Safety saves lives, injuries and money says new study

How often do we say that prevention is better than the cure?  Aurenda has been saying it for over ten years now. Money, time and effort spent on safety and injury management now (prevention) saves you later with fewer lost time injuries, decreased injury claims and – potentially – lower workers’ compensation premiums.

So someone in America has done a study.

The new study, co-authored by Harvard Business School Professor Michael Toffel, Professor David Levine of the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, and Boston University doctoral student Matthew Johnson, examines workplace safety inspections conducted by California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). It will be published in Science journal.

The study found that within high-hazard industries in California, inspected workplaces reduced their injury claims by 9.4 percent and saved 26 percent on workers’ compensation costs in the four years following the inspection, compared to a similar set of uninspected workplaces. On average, inspected firms saved an estimated $355,000 in injury claims and compensation for paid lost work over that period. What’s more, there was no discernible impact on the companies’ profits.

The cost savings applied to both small (less than $2000) and large (more than $2000) workers’ compensation claims, and the reduced injuries and cost savings lasted for at least four years after the inspection. These findings suggest the inspections had a lasting, across-the-board effect.

“We spent several years collecting data, not just on injuries, which is very important, but also on other indicators to see whether inspections led to problems they are often accused of causing – like whether they increased costs and led to the elimination of jobs. We looked at company survival, employment, sales and total payroll to see if inspections were detrimental to the employers,” said Levine.

“Across the numerous outcomes we looked at, we never saw any evidence of inspections causing harm,” Toffel explained. “If OSHA inspections conducted in all 50 states are as valuable as the ones we studied, inspections improve safety worth roughly $6 billion to employers and employees, ignoring pain and suffering. The overall message of our research is that these inspections worked pretty much the way one would hope. They improved safety, and they didn’t cost firms enough that we could detect it.”

From Science http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6083/907

This study was applied to high risk industries, small to large enterprises and the results were the same: workplace site inspections and audits saved the business money in the long run. At Aurenda we say “because injury costs” and here is the proof.

 

 

Keeping it safe – 10 tips to a safer workplace

Safety in the workplace is all about KEEPING ourselves and each other safe.

Here is Aurenda’s top ten tips to KEEPING it safe.

The Workplace

1. Keep everything well maintained

Equipment needs to be maintained in good working order and the staff knows how to use it.

2. Keep it clean

A clean workplace is easier to keep safe
Clean up spills or mess straight away

The Workers

3. Keep everyone  involved

Involvement leads to ownership of safety

4. Keep communicating

The staff must feel comfortable speaking up about something that is unsafe
Managers or bosses need to follow up their concerns.

5. Keep safety equipment on

Hardhat, boots, safety glasses, masks, clothing, gloves, seatbelts,

6. Keep an eye out:

For breaches in safety
Employees doing procedures the wrong or unsafe way

The Information

7. Keep Instructions clear and precise

As if you were reading something for the first time
Never assume workers know how the machinery works safely

8. Keep everyone updated in
Health and safety rep training (Aurenda runs regular accredited courses and refreshers)
First aid training
Changes in procedures

9. Keep alert to:
Legislation  changes  (Aurenda is up to date. Follow us on Social Media channels)
Unsafe procedures
And

10.Common Sense
Let’s all look after each other out there

WOP/WOL Payment of Wages while a Claim is Pended

In the Western Australian workers’ compensation system, it is generally accepted that entitlements such as medical investigations and treatment, and even vocational rehabilitation, can be funded on a Without Prejudice/ Without Admission of Liability (WOP/WOL) basis while liability on a claim is being determined.

A recent situation experienced by one of our clients has caused us to consider WOP/WOL issues in greater depth.

An insurer advised an employer – a client of both Aurenda and the insurer – to pay wages to an injured worker on a WOP/WOL basis even though the claim was pended and the worker was not at work.

When queried on this advice, the insurer stated that they sometimes advise employers to pay wages when in all probability the claim will be accepted. The insurer believes that paying wages will negate the need for the employee to lodge an application at Conciliation and Arbitration Services (CAS), where an order to pay wages may be granted anyway. The insurer also feels that by paying wages in these circumstances, the employee may be deterred from seeking legal advice.

In our experienced opinion, under NO circumstances should wages be paid – even on a WOP/WOL basis – until the claim has been accepted.

Our reasons for this are as follows:

• If you’re going to pay wages – why pend the claim?
• If you think in all probability the claim will be accepted – why not just accept the claim, why bother with the investigations?
• Paying the wages gives no incentive for the employee to make any attempt to return to work – especially in circumstances when the workers’ compensation rate of pay is greater than their base rate of pay.
• There is no evidence that the employee will not seek legal advice while the claim remains pended.
• If an application is made at WorkCover for wages to be paid (when the claim is pended) an order is not always granted in favour of the employee.
• Once wages payments have commenced, it is difficult to stop them – this would no doubt require a visit to CAS at WorkCover in any case. This could also be an incentive for workers to drag out the resolution process.
• A worker could justifiably assume their employer has accepted liability for their injury if wages are paid prior to investigations taking place.
• It doesn’t set a great precedent for other workers if everyone who lodges a claim is paid, regardless of whether their claim is accepted.
• If the claim is accepted, the employer will be obliged to back-pay wages. If the claim is declined, however, and the employer has paid wages on a WOP/WOL basis, it is not possible to recoup these wages from the worker.

We believe that all workers who suffer a legitimate workplace injury are entitled to fair compensation for their injury. Sometimes, however, claims are pended because more information is required to assess the injury and determine liability – and sometimes injuries are not compensable. A very small percentage of workers fall into this situation. The fact that the employer has identified significant cause for concern, in our opinion, means that they should not bear the additional onus of paying wages when there is no legal obligation to do so. The best interests of all parties are served by everyone, including the worker, focusing on a fast determination of liability. A focus on a solution is always Aurenda’s preference.

Workplace falls followup

Back in February Aurenda wrote a blog about fall protection in the workplace.

http://aurenda.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/fall-protection-in-the-workplace/

This week two major companies have been fined for their failure to protect their staff from injury.

John Holland has been fined the maximum civil penalty of $242,000 by the Federal Court. The John Holland employee was working at BHP Billiton’s Mt Whaleback mine at Newman on March 19, 2009. The worker died after he stepped onto an unsecured sheet of grid mesh and fell 10 metres to the floor.
There had been two other incidents of injured due to this unsecured mesh earlier in the week and the employer had failed to do anything about it.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/john-holland-fined-over-wa-workers-death/story-e6frg2qc-1226338930675

In another incident in NSW, Supermarket giant Coles has been fined $170,000 and ordered to pay legal costs after a worker fell through a ceiling at a store in Sydney five years ago.
The worker, then 42, climbed over a handrail to access promotional material stored on a suspended plasterboard ceiling at the company’s Manly store in August 2007. The worker fell more than two metres, suffering lacerations to the head, whiplash and bruising.

The Coles Management knew that the plasterboard was unsafe to walk on and erected a barrier. However it still used the area as storage and failed to educate the staff as to the danger.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8458151/coles-fined-over-workers-fall

In both cases, the companies were aware of the dangers prior to the fatality and major injury respectively. If the death or injury of workers is not traumatic enough, both events were over three years ago. New legislation would mean the companies and their directors would be responsible for far larger fines.

Is my injured worker allowed to choose his own doctor?

Yes, the legislation allows a worker to choose the doctor of their choice to manage their work place injury.  

However an employer retains the right to have their worker reviewed by a consultant doctor. You can refer them to your own doctor and they can choose their own.  So if they don’t have their own doctor, you can refer them to yours or if they choose their own, they would see two doctors. As part of your Injury Management Process, your company should have a nominated Consultant Doctor who is familiar with industrial health injuries and your workplace and its operations.  You can contact Aurenda on (08) 6389 8900 to discuss a suitable medical practice to assist with your workplace injury management.  

Q. Do I have to lodge a claim with my insurer if an employee sustains an injury?

A.         It is the employee’s choice as to whether they lodge a claim so the employee also has a right not to lodge a claim. You do not have a right to convince the employee not to lodge a claim and you cannot lodge one on their behalf. If an employee chooses not to make a claim, a small business owner should not pay any wages or medical costs because you can be deemed by your insurer as accepting liability.

If an employee decides not to lodge a claim they are liable for all their own medical costs and have to take sick or annual leave. If they don’t have any sick or annual leave left, they don’t get paid. The risk with that is that after two or three weeks and they get the $2000 bill for a CT Scan, they come back and say they want to lodge a claim.

 

Give Aurenda a call on (08) 6389 8900 to discuss how best to manage these types of injuries.

Workers’ Compensation systems around Australia

Australia has 10 different Workers’ Compensation systems, each with its own method of calculating funding requirements to meet anticipated compensation entitlements for injured workers under each unique model. Judging by recent coverage in the media, not all states have got this right.
Here is the state of affairs at the moment
New South Wales
NSW WorkCover deficit will be $4.1 billion – a $1.7 billion slide in six months. Premier O’Farrell will be slashed workers’ compensation rights and payouts to rein in a $4 billion WorkCover deficit and encourage employers to employ more staff.
An article in the Daily Telegraph says “Workers compensation premiums in NSW are double those in Victoria – and the government says employers will end up facing premiums four to five times higher if the scheme is not reformed. A NSW cleaning company paying $150,000 in annual wages currently forks out $10,681 as a base premium. Similar firms in Melbourne and Brisbane would pay $3709 and $4901 respectively.”

From the daily telegraph

South Australia
A $222 million blowout in the unfunded liability of the South Australian scheme has created more headaches for the government and businesses struggling to pay growing premiums. The latest actual figures to December 31 show the unfunded liability has grown from $952m to $1.174bn in just six months. The unfunded liability was $55m in June 2001.
Victoria
Victorian Premier Mr Baillieu plans to use funds ($471.5 million over the next four years) from Victoria Workcover Authority (which is in the black) to plug holes in the Victorian budget. He plans to take the funds from the Victorian WorkCover Authority over the next four years.
Western Australia
In Western Australia the system of workers’ compensation payments is completely different. WA’s workers compensation is run privately and insurers are responsible for the WC liabilities. Other than their own government agencies, the WA government does not have any payment responsibility.

At Aurenda we work with companies to in all these states to reduce their workers’ compensation costs.