Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (51166)	3/1/2008 1:36:59 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542798

There are some very significant structural problems in workplace insurance. For example, there is no ability to track an individuals abuse of work comp. So a person can hop from one job to the next, claim back injury, collect work comp (and hurt the company's rating if the co. is small), and repeat the stunt. A companies risk rating is a feedback loop, meant to encourage safety awareness on the part of management. But there needs to be similar feedback loops in place to make sure that individuals don't abuse the system either. IMO, I'd rather see all insurance track the individual and be independent of the company. The equivalent of going no-fault at least from the injured/insurance angle. However, there still needs to be a lever to affect management. I'd let that be a monthly premium also rating based, which goes into a global pool for funding safety inspections/compliance, education, etc. But decouple it from the injury/insurance payments.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (51166)	3/1/2008 1:41:33 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542798

The fact is that I'm really tired of those kinds of comments from people who seem unable to generate compassion for people less capable, less educated, and less employable than themselves. Yes, I noticed. <g> You have a hang-up re the social conservatives, particularly the callous among them. I can sympathize with that. Surely you understood that. Durn, now you done went and made me read the colloquy all over again. Having done so, I recommend you try it. The "dark side" comment wasn't generated based on the view that Tim Fowler was opposed to unemployment insurance. I never thought it was about Tim. I don't know why you inferred that. It was a comment on the many who hold an underlying belief that the majority of those who rely on benefit programs are grasping, lazy and gaming the system. It was a comment on the many who hold an underlying belief that the majority of those who rely on benefit programs are grasping, lazy and gaming the system. Indeed. And it was in that context that I used your term. You read the various comments on the blog as examples of that and it outraged you. I saw a bunch of small business owners complaining about perceived unfairness in implementation of unemployment insurance on a site designed for small business owner complaints. I had the same reaction to the original comment as you did--the boss who was making it all about him, devoid of sympathy for his employee. But I didn't see that in the other complaints. They all had what were arguably reasonable complaints. My perception was that your strong attitude toward the social conservatives/callous was way out of proportion to what was actually there. And I said so. That's my opinion and, having reread the transaction, I'm sticking with it. Do with my opinion as you please. it's only the "others" that they can't seem to generate much sympathy for. Pots and kettles, IMO and FWIW. Small business owners don't have it easy. did you read his comments confusing it with workman's comp coverage and then later defending his criticism of it based on the unproven "case histories" written by those had endorsed the blogger's heartless and selfish condemnation of one of that blogger's employees who had been in an accident and lost his job?>/i> I did read them. The original author muddied the issue by conflating them and Tim didn't pick up on it. You corrected him and he acknowledged the error. The correct response to that on civil discussion threads is "no problem" followed by silence on the subject. Hopefully there will come a day when the term "social conservative," as it's commonly used today, will leave a bad taste in the mouths of many more of us. Amen.