Talk:Workers' compensation

Fraud
Am I the only --2601:58B:8000:1BA0:356C:E957:B882:201 (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)one who'Bold text' finds it weird that this article practically begins by talking about fraud? Is that what workers' compensation is, a kind of insurance that is principally to be understood as a vehicle for fraud? The section mentions that some find fraud to be a minor problem while others find it major, but then weighs in heavily that fraud is indeed a major problem. The citation offered for "tens of billions of dollars" of fraud is the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, an industry paid PR group. The cited article is a compendium of unsupported assertions. Most of all, the section on fraud should be moved to the very end, presented as a kind of appendix. I'm willing to make that change, but will let the idea percolate a bit for comment before I do. pagnol (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No one objected so I went ahead and made the change. pagnol (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I also altered tone in two places so the article doesn't sound like insurance company propaganda. pagnol (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

More than a fraud, I'd say it's a mechanism to keep poor people poor, and rich people owning the company. If you think about it, the company could provide better health for everyone and still make a profit (or it wouldn't implement the system). Best case scenario, the worker gets better healthcare, and the company does not give him reason to sue... But... Shouldn't that be the normal scenario? And worst case scenario, the company "buys" the right to push around their workers, knowing they can never sue. The bad vastly outweights the good. Korosuke (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The fraud material is entirely U.S.-oriented, so I made it a U.S. subtopic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:503:62B0:8461:5D54:267E:F801 (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Specific States in the U.S.
Why are there sections on Florida and New York, but no other states? Should there be a special section on each state? Each has it's own workers' compensation statute. I could contribute to the Illinois section since I practice WC law there. (Also, please tell me if I'm doing this wrong. It's my first time posting anything) Outlawyr (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Your concern regarding the lack of state-by-state coverage comparisons is certainly valid. As of late 2015, numerous states are cutting back on worker compensation coverage, and so far, this is a rather invisible, negative trend.68.97.76.105 (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Covering all U.S. jurisdictions in even a cursory manner would make this article exceedingly long. There's the possibility of doing something similar to Medical malpractice in the United States in order to try to avoid overwhelming this page, but even that article doesn't get into state-by-state differences. 2601:401:503:62B0:55D1:F03:B60C:4662 (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Countries other than U.S.
Workers'compensation laws exist in plenty of jurisdictions outside of the US. This article really needs to be separated into a general section covering the concept, and then comments on any interesting features of these laws in particular countries. -- Pde 02:36, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article needs to be revised to a worldwide view, but no one (myself included) has the time or money to do the massive amount of necessary research. Very few lawyers are experts on both workers' compensation law and comparative international law; the few lawyers with the language skills necessary for international law (I'm not in this category) find contracts and litigation to be much more financially rewarding than workers' comp.  --Coolcaesar 16:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What a MESS. Three and a half years later and no one has been able to clean this up.  This article is an example of EVERYTHING that's wrong with Wikipedia! --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The heading "Statutory compensation law" bears no real relation to the paragraphs that follow, which take a meandering look at the relative pros and cons of WC law. Then we take a sharp turn into the discussion of other countries. I would delete the introductory matter, change the heading to something like "Worker's Compensation outside the US", and then shove this down lower on the page. Outlawyr (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Firing claimants (in U.S.)
It's not always against the law to fire someone for filing a comp. claim. For instance Georgia is very clear on that point: there is no exception to the "at will" employment doctrine in this regard. However it's still regarded as unwise to fire someone with a pending claim as that creates a presumption that the claimant is not rehabilitatable. (is that a word?) Ellsworth 17:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Last I checked, it was illegal to fire somebody for filing a workers comp claim in every state except Mississippi and Georgia. 2601:401:503:62B0:55D1:F03:B60C:4662 (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The Apostrophe
Anybody want to debate omitting the apostrophe? ActuarialFellow 23:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would we? Every source I've seen spells it as "workers' compensation." See also the Division of Workers' Compensation of the California Department of Industrial Relations. Wikipedia policy is to be descriptive, not prescriptive. See the big four Wikipedia core policies at WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOT. --Coolcaesar 23:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know Wiki policy, thank you. The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) dropped the apostrophe a long while back, so there's a significant source you might not be familiar with. About half the independent rating bureaus (including California) use it, half don't. AM Best does, Business Insurance doesn't.  I'm sure the list goes on and on. ActuarialFellow 16:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, but keeping the apostrophe is grammatically correct. It shows the "possessive" aspect of workers' compensation, in that the compensation is something that workers are entitled to.  Dropping the apostrophe creates bad English which is difficult to grammatically analyze (that is, then you just have two consecutive nouns).  --Coolcaesar 03:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I side with keeping the apostrophe. – 2*6 06:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Workers" (no apostrophe) is correct as a plural adjective. The singular form, "worker compensation," works the same way. I favor no apostrophe, which is a gramatically correct form of the term. Mjeane 16:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer the apostrophe. When I say "workers' comp" I'm thinking of compensation belonging to the workers. However, I work in insurance and acknowledge that "workers compensation" is also common in official documents. KaJunl (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Citations desperately needed
This article needs citations badly. Please focus on finding and adding specific citations to back up the many, many unsupported specific claims. Who am I talking to, you ask? YOU! and all of us! Thanks! NuclearWinner 23:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * USERRA. Go talk to Serra, as you have nothing important to say here.--76.212.156.175 (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is such a mess (we have one part saying that workers' comp laws started in the U.S. in 1902 and another part saying that they started in 1911). Is there a difference in definition that results in both Maryland and Wisconsin being cited (in different sections) as being the "first" state to have it?  Unfortunately, most workers' comp attorneys are too busy with their huge caseloads to fix this article.  And I don't practice workers' comp, so it would take me way too much time to study it to the point where I could rewrite this pigpen.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns
This article was tagged for copyright concerns on August 25th. The material matched information at this blog. However, the material in the Wikipedia article predates that blog posting. The blog indicates it was posted on July 9, 2008. Compare with the version of our article archived on June 30. A check of history suggests that the section began to emerge and evolve naturally at least as far back as July of 2006. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Statutory compensation in New York state
The following statement clearly violates neutral point of view: "...this change has had unintended consequences. For example, injured workers may not sufficiently understand their rights..." Unless a source is supplied confirming that (a) lawmakers assert that certain consequences of the law were unintended, and (b) injured workers assert that they failed to sufficiently understand their rights, this statement is argument, not fact. The entire section sounds like someone is making a case opposing the change in the law. Also, who is suggesting that injured workers should consult an attorney? Some public agency? Or the person who wrote this section of the article? ThreeOfCups (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The section formerly called 'History'
After outlining some early US history today (Statutary US section), I considered integrating with this section and it actually had very little history (a couple of sentences, which were actually wrong; WI was not a leader in WC law). That was followed by several paragraphs of unreferenced, uncited assertions. They may or may not represent more than original research. So I've removed the history and used that template. It may be that many of the points are valid, so the renaming and the placement of citations may encourage their documentation. Some of the general points could be introduced profitably into the opening of the article (also seriously lacking citation). (Is this stuff left over from previous merges?) Twang (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Workers' compensation cost containment section
This whole section should probably be deleted. It reads like a field guide to the new employer, or those seeking to represent employers in trying to change workers compensation laws. It assumes cost containment is a good thing, when in fact it's frequently just code for screwing injured workers. It delves into politics rather than stating facts about WC law. Outlawyr (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Links to External Websites
Within the Australian details, there are a number of links apparently to legislation. However, the links are to a webpage apparently run by a private legal firm (ALC Lawyers) which encourages readers to lodge claims via that firm.

Is wonder if this is appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.216.38 (talk) 06:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I've changed them to internal links. See WP:LINK for the policy. 018 (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)