Example of Supermans' "Workers Paradise"

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by artplumber
Next time I'll underline "that" (LOL).

If you choose a job that has a reasonable expectation that you will suffer from a particular ailment because of doing it (like changing tires and getting arthritis in your hands, shoulders, and back or stuntman with broken bones) you shouldn't get to sue the employer when the expected happens. It's quite different if there is a risk which is not expected or covered up. But arthritis, OMG!

Can't wait until the video game testers start suing for their thumb injuries too.

So if you're an airline pilot and the plane crashes, tough luck for your widow?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo


Somebody gets hurt working for you, you pay through your workers comp carrier. That's America.

And if he needs transport to get to my business I should pay for that too. That logic is flawed.

And I never claimed the court system shouldnt exist, I have no idea where you are going with this. These cases end up in court anyway, they might as well decide negligence.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
So if you're an airline pilot and the plane crashes, tough luck for your widow?

Life insurance.

[Rodeo]

No, only if he gets hurt working for you. That's a cost of doing business.

And you ignored the fact that SOMEBODY will pay for his injuries, and not the minimum wage guy.

Should it be me and you or the guy's employer? Those are your choices.

[artplumber]

Originally posted by Rodeo
You're stuck on this negligence thing. It's not relevant. Nor should it be.

Your opinion.

And, yes, if the pilot offs himself, the company has no de facto obligation to the widow simply because it happened on the job. If the company sent him up with a plane that wasn't airworthy that would be an entirely different thing.

And frankly the tort system sucks and I do not embrace it. A panel of arbiters is much more reasonable. The lousy tort system does things like assign $5+ million awards for lost wages to people making 25K/yr (or less). Even in it's best case that means an award = 40 yrs of work (1 mill and 25K) to people without that earning potential.

EDIT: And as per Len: Life insurance.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo

Should it be me and you or the guy's employer? Those are your choices.

I see what you're getting at and you left out one option....tough ****. But in the end, if I did nothing wrong I cannot see why I should pay anything....so find some charitable body or suck it up. Maybe they should be shared costs by all of us, but why am I forced to pay?

This idea that no one ever has to do without any care is a new fukced up idea.

[Rodeo]

Two points and I think we have reached the end of the line here.

1. You guys have just devised a negligence-based system that would make the current workers comp system seem like a walk in the park. The flight attendant that died in the plane crash will now sue the pilot and co-pilot, the mechanic that worked on the plane, the airline, the luggage company that loaded it, and every other person possibly "negligent" in the crash. One work related injury would be years of litigation and millions of dollars. And it would repeat itself over and over every day. Its unworkable and absurd. That's why we have workers comp, to avoid what the two of you just engineered on the fly.

2. You still have not answered the question. Who pays for the minium wage paraplegic's lifelong care? You and me, or the employer where he was hurt?

EDIT: daddy, I see you attempted an answer. But sticking your head in the sand doesn't count. "Tough *****" means the taxpayers will pay.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo

EDIT: daddy, I see you attempted an answer. But sticking your head in the sand doesn't count. "Tough *****" means the taxpayers will pay.

If in the end the premise is that everyone gets every form of care desired regardless of ability to pay, then yes we should all share it. But I reject that premise.....no pay....no get. (this assumes ability to pay).

Of course I also believe in charity and in helping those that cannot help themselves. So if someone that cannot help themselves needs care they cannot otherwise afford to live, then yes I will gladely pay my share. Tell me I have to pay it all.....then we have a problem.

I also think these "no negligence" comp cases should simply be handles like every other injury or illness..........health insurance. Don't have any (my guy did) then you get shuffled into the system like every other person that has no insurance. You get treated and the taxpayer foots the bill.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo

1. You guys have just devised a negligence-based system that would make the current workers comp system seem like a walk in the park. The flight attendant that died in the plane crash will now sue the pilot and co-pilot, the mechanic that worked on the plane, the airline, the luggage company that loaded it, and every other person possibly "negligent" in the crash. One work related injury would be years of litigation and millions of dollars. And it would repeat itself over and over every day. Its unworkable and absurd. That's why we have workers comp, to avoid what the two of you just engineered on the fly.

And the above is not at all what I said, the flight attendants family will claim negligence on the part of the airline (includes it's employees) and if proven they would pay. Easy.

[artplumber]

Originally posted by Rodeo
EDIT: daddy, I see you attempted an answer. But sticking your head in the sand doesn't count. "Tough *****" means the taxpayers will pay.

What Len and I have said is that no employer should be solely responsible for the costs of a medical condition which is not due to the employer's negligence/unsafe work enviroment, but is, in fact, a reasonably expected outcome of certain types of occupations.

And what about the guy paying his own way (what a concept).

[CamB]

Your legal system is definitely the problem - we've got far more of a workers paradise and none of this **** gets pulled, because the legal system doesn't allow it.

We do have a state funded (well, it comes out of payroll really) workplace and accident scheme. The reality is that it provides only an adequate level of care (not gold plated) which is, IMHO, good. It makes no serious attempt to award $$$ to people for lost enjoyment of life, and most of all, there are no lawyers involved.

Mind you, for light manufacturing the combined tax is probably 3% of the gross wages, so it isn't cheap.

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by artplumber
What Len and I have said is that no employer should be solely responsible for the costs of a medical condition which is not due to the employer's negligence/unsafe work enviroment, but is, in fact, a reasonably expected outcome of certain types of occupations.

And what about the guy paying his own way (what a concept).

That is against the liberal mantra.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by CamB
We do have a state funded (well, it comes out of payroll really) workplace and accident scheme. The reality is that it provides only an adequate level of care (not gold plated) which is, IMHO, good. It makes no serious attempt to award $$$ to people for lost enjoyment of life, and most of all, there are no lawyers involved.

Mind you, for light manufacturing the combined tax is probably 3% of the gross wages, so it isn't cheap.

What you are saying is that you have the same system most states have. At about the same expense.

No "gold plated" care, no awards for pain and suffering, or loss of enjoyment of life, and payroll funded.

I don't understand how there could be no lawyers involved

(I'm actually serious about that, it's a legal contest, why would an employer or employee want to go though the legal system without guidance and advice)

What do you mean when you say "none of this **** gets pulled?" No fraud or abuse?

[artplumber]

Originally posted by Racerbvd
That is against the liberal mantra.

Byron,
Not really a "liberal" issue here IMO. It's vested self interest by people who make money by creating/working an adversarial process.

[legion]

Originally posted by Rodeo
why would an employer or employee want to go though the legal system without guidance and advice

How about because the advice is usually in the best interest of the lawyer, not the client? (No, settle...it perpetuates more cases like this so I can tell you to settle next time and charge you a fee....again.)

And then when your done taking bad advice, you get bent over and ridden like a thoroughbred and charged 30% - 60% for it?

Most people despise and loath lawyers. Any process that they can be designed out of is a good thing.

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by Rodeo
The flight attendant that died in the plane crash will now sue the pilot and co-pilot, the mechanic that worked on the plane, the airline, the luggage company that loaded it, and every other person possibly "negligent" in the crash.

You really don't think things through very well do you? One small problem with your little fairy tale.......

A DEAD flight attendant can not sue anyone, unless you handle those kinds of cases.

But, lets assume that they were just hurt not killed. It goes back to what everyone was saying about natural hazards of the job. IF you work on an airplane there is a natural risk of crashing. You as a passenger assume this same risk. You must have proof (not just claim) that the proper procedures were not followed before it becomes anyone else's fault. This is exactly Len's point. He even stated that he would not mind paying if the injury was truly his fault.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by legion
How about because the advice is usually in the best interest of the lawyer, not the client? (No, settle...it perpetuates more cases like this so I can tell you to settle next time and charge you a fee....again.)

And then when your done taking bad advice, you get bent over and ridden like a thoroughbred and charged 30% - 60% for it?

Most people despise and loath lawyers. Any process that they can be designed out of is a good thing.

Sounds like you had a bad experience. If you ever work with a good lawyer, I think you'll feel differently.

My experience is not that "most people" hate lawyers. Some have no experience with the legal system, and "despise and loath" irrationally. I hope that's not you.


Some have had bad experiences. Maybe that's you.

The vast majority of people I deal with really appreciate honest and competent advice, to guide them through what are usually very trying times in their lives.

[lendaddy]

No, most people hate lawyers, it's really that simple

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by tobster1911
You really don't think things through very well do you? One small problem with your little fairy tale.......

A DEAD flight attendant can not sue anyone

Yes she can.

Pardon me for not explaining to you the procedures of a wrongful death suit, but I doubt you'd listen anyway.

I have thought it through. So have all 50 states that reject a negligence-based workers comp system. Which would be a nightmare of epic proportions.

Ok, school's out.

[Nathans_Dad]

I don't hate lawyers. Some of them, like prosecutors, tax lawyers, corporate law, etc. are pretty ok. In other words if I met them at a party and they said they were a corporate lawyer I'd probly say "Wow, cool."

Now, if I met one and they told me they were personal injury, medical malpractice, etc., I'd probly walk away.