Huh. OK. When I asked what all of that alphabet soup meant, they told me that part of it was workers comp. Or maybe it’s fairly recent? I asked when I first moved here, almost 20 years ago.
I’ve never heard of the Employment Training Tax, but I’ve never worked in an industry that would need that.
Seems that the employers could find a way to get employee payments into the same fund they are paying into themselves.
That doesn’t sound like a good deal for the employees, unless there is something else around to make sure employers aren’t negligent.
Excuse me? I said we pay for it here, based on what I was told when I first started working here, and you provided proof we don’t. What are you talking about, let it go?
And that’s where I came in, one negative remark about Brown. Good luck!
Self-insurance funds aren’t managed by the state. They’re just big bank accounts that employers designate as workers’ compensation funds.
shrug It’s how workers’ compensation works. The vast majority of work related injuries have nothing to do with employer negligence, so the system benefits most at the expense of a few.
Employees can still sue their employees for gross negligence or willful misconduct, just not for run-of-the-mill “you left this banana skin out and I slipped on it” negligence.
I didn’t say they were, I said that I’d think that it wouldn’t be hard for an employers to find a way to get employee payments into the same fund they are paying into themselves. If it’s a bank account they are managing themselves, even easier!
How does that work then? I don’t know anyone who has collected worker’s comp * - if the fund is there to pay for on the job injuries so that workers won’t sue their employer for medical costs, why is it paying for injuries not caused by employer negligence? Or is it the assumption that if one is hurt on the job, the employer must have done/not done something that caused it?
(* Technically I do know a friend who fell from the third story of a building they were putting up, and he did get workers comp at first, but the maker of the harness was at fault and they ended up paying it all back.)
A link to an article which
[ul][li] contributed to advanced economic thought by regurgitating the meme “Taxxes is bad – its a no-braner” :p[/li][li] substitutes “Moonbeam” for “Brown.” Are they 8-year olds?[/li][li] has a link to a summary of its editorials:[/li][/ul]
All in all, Clothy’s link would be a better candidate for “Stupid Republican Ideas.”
The self-reinforcing nature of Internet opinion is still an important topic. Clothy, do you spend much time reading moderate or progressive opinions? (I’m the pot calling the kettle black here, as links like Clothy’s just make me want to vomit rather than understand how others think.)
In part, it’s part of the same basic mindset that brought us workplace safety regulations, the 40 hour workweek, and so on: employers are powerful, workers are not, and it was virtually impossible for employees to prove employer negligence anyway.
The other side of it is that litigation is not a very efficient way of delivering medical care. In the case of workplace injuries, this has special significance, because employers in the 19th and early 20th century were much better at defending negligence claims by employees than employees were at prosecuting them.
The reason workers’ compensation pays for injuries not caused by employer negligence is simple, though: it’s a tradeoff. Because workers can’t sue their employers in tort (and hence potentially rake in millions) the 14th Amendment and various state constitutional provisions require that they get something in return.
Because it’s a no-fault system, workers’ compensation is also the last payor if there are multiple liable entities. If you get hit by a car on the job, you get WC benefits, but the WC insurer/employer can recover whatever it pays out from any parties which are actually at fault (as in your friend’s case) or from the employee if the employee settles with those parties.
Liberals needs the type of oversight that tells them not to drink bleach, wet roads are slippery, any kind of competitive sports are unfair, and anything else that keeps them in the gene pool. Without anti-stupidity laws and restrictions on normal human activities they’d be extinct.
So, when you moving to Somalia? It’s your dream country, right?
I really think that one of the main drivers of conservative stupidity is that they are ignorant about what the 19th and previous centuries were like. Living in the Ron Paul world was hell. Because of the world liberals created you are likely to die old and in bed.
Since we didn’t have those laws for most of human history, liberals must already be extinct and any liberal you see is therefore a figment of your own imagination.
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
Because of the world liberals created you are likely to die old and in bed.
[/QUOTE]
… and your spouse won’t be prosecuted if you die in bed in something other than the missionary position.
It reduces the cost of doing business and places the burden of providing medical and disability benefits on entities- employers- that can much better afford it. We don’t need it, per se, but I think on balance it’s much better than the alternative.
Curlcoat, again, literally every one of the questions here that apparently mystifies you so would be trivially easy to answer if you had the experience regular people do of earning your keep. Obviously you don’t want to earn a living but if you did, you would understand why those of us who actually earn money and produce things for society don’t have the same opinions as you and the rest of the Glenn Beck fan club. Of course those of us with jobs would rather see public money going to support illegal immigrants – who largely are working – rather than people like you who are either incapable or unwilling to work. That’s natural.
If you had a brain at all, you would have seen that I answered every one of your questions, until you started repeating yourself and I started referring you back to old posts. So…
None of your questions mystified me.
I “had the experience” of “earning my keep” the only way you think is valid (earning a paycheck) for almost 4 decades. I continue to “earn my keep” as a housewife and a volunteer. Therefore…
I am still “earning a living” and still “produc(ing) things for society”.
I’d like to be able to have a job that has a paycheck, but cannot. As it was, I delayed going on disability as long as I could.
Unlike you, my opinions are not reliant on whether or not I am getting a paycheck.
Unlike you, I and most of my friends are living with the illegal issue and therefore know a hell of a lot more than you do, or ever will, and we all have the same opinion on whether or not the illegals are a positive influence on the California economy. Some of those friends are retired, some have never worked and some are still working. Obviously, you cannot speak for all of those who are or were working.
Still haven’t figured out why it is so important to you that I answer your posts, but I’m leaving for Phoenix for three days and may not have time for this, so I hope you don’t die of loneliness while I’m gone!
I never figured I’d have the occasion of contributing to this thread, but consider this.
Tarring with a rather broad brush, there, Elvis? Sure you don’t want to throw in the yokels in Flyover Country and the Rockies/Basin-and-Range/Cascades too?