British Expats
Page 5 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   Canada (https://britishexpats.com/forum/canada-56/)
-   -   work related accident (https://britishexpats.com/forum/canada-56/work-related-accident-674732/)

jericho Jul 2nd 2010 6:08 am
Re: work related accident
 
Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 8673249)
Then why not let the state insure your house as well. After all some people can't get home insurance for certain things.
They do for some exposures eg/ Flood.

Although on the Business side, it's not really in the States interest to see businesses close and people lose their jobs.
Although I still dont understand your opposition to the Govmt providing WCB?

Alan2005 Jul 2nd 2010 6:24 am
Re: work related accident
 
Originally Posted by jericho (Post 8673287)
They do for some exposures eg/ Flood.

Although on the Business side, it's not really in the States interest to see businesses close and people lose their jobs.
Although I still dont understand your opposition to the Govmt providing WCB?
Because insurance should be in the private sector.

Almost Canadian Jul 2nd 2010 6:44 am
Re: work related accident
 
Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 8673311)
Because insurance should be in the private sector.
Would you apply that to the Welfare State then?

jericho Jul 2nd 2010 7:06 am
Re: work related accident
 
Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 8673311)
Because insurance should be in the private sector.
I agree, but you cannot FORCE insurers to take on risk if they dont want to.

nikki dreaming Jul 2nd 2010 7:21 am
Re: work related accident
 
Originally Posted by el_richo (Post 8672705)
Yes but i'm still confused. Who initially calculated the price of mental anguish, pain, and stress?

I can understand claiming for loss of earnings, rehab, therapy, prescriptions, time taken to attend rehab/therapy, etc. It's the extra claiming for suffering, anguish, and stress i don't get. Unless i'm missing something. :confused:
In all likelihood, it would have been a judge at trial that made the initial judgement that one is entitled to damages to represent the pain and suffering caused as a result of an accident/injury etc. This then set a precedent, different cases for different injuries etc would have gone to court and then over time you get to build a picture of what things are worth without all claims going to court. There are even software programmes that will allow to cacluate based upon some common factors between individuals:thumbup:

Alan2005 Jul 2nd 2010 7:29 am
Re: work related accident
 
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 8673347)
Would you apply that to the Welfare State then?
There isn't much of a welfare state here so I'm not sure what your point is?

A welfare state is for individuals who find themselves in difficulty - it's fair this to come from taxation if society can afford it. On the other hand I don't want my taxes underwriting dodgy employers who have unsafe practices, and I don't want my government protecting them in law from the consequences of their malfeasance. I'm not sure why people think not being able to sue dodgy employers is a good thing.

Alan2005 Jul 2nd 2010 7:32 am
Re: work related accident
 
Originally Posted by jericho (Post 8673390)
I agree, but you cannot FORCE insurers to take on risk if they dont want to.
Ok then, given that private home insurance here seems to be inadequate, the provincial government should just set up a new crown corporation that insures people properly. Sorry if that puts you out of a job.

Aviator Jul 2nd 2010 7:57 am
Re: work related accident
 
Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 8673444)
There isn't much of a welfare state here so I'm not sure what your point is?

A welfare state is for individuals who find themselves in difficulty - it's fair this to come from taxation if society can afford it. On the other hand I don't want my taxes underwriting dodgy employers who have unsafe practices, and I don't want my government protecting them in law from the consequences of their malfeasance. I'm not sure why people think not being able to sue dodgy employers is a good thing.
The problem is dodgy employers can shut up shop in a heartbeat, many won't bother carrying insurances and protect their personal assets from creditors. This would leave injured workers with nothing. Having WCB protects workers whether a company stays in business or not. The employers are the ones paying the premiums for WCB, it does not come from taxes nor employee payroll.

Then there are the sue happy lawyers, pain and suffering, a nick on the finger, oh my aching back, have to be off for three weeks, the malingerers who sponge from the system that put premiums up. Who protects the system from these?

Legislation protects us from this to some degree so an employer cannot be sued. If an employer is at fault WCB will levy a fine and the employer does not even get their day in court. Again the dodgy employers often close up shop before this happens and consequently pay not penalty.

Alan2005 Jul 2nd 2010 8:02 am
Re: work related accident
 
Originally Posted by The Aviator (Post 8673501)

Then there are the sue happy lawyers, pain and suffering, a nick on the finger, oh my aching back, have to be off for three weeks, the malingerers who sponge from the system that put premiums up. Who protects the system from these?
My response to this is I don't care. It's your business, you protect it.

jericho Jul 2nd 2010 8:07 am
Re: work related accident
 
Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 8673444)
I'm not sure why people think not being able to sue dodgy employers is a good thing.
If it was only suing dodgy employers, that would different. But it's not. In most circumstances, the employee is mostly at fault- eg/ he/she was messing around, not looking where they were going, ignored/overrode (in most cases, deliberately) the safeguards to prevent injury etc.
Employers who promote unsafe working practices deserve what they get, but most of the time, the employers have done everything reasonable.

Alan2005 Jul 2nd 2010 8:10 am
Re: work related accident
 
Originally Posted by jericho (Post 8673518)
If it was only suing dodgy employers, that would different. But it's not. In most circumstances, the employee is mostly at fault- eg/ he/she was messing around, not looking where they were going, ignored/overrode (in most cases, deliberately) the safeguards to prevent injury etc.
Employers who promote unsafe working practices deserve what they get, but most of the time, the employers have done everything reasonable.
In which case they don't need this protection. To be honest, whilst I disagree with state provided insurance of this kind on libertarian principles it doesn't actually bother me that much. The fact that you can't get legal redress for harm caused to you at work is wrong though imo.

Aviator Jul 2nd 2010 8:32 am
Re: work related accident
 
Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 8673523)
In which case they don't need this protection.
Unfortunately they do, there is always someone looking to blame someone else rather than take responsibility and often a lawyer willing to help them.

The higher the costs to business, extra insurance etc. ends up being included in prices, so the buyer ends up paying in the end for spurious claims, even if they go nowhere.

Alan2005 Jul 2nd 2010 8:38 am
Re: work related accident
 
Originally Posted by The Aviator (Post 8673560)
Unfortunately they do, there is always someone looking to blame someone else rather than take responsibility and often a lawyer willing to help them.

The higher the costs to business, extra insurance etc. ends up being included in prices, so the buyer ends up paying in the end for spurious claims, even if they go nowhere.
So business requires this subsidy or it's not viable?

Aviator Jul 2nd 2010 8:54 am
Re: work related accident
 
Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 8673573)
So business requires this subsidy or it's not viable?
What subsidy?

Alan2005 Jul 2nd 2010 8:57 am
Re: work related accident
 
Originally Posted by The Aviator (Post 8673604)
What subsidy?
Your business requires state assistance.


All times are GMT -12. The time now is 10:53 am.
Page 5 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.