• Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Workman’s comp isn’t just covering hospital bills, it also covers lost wages while recovering or retaining if you can’t go back to your old profession.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          19 hours ago

          Unemployment is a no-fault general fund for a regular result of an economy. Workman’s comp is (as in its name) is compensatory. They’re giving workman’s comp because otherwise you might be able to sue for damages due to an unsafe workplace.

          • snooggums@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            10 hours ago

            I’m saying if you can’t work it makes more sense for that to be centralized into one thing instead of two. The reason for why matters far less than the reason for that one can’t work.

            They’re giving workman’s comp because otherwise you might be able to sue for damages due to an unsafe workplace.

            No, you can still sue even if you take workman’s comp. Workman’s comp exists because regular insurance decided that it doesn’t cover you at work just like they decided they didn’t cover preexisting conditions, injuries due to accidents, or any other stupid thing they came up.

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 hours ago

              That’s generally not true. Only in very few instances can you sue your employer after taking workman’s comp.

              https://www.hhrlaw.com/blog/2024/february/does-accepting-workers-comp-mean-i-cant-file-a-l/

              And there’s a good reason to make the business foot the bill in some form: because it motivates them to not have an unsafe workplace. Whether that’s due to increase premiums, direct suits, or governmental punishment, unsafe businesses should pay for their failures rather than being subsidized by the general public.

              • snooggums@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 hours ago

                They certainly do need to foot the bill for unsafe workplaces, but that does not need to be tied directly to injuries. They should be paying for the unsafe workplace even if no one is injured, and even more if someone is injured.

                • spooky2092@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 hours ago

                  They should be paying for the unsafe workplace even if no one is injured, and even more if someone is injured.

                  You just described the purpose of both OSHA and workman’s comp.

    • pdxfed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      16 hours ago

      No, then you allow employers to export their job risk cost to others. Employers should pay for injuries and illness caused by work (if care was required it would be great if universal existed).

      That said, yes lots of WC is shitty insurers trying toinimize care/cost and get the person back to work.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      Automobile insurance would be drastically less as well.

      Everything would be far less complicated and expensive if we did universal healthcare.