I just found this alarming article

[ShadowHM]

As a side note, we have an Accident tax here.  1.34% of your income goes towards a government fund to cover accidents in the workplace.  It's just insane...
The only time that anything has happened in our workforce (Software development) where I thought there might be a payout was a manager (about 35-40) who had a heart attack... however this is not an accident...
[right][snapback]66927[/snapback][/right]

Thanks, whybish. You are indulging my fascination with the myriad of different ways other countries/jurisdictions handle issues of social policy. :D

The notion that there should be some way to cover the costs of workplace accidental injury is something that is handled rather differently here, although the same 'social good' is being promoted.

We have, in Ontario, a Workplace Safety & Insurance Board. Depending on the category of your workplace for type of work done and the health and safety record of that workplace, the employer has to pay premiums to the W.S.I.B. Costs of any health treatment that an injured employee must have are paid for by the W.S.I.B., including any disability pensions that they may need, following the injury. So some employers pay a lot, and some pay nothing, but the employee does not pay.

[Occhidiangela]

I'm not sure we have the same definition of "Comparative worth".  What it means here is "same pay for similar work" so for instance someone that does a three year nursing degree should (i.e. enforced by law) get the same pay as someone that does a three year compSci degree when they enter the workforce.

I can't see how that isn't a command economy:  The Govt. doesn't set the absolute price, but enforces relativity.

:P
[right][snapback]66929[/snapback][/right]

That strikes me as a load of Einsteinian eyewash, this "enforcing of relitivity." If you enforce "relativity" you are enforcing at least ONE price, eh? The price of change in one sector being required to carry over into another.

On the face of it, this seems an example of arbitrary "value" placed on time served in Académe. The government has decreed that a three year nursing degree and three year Comp Sci degree are due the same pay -- based on what, other than time served? Nurses are well paid here, particularly in locales where they are hard to keep on the work force. Comp Sci pay is somewhat determined by supply and demand for the skill and service. And actual practical talent/skill.

I will suggest that a registered nurse is 'more valuable' upon workforce entry than a comp sci major. You can major in programming, but you haven't become "a rogrammer" in the labor pool sense until you have had to make something work and completed it on time, within reasonable budget targets.

What you cite looks to me like a facet of "command economy" in action. The two fields of study are not even in the same field of endeavour. I don't see the logic, however, if it works for Kiwis in Kiwiland, Lay On MacDuff!!

I imagine there are a number of interlocking social and long term "health of the nation's workforce diversity" issues that go into such a policy. As I have said of other topics, this is certainly more than one PowerPoint briefing slide deep. :)

Occhi

[whyBish]

I hope that helped.
[right][snapback]66947[/snapback][/right]

Cheers. I think we agree on these issues then (we are just giving two different things the same name).

Over here the recent debate of 'comparative worth' was centered on teachers getting a pay rise and nurses not, even though both qualifications take the same amount of time. (and police get payed even more for a six months course :P ). Mind you, they are all public servant type jobs over here.

[whyBish]

What you cite looks to me like a facet of "command economy" in action.  The two fields of study are not even in the same field of endeavour.  I don't see the logic, however, if it works for Kiwis in Kiwiland, Lay On MacDuff!! 
[right][snapback]66960[/snapback][/right]

Exactly. Hence my original statement that 'comparative worth' was daft. P.S. I think it is daft. Thankfully it is only used here in an ad-hoc fashion, and only in line-level public sector jobs (e.g. teachers, nurses etc.), and only when the Govt. feels like it ;)

[whyBish]

So some employers pay a lot, and some pay nothing, but the employee does not pay.
[right][snapback]66948[/snapback][/right]

Well, the employee is paying indirectly.

[DeeBye]

Well, the employee is paying indirectly.
[right][snapback]67030[/snapback][/right]

No, the customer is paying indirectly.

[Saxywoo]

Have you seen Gattaca?
[right][snapback]66397[/snapback][/right]

I think that if there is going to be a lawsuit, for it to stand, there would have had to be some advanced warning of what was going to happen, and if the company had some sort of program in place to help the employees stop smoking.

However, there is another thing that could be taken into account for the company's defense. The guards for the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington Cemetery (Washington DC), are forbidden to have ever smoked, or even drink alcohol (before they became guards, or even for the rest of thier lives). There are a few other requirements/rules that they have to live by that made me think "There's no way in heck anyone I know would want to do that..."

But as for the company firing people because they smoked, there's got to be another reason behind it.

Would be interesting to hear about what happens with this one....

SaxyCorp

[Assur]

[quote=Saxywoo,Feb 3 2005, 05:35 PM]
However, there is another thing that could be taken into account for the company's defense. The guards for the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington Cemetery (Washington DC), are forbidden to have ever smoked, or even drink alcohol (before they became guards, or even for the rest of thier lives). There are a few other requirements/rules that they have to live by that made me think "There's no way in heck anyone I know would want to do that..."

Hi

That certainly sounds extreme. Is that mentioned anywhere on the net?

good karma

[Nystul]

It's an urban legend. The real requirements and protocol for the guards are pretty extreme in their own right, though. It is an extremely prestigious assignment, and everything has to be perfect. No tourist trip to Virginia or D.C. should be considered complete without seeing the changing of the guard.

http://www.tombguard.org/

[whyBish]

No, the customer is paying indirectly.
[right][snapback]67031[/snapback][/right]

We are discussing the difference between the employee paying for their own healthcare, or the employer paying. (NZ takes another option of the govt. paying via all taxpayers)

The extent of the effect on the customer in the first two options depends on the elasticity of demand for the companies product.
The extent of the effect on the employee depends on the elasticity of demand for that particular type of employee

Both are affected.

My comment only mentioned the employee due to the quoted text that stated the "employee pays nothing"

[ShadowHM]

We are discussing the difference between the employee paying for their own healthcare, or the employer paying.  (NZ takes another option of the govt. paying via all taxpayers)

Actually, we were not. We were comparing NZ's Accident Tax (applied to all workers (? or is that all citizens who pay taxes?) at a rate of 1.34% of income, you said) to Ontario's W.S.I.B. system, where employers, not employees, pay a rate that is dependent both on the deemed safety of the industry/job type and on that specific employer's safety record. At least in Ontario, this is in addition to the universal health care we are entitled to, and which is paid for out of general government revenues. W.S.I.B. applies only to workers and to workplace injuries. (Just to make sure that the original comparison really is apples versus apples.)

The Ontario method is an attempt to make two things happen. First, it keeps the 'social' costs of production in the industry where it is generated. If you chose to operate a business that does have a higher likelihood of worker injury, you will have a higher cost of doing business.

The second thing is employer accountability for safety. If your specific workplace, by its safety record, proves to be less safe tha others in your category, you will pay more.

The result for the consumer, is that products of businesses that have higher likelihoods of worker injury do cost more, as DeeBye said. (The software producer is not subsidizing the welding shop.)