[DRAFT} Workplace Injury Compensation Scheme

[Vostrikovia]

Okay, thought I would give this a go now that I intend to be more WA active. Appreciate thoughts, advice, obscenities etc....

Current draft
Changes appear in bold:

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Description:

The World Assembly hereby declares that:

(1) All member states must ensure that all workers are provided with a robust workplace injury compensation scheme. The scheme must fund compensation, treatment and rehabilitation to a worker who receives an injury (as later defined).

(1.1) Compensation must include:
(i) maintenance of pre-injury or similar earnings and other related costs whilst rehabilitation and treatment occurs to allow a worker to return to work in their pre-injury capacity
(ii) payments to compensate for permanent injuries
(iii) payments to compensate for future economic loss
(iv) payments to dependants/spouse where a workplace death occurs
(v) cost of treatment as outlined in clause 1.2
(vi) cost of rehabilitation as outlined in clause 1.3

(1.2) Treatment includes all reasonable medical and related treatment to a worker who has suffered a workplace injury and also includes services designed to assist a worker with the tasks of daily living when the worker becomes incapable of performing those tasks.

(1.3) Rehabilitation includes any services designed to rehabilitate a worker to pre-injury fitness or similar depending on the nature, conditions and/or circumstances of their injury.

(2) All member states may fund this scheme through government funding, insurance arrangements, private enterprise or any other way that the government of a member state sees fit.

(3) All member states must establish an independent regulatory body to regulate the workplace injury compensation scheme. This body must also oversight and independently resolve disputes regarding liability, compensation entitlements or any other relevant workplace injury compensation arrangements. No legal representative acting on behalf of a worker or employer may claim any fees from the worker or employer in relation to any disputes heard by this body.

(4) For the purposes of workplace injury compensation, an injury shall be universally defined as:
(i) personal injury as a result of or in the course of employment, or
(ii) a disease that is acquired as a result of or in the course of employment, or
(iii) a psychological or psychiatric, illness or disease acquired as a result of or in the course of employment, or
(iv) death as a result of or in the course of employment, and
(v) the employment concerned was the main contributing factor to acquiring the injury, illness or disease.

(5.1) A worker who has acquired an injury shall receive compensation from the worker's employer in accordance with the scheme established by the member state.

(5.2) Where a worker dies, the dependants of that worker shall receive compensation in accordance with the scheme established by the member state.

(5.3) Workplace injury compensation, treatment and rehabilitation is payable despite a worker receiving an injury away from the worker's place of employment.

(5.4) Employer's cannot be held liable to pay compensation to a worker where their injury is due to reckless disregard for their own safety or the employer's safety procedures. The onus of proof of reckless disregard rests with the employer.

(6) All member states must further establish an independent organisation charged with managing the workplace injury compensation scheme. This organisation must be regulated by the body established under clause (3). The organisation is responsible for:
(i) the operation of and financial management of the funding provided for the scheme as per clause (2), and
(ii) prompt determinations on liability, on behalf of an employer, for an injury, and
(iii) facilitation of payments for any compensation, treatment or rehabilitation to a worker who is entitled.

(7) All member states must require employers to establish a formal program designed to assist injured workers in returning to work in their pre-injury capacity. Where an employee suffers a permanent disability, the employer must assist a worker in returning to suitable work that takes into account their capabilities. This program must be regulated by the body established under clause (3).

(8) Nothing in this resolution prevents a member nation from holding more rigorous workplace injury compensation schemes.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Description:

OBSERVING the protections mandated by the Workplace Safety Standards Act.

RECOGNIZING that a worker who suffers an injury in their workplace should be entitled to receive compensation, treatment and rehabilitation from their employer where their work is a substantial contributing factor to their injury.

The World Assembly hereby declares that:

(1) All member states must ensure that all workers are provided with a robust workplace injury compensation scheme. The scheme must fund compensation, treatment and rehabilitation to a worker who receives an injury (as later defined).

(1.1) Compensation must include:
(i) maintenance of pre-injury or similar earnings and other related costs whilst rehabilitation and treatment occurs to allow a worker to return to work in their pre-injury capacity
(ii) payments to compensate for permanent injuries
(iii) payments to compensate for future economic loss
(iv) payments to dependants/spouse where a workplace death occurs
(v) cost of treatment as outlined in clause 1.2
(vi) cost of rehabilitation as outlined in clause 1.3

(1.2) Treatment includes all reasonable medical and related treatment to a worker who has suffered a workplace injury and also includes services designed to assist a worker with the tasks of daily living when the worker becomes incapable of performing those tasks.

(1.3) Rehabilitation includes any services designed to rehabilitate a worker to pre-injury fitness or similar depending on the nature, conditions and/or circumstances of their injury.

(2) All member states must establish a financial trust to fund the scheme. Private enterprise and government must co-fund the scheme.

(3) All member states must establish an independent regulatory body to regulate the workplace injury compensation scheme. This body must also oversight and independently resolve disputes regarding liability, compensation entitlements or any other relevant workplace injury compensation arrangements. No legal representative acting on behalf of a worker or employer may claim any fees in relation to any disputes heard by this body.

(4) For the purposes of workplace injury compensation, an injury shall be universally defined as:
(i) personal injury as a result of or in the course of employment, or
(ii) a disease that is acquired as a result of or in the course of employment, or
(iii) a psychological or psychiatric, illness or disease acquired as a result of or in the course of employment, or
(iv) death as a result of or in the course of employment, and
(v) the employment concerned was the main contributing factor to acquiring the injury, illness or disease.

(5.1) A worker who has acquired an injury shall receive compensation from the worker's employer in accordance with the scheme established by the member state.

(5.2) Where a worker dies, the dependants of that worker shall receive compensation in accordance with the scheme established by the member state.

(5.3) Workplace injury compensation, treatment and rehabilitation is payable despite a worker receiving an injury away from the worker's place of employment.

(6) All member states must further establish an independent organisation charged with managing the workplace injury compensation scheme which may be owned and operated by private enterprise or government. This organisation must be regulated by the body established under clause (3). The organisation must:
(i) be responsible for the operation and financial management of the trust and scheme, and
(ii) promptly determine liability, on behalf of an employer, for an injury, and
(iii) facilitate payments for any compensation, treatment or rehabilitation to a worker who is entitled.

(7) All member states must require employers to establish a formal program designed to assist injured workers in returning to work in their pre-injury capacity. Where an employee suffers a permanent disability, the employer must assist a worker in returning to suitable work that takes into account their capabilities.

(8) Nothing in this resolution prevents a member state from holding more rigorous workplace injury compensation schemes.

[Grays Harbor]

A couple points I'd like to raise -
First, this one:

(5.3) Workplace injury compensation, treatment and rehabilitation is payable despite a worker receiving an injury away from the worker's place of employment.

Why should the employer be responsible for injuries not at work and unrelated to the job?

Second: If the injury at work is caused by the worker disregarding safety procedures, again, why is the employer responsible for their treatment?

[Imperium Anglorum]

All member states must ensure that all workers are provided with a robust workplace injury compensation scheme. The scheme must fund compensation, treatment and rehabilitation to a worker who receives an injury (as later defined).

Why? How about industrialising nations where something like this would be a great barrier to labour utilisation?

[Vostrikovia]

A couple points I'd like to raise -
First, this one:

(5.3) Workplace injury compensation, treatment and rehabilitation is payable despite a worker receiving an injury away from the worker's place of employment.

Why should the employer be responsible for injuries not at work and unrelated to the job?

It's just a clause to cover injuries that occur outside of the workplace or in circumstances where the employee is performing work related duties elsewhere. The definition of 'injury' specifically states that in order for an injury to be eligible for compensation, the workers employment must have been the substantial contributing factor. So the worker couldn't claim a fall at home as work related...... unless of course it was... but it would still have to fit in the universal definition of injury.

Second: If the injury at work is caused by the worker disregarding safety procedures, again, why is the employer responsible for their treatment?

Well I guess I could include some kind of clause regarding a worker's reckless disregard for safety procedures? Would that alleviate your concerns?

[Caracasus]

We would suggest that this needs to be written from a looser standpoint. You state here that:

(1.2) Treatment includes all reasonable medical and related treatment to a worker who has suffered a workplace injury and also includes services designed to assist a worker with the tasks of daily living when the worker becomes incapable of performing those tasks.

(1.3) Rehabilitation includes any services designed to rehabilitate a worker to pre-injury fitness or similar depending on the nature, conditions and/or circumstances of their injury.

However, many nations have a nationalized health service that provides top-notch medical care free at point of access, and a welfare state that provides rehabilitation services. For such nations, legislating that employers must pay the costs of these could result in workers injured getting less in the way of quality care and support.

In addition:

(2) All member states must establish a financial trust to fund the scheme. Private enterprise and government must co-fund the scheme.

Again, some nations such as Caracasus do not have private enterprise. This resolution is written with one particular type of nation and society in mind.

(7) All member states must require employers to establish a formal program designed to assist injured workers in returning to work in their pre-injury capacity. Where an employee suffers a permanent disability, the employer must assist a worker in returning to suitable work that takes into account their capabilities.

Again, we would not necessarily trust employers with this.

As the good ambassador above points out, some nations may not be in a position where they would offer any kind of injury compensation for workers. (Although, having said that, if this is the case Caracasus would probably be interested in handing out certain pamphlets to the workers of said nation....)

We suggest that you try not to legislate too much with one particular kind of society in mind.

[Vostrikovia]

All member states must ensure that all workers are provided with a robust workplace injury compensation scheme. The scheme must fund compensation, treatment and rehabilitation to a worker who receives an injury (as later defined).

Why? How about industrialising nations where something like this would be a great barrier to labour utilisation?

Well an industrialising nation still has to comply with the Workplace Safety Standards Act. This Scheme just creates a remedy when these are not followed. No one should suffer as a result of turning up to work.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Why? How about industrialising nations where something like this would be a great barrier to labour utilisation?

Well an industrialising nation still has to comply with the Workplace Safety Standards Act. This Scheme just creates a remedy when these are not followed. No one should suffer as a result of turning up to work.

Exactly. How will industrialising nations which would then be forced to pay remedial fees for violations which they let slide with no fines whatsoever deal with the increase in the cost of labour at such a critical time?

[Vostrikovia]

We would suggest that this needs to be written from a looser standpoint. You state here that:

(1.2) Treatment includes all reasonable medical and related treatment to a worker who has suffered a workplace injury and also includes services designed to assist a worker with the tasks of daily living when the worker becomes incapable of performing those tasks.

(1.3) Rehabilitation includes any services designed to rehabilitate a worker to pre-injury fitness or similar depending on the nature, conditions and/or circumstances of their injury.

However, many nations have a nationalized health service that provides top-notch medical care free at point of access, and a welfare state that provides rehabilitation services. For such nations, legislating that employers must pay the costs of these could result in workers injured getting less in the way of quality care and support.

Fair point, however, why should the burden of workplace injuries be placed on a nationalised health service? Why should the tax payer pay when the operation of a business is responsible? If your healthcare system provides top notch care, this scheme works hand in hand with that, except that business foots the bill, not the tax payer - same care, different bill payer.

In addition:

(2) All member states must establish a financial trust to fund the scheme. Private enterprise and government must co-fund the scheme.

Again, some nations such as Caracasus do not have private enterprise. This resolution is written with one particular type of nation and society in mind.

Good point, my nation has no private enterprise either. In which case, government will fun the scheme entirely. I'll see what I can do to change it to reflect full public sector only nations.

(7) All member states must require employers to establish a formal program designed to assist injured workers in returning to work in their pre-injury capacity. Where an employee suffers a permanent disability, the employer must assist a worker in returning to suitable work that takes into account their capabilities.

Again, we would not necessarily trust employers with this.

I don't either - the scheme is trying to satisfy both capitalist and socialist type society. I will put a clause in that this program must be regulated by the regulatory agency set out in clause 3 which allows employers to be accountable for this.

[Vostrikovia]

Well an industrialising nation still has to comply with the Workplace Safety Standards Act. This Scheme just creates a remedy when these are not followed. No one should suffer as a result of turning up to work.

Exactly. How will industrialising nations which would then be forced to pay remedial fees for violations which they let slide with no fines whatsoever deal with the increase in the cost of labour at such a critical time?

Sorry... I'm not entirely following you on that one? Could you explain?

[Caracasus]

Perhaps you should consider a re-draft ambassador? Something along the lines of minimum workplace compensation act that requires employers, be they state owned, co-operatives or private industry, to provide treatment and rehabilitation of workers, or pay out compensation to loved ones, in case of injury or death? If you allow for states themselves to determine exactly how this minimum is reached - either through insurance policies, government support or fines, you might not fall into the trap of attempting to legislate for a vast number of different societies.

We see what you are attempting here, but unfortunately to make it "work" with all nations it will require some work. At present, too much of this is based on the assumption that every nation operates with private healthcare, insurance and suchlike.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Exactly. How will industrialising nations which would then be forced to pay remedial fees for violations which they let slide with no fines whatsoever deal with the increase in the cost of labour at such a critical time?

Sorry... I'm not entirely following you on that one? Could you explain?

Forcing employers to pay for healthcare and long-term support will increase the cost of labour. How will companies in industrialising countries (which do not have massive profits or the ability to buy such healthcare in efficient bulk) deal with that sudden increase in the cost of labour?

[Vostrikovia]

Sorry... I'm not entirely following you on that one? Could you explain?

Forcing employers to pay for healthcare and long-term support will increase the cost of labour. How will companies in industrialising countries (which do not have massive profits or the ability to buy such healthcare in efficient bulk) deal with that sudden increase in the cost of labour?

Well in order for a substantial increase in the cost of labour as a result of this resolution you're banking on employers repeatedly and significantly injuring their employees - essentially, the more injuries = higher costs. If companies in industrialising nations set up safe systems of work which are aimed at reducing workplace safety hazards and workplace injuries then costs will be minimal.

I am changing this a bit to make it clearer that nations/employers can fund this scheme using private insurance arrangements etc.

[Vostrikovia]

Perhaps you should consider a re-draft ambassador? Something along the lines of minimum workplace compensation act that requires employers, be they state owned, co-operatives or private industry, to provide treatment and rehabilitation of workers, or pay out compensation to loved ones, in case of injury or death? If you allow for states themselves to determine exactly how this minimum is reached - either through insurance policies, government support or fines, you might not fall into the trap of attempting to legislate for a vast number of different societies.

We see what you are attempting here, but unfortunately to make it "work" with all nations it will require some work. At present, too much of this is based on the assumption that every nation operates with private healthcare, insurance and suchlike.

Gotcha. Really appreciate the advice and am making changes to accommodate - I don't think I made it very clear in my initial draft. I agree - this scheme is designed to give nations freedom in how they wish to run it and is intended to set the minimum standards required.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I'm sorry, how is Workers Comp an international issue?"

[Grays Harbor]

A couple points I'd like to raise -
First, this one:

(5.3) Workplace injury compensation, treatment and rehabilitation is payable despite a worker receiving an injury away from the worker's place of employment.

Why should the employer be responsible for injuries not at work and unrelated to the job?

It's just a clause to cover injuries that occur outside of the workplace or in circumstances where the employee is performing work related duties elsewhere. The definition of 'injury' specifically states that in order for an injury to be eligible for compensation, the workers employment must have been the substantial contributing factor. So the worker couldn't claim a fall at home as work related...... unless of course it was... but it would still have to fit in the universal definition of injury.
Then you shouls state that, or something similar, in the proposal. Because, as it is now written, it makes the business liable for everything.

Second: If the injury at work is caused by the worker disregarding safety procedures, again, why is the employer responsible for their treatment?

Well I guess I could include some kind of clause regarding a worker's reckless disregard for safety procedures? Would that alleviate your concerns?
Possibly. I would have to see it first.

[Celsuis]

"Ambassador, the issue of workers' compensation is in no way an international issue. You also view this topic through an overly industrialized, Western lens. In those nations where the economy is primitive or developing, this resolution will cripple growth and keep their peoples in permanent poverty. Workers' compensation naturally arises through the free market when employers use it as a benefit to attract workers. This is resolution is unnecessary."