stress related illnesses, so until I see some more detail, I'll reserve my opinion on that aspect.
And in case you are thinking I'm some Government hack or management yes man, that's not the case either. I've been a member of this union all my working life, have no political affiliations, and generally have a lot of sympathy for what the union does, where it is just and reasonable. I just don't see the union's blanket opposition to the changes as defensible.
I am disappointed to hear about the proposed cuts to Workers Compensation laws, which undercut the employees' sense of security, and materially disadvantage potential claimants. The present government fails to value the working person's contribution to society when they propose such heartless changes.
Thank you,
Kim Cragg
Not only would this change in legislation make people less inclined to utilise healthier and more environmentally friendly transport options (ie.
walking, riding bicycles and shared public transport respectively) but it also sends a clear message to public servants, and the community as a whole, that the government is not at all concerned about assisting their injured or ill employees in getting better and getting back to work.
GT, Immigration
I was injured at work (Overuse injury) and then was injured again (10-15kg weight fell on my head), which has left me with a permanent spinal cord injury. Despite fighting Comcare for two years, I had to call it quits because I didn't have the $10,000 plus to challenge the decision in the AAT. I have lost and am still losing absolutely thousands of dollars because of this injury. The system is archaic, not interested in assisting workers back into the workforce, the doctors you get sent to are only interested in towing the departmental line and will blatently lie and twist what you say, just to keep the "powers at be happy". The department is very selective about what info they send to the doctors for your "reviews" and you have to go to a lot of expense to provide irrefutable evidence of your condition, even though "blind fred" can see you are injured and in a lot of pain, and these so called doctor's still tell lies.
As workers we have the right to be covered, we are after all paying this via our taxes. It appears the only decent sort of coverage one can have is your own Income Protection Insurance, because COMCARE won't cover you one bit. It didn't beforehand and it certainly won't now.
My advice to anyone is get your own insurance as we are now definatly on our own, all be it with the CPSU on our side.
I think these changes are absolutely ridiculous!! I am still unclear whether this means ALL employees are affected ie private sector through workcover?? I will definately be voting for labour for the first time in my life. I am disappointed that the gov have decided to reduce our entitlements and cover especially noting that they have instructed us to get our own insurance (which will cost more then what our pay rises are) or instructed us to get CTP with an insurer who covers an at fault driver - what they dont mention is that you can only change your CTP Insurer when your rego is due, too bad if you just paid it!! I agree that this has marked a very sad day for public servants, cant wait to see what else they can do to screw us even further!!
fine, then let me work from home. I only travel because I am required to attend the office.
I think employers should be liable for accidents that happen to employees at work, but not for accidents that happen while employees travel to or from work or during their lunch break. Employers shouldn't have to pay for things that they have no control over. Still, something has been taken away from us employees and we have not been compensated for it. An extra allowance to cover the cost of privately-arranged insurance to replace the lost workers comp cover would be fair.
Post a Comment