Published: Thursday, March 31, 2011
In our view / Workers Compensation Bill
At least allow House to vote
Pulling our state out of its current fiscal mess, and putting it back on a path to prosperity, can't be accomplished by one political party acting on its own. Good ideas are needed from both sides of the aisle in Olympia, especially ones that promote job growth, which is the key to restoring a sound economy and stronger state revenue streams.
Democratic leadership in the House apparently doesn't see it that way, at least not on one of the business community's top priorities -- reforming a workers compensation system that's among the nation's costliest.
A workers comp reform bill (ESB 5566), passed by a bipartisan majority in the Senate this month, has so far been blocked from even being considered in the House. Supporters believe they can muster a bipartisan majority vote in the House, if only Speaker Frank Chopp will take his foot off of it.
Unions and their House allies oppose a provision in the bill that would allow workers who incur a serious on-the-job injury to voluntarily accept a lump-sum settlement rather than a lifetime pension. It's hardly a radical idea -- such settlements are allowed in 44 other states. The goal is to reduce ballooning pension liabilities that are bleeding the system and costing employers more and more each year. The Department of Labor & Industries estimates a $1.2 billion savings that would quickly begin smoothing the cost curve for employers.
Long-term benefits and lifetime pensions constitute just 8 percent of workers comp claims in Washington, but account for 85 percent of the system's costs. Clearly, that part of the system is out of whack.
The Senate bill would rebalance it, bringing more predictability to employer costs and helping make Washington more competitive for business expansion -- just as Boeing may be deciding where to build a supersite to manufacture the next-generation 737. (In Senate testimony last month, a Boeing representative said settlement agreements have been the company's No. 1 priority in Washington for several years.)
Opponents have voiced concerns, primarily that workers could be pressured into taking a settlement that's not in their best interest. The bill addresses such fears by making settlements subject to approval by the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals, ensuring representation for workers either by their own attorney or a state settlement officer, and requiring a 30-day window for any party to change their mind.
And it's worth emphasizing that settlements are voluntary.
Opponents still have an opportunity to make their case. All supporters are asking for at this point is a vote on the matter by the House. Speaker Chopp shouldn't stand in the way of that.
Democratic leadership in the House apparently doesn't see it that way, at least not on one of the business community's top priorities -- reforming a workers compensation system that's among the nation's costliest.
A workers comp reform bill (ESB 5566), passed by a bipartisan majority in the Senate this month, has so far been blocked from even being considered in the House. Supporters believe they can muster a bipartisan majority vote in the House, if only Speaker Frank Chopp will take his foot off of it.
Unions and their House allies oppose a provision in the bill that would allow workers who incur a serious on-the-job injury to voluntarily accept a lump-sum settlement rather than a lifetime pension. It's hardly a radical idea -- such settlements are allowed in 44 other states. The goal is to reduce ballooning pension liabilities that are bleeding the system and costing employers more and more each year. The Department of Labor & Industries estimates a $1.2 billion savings that would quickly begin smoothing the cost curve for employers.
Long-term benefits and lifetime pensions constitute just 8 percent of workers comp claims in Washington, but account for 85 percent of the system's costs. Clearly, that part of the system is out of whack.
The Senate bill would rebalance it, bringing more predictability to employer costs and helping make Washington more competitive for business expansion -- just as Boeing may be deciding where to build a supersite to manufacture the next-generation 737. (In Senate testimony last month, a Boeing representative said settlement agreements have been the company's No. 1 priority in Washington for several years.)
Opponents have voiced concerns, primarily that workers could be pressured into taking a settlement that's not in their best interest. The bill addresses such fears by making settlements subject to approval by the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals, ensuring representation for workers either by their own attorney or a state settlement officer, and requiring a 30-day window for any party to change their mind.
And it's worth emphasizing that settlements are voluntary.
Opponents still have an opportunity to make their case. All supporters are asking for at this point is a vote on the matter by the House. Speaker Chopp shouldn't stand in the way of that.
Comments
(