Union calls for reinstatement of journey cover insurance
18 March 2008, 11:41am
Responding to a Rudd Government review of Comcare, the CPSU has called for the reinstatement of workers’ compensation coverage for travel between an employees' residence and usual place of work.
Background
This important employment condition was removed by the previous Government in April 2007 despite strong objections at the time from public servants, unions, medical experts and the Labor Opposition .
CPSU position
In our submission to the Comcare review the CPSU wrote:
"The exclusion of travel between the employee’s residence and the employee’s usual place of work from workers’ compensation coverage is regressive and shifts the cost of insurance from the employer to the community. Travel to work is an integral part of the employment arrangement and employers’ responsibilities in this area should be maintained.
The assumption that employees will have access to other forms of insurance is flawed particularly in the case of cyclists and pedestrians who are not generally covered by compulsory third party insurance schemes. In the past, the costs to employers have been minimised through the proper use by Comcare of the existing cost recovery mechanisms."
Wider context
The issue of workers' compensation is just one part of the Comcare Review which is also looking at:
issue for self insurers
coverage and eligibility
consultation and finances
enforcement policy and operational capacity
rehabilitation and return to work plans
impact of recent changes.
Will Labor reinstate PS journey cover?
When in Opposition, Labor opposed Howard Government's amendments to the Safety, Rehabilitation, Compensation Bill which removed compensation coverage for travel to and from work, and other important rights. Since then the CPSU has lobbied Labor to reinstate the coverage.
At Labor's National Conference in April last year the following motion was passed "...Labor will reintroduce income protection by amending the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act for the purposes of employees who are injured travelling to and from work and during breaks in working hours..."
In a letter to a CPSU member Labor leader Mr Rudd wrote... "Labor opposed these changes in the Parliament because they are not in the interests of working Australians. Just like the Howard Government's WorkChoices laws, these changes strip away the terms and conditions of our public sector work force.
At a recent conference, Labor Deputy Leader Julia Gillard set out the new Government's list of priorities in terms of reforming workplace relations legislation across Australia. Their first task has been to rip up WorkChoices and introduce Forward with Fairness, legislation which is currently before Parliament.
The next priority will be working with State Governments to try and 'harmonise' occupational health and safety legislation. Terms of reference for this review are expected shortly.
Thirdly the Rudd Government then intends to look into workers' compensations arrangement across the country with a view to harmonisation.
Safety net coverage for union members
To ensure CPSU members were not exposed to severe financial hardship if they were injured and did not have enough paid leave, the union introduced a 'safety-net' of income maintenance cover, free of change to financial members. Find out more about this free service for CPSU members here.
CPSU action
The CPSU will continue to lobby the Rudd Government to make good it pre-election commitment to consider reinstatement of these important conditions.
I agree with David's comments of 19th March. Before seeking reinstatement of worker's compensation coverage for journeys or breaks let us look at the issue a little more closely. The current arrangement benefits members so this is a tangible reason to be a member. Why not seek reimbursement of the cost of this type of insurance from the government instead? Cost neutral cover for members only - worth a thought if we are trying to build membership.
Posted by:Tracy - 21 Mar 2008, 11:24am
Personally, I think we'd be better off lobbying for a similar arrangement to the Accident Compensation scheme that operates in NZ. Employers, health professionals and sporting bodies pay levies; there is no mechanism to sue for tort for injury on someone's premises, at work or due to medical misadventure. However, ALL medical treatment is paid for by the scheme, and there is a compensation scale for permanent injuries. Also, employers and other organisations do not have to pay prohibitive insurance fees to cover their liability, because they are not liable (if they are not breaking the law in other ways - and that's not private liability, in any case).
While it has its faults, the scheme basically means that lawyers aren't lining their pockets and smaller organisations aren't being constantly penalised by insurance costs. Standards are maintained by the usual regulatory apparatus, and levies from a given employer may be increased if they have a high accident record (also, they'll get clobbered by penalties if the safety inspectors find problems).
Posted by:Myra Ingram - 20 Mar 2008, 11:57am
Great work! Keep up the pressure on the rudd government to make good their promise to re-instate workers comp cover for travel to and from work and on lunch breaks.
Posted by:Sue Robson - 20 Mar 2008, 11:01am
I am looking forward to having the worker's compensation for journeys to and from work and during breaks restored. I think that the change the howard government put in, very sneakily, by the back door was an example of the rubbish we had to put up with by the previous government. I think that few people knew of the implications of this type of legislation and and happy that the CPSU gave some sort of coverage to members, that is why we pay our dues. CPSU should be advertising this case as it is a fantastic arguement for union membership.
Posted by:Andrew - 19 Mar 2008, 10:47pm
I would also like to see the re-introduction of insurance coverage during meal breaks.
A group of us play soccer in the Domain Soccer League in Sydney which relies on each employee being covered by their workers compensation. Being a federal agency (and the RBA are in this position also), we it seems are not covered and it looks likely we will not have a team. All the other teams come under the state workers comp legislation/insurance.
We even looked at getting more union membership for the insurance coverage but any sport (excluding running) is excluded from your coverage.
I agree with David's comments of 19th March. Before seeking reinstatement of worker's compensation coverage for journeys or breaks let us look at the issue a little more closely. The current arrangement benefits members so this is a tangible reason to be a member. Why not seek reimbursement of the cost of this type of insurance from the government instead? Cost neutral cover for members only - worth a thought if we are trying to build membership.
Personally, I think we'd be better off lobbying for a similar arrangement to the Accident Compensation scheme that operates in NZ. Employers, health professionals and sporting bodies pay levies; there is no mechanism to sue for tort for injury on someone's premises, at work or due to medical misadventure. However, ALL medical treatment is paid for by the scheme, and there is a compensation scale for permanent injuries. Also, employers and other organisations do not have to pay prohibitive insurance fees to cover their liability, because they are not liable (if they are not breaking the law in other ways - and that's not private liability, in any case).
While it has its faults, the scheme basically means that lawyers aren't lining their pockets and smaller organisations aren't being constantly penalised by insurance costs. Standards are maintained by the usual regulatory apparatus, and levies from a given employer may be increased if they have a high accident record (also, they'll get clobbered by penalties if the safety inspectors find problems).
Great work! Keep up the pressure on the rudd government to make good their promise to re-instate workers comp cover for travel to and from work and on lunch breaks.
I am looking forward to having the worker's compensation for journeys to and from work and during breaks restored. I think that the change the howard government put in, very sneakily, by the back door was an example of the rubbish we had to put up with by the previous government.
I think that few people knew of the implications of this type of legislation and and happy that the CPSU gave some sort of coverage to members, that is why we pay our dues. CPSU should be advertising this case as it is a fantastic arguement for union membership.
I would also like to see the re-introduction of insurance coverage during meal breaks.
A group of us play soccer in the Domain Soccer League in Sydney which relies on each employee being covered by their workers compensation. Being a federal agency (and the RBA are in this position also), we it seems are not covered and it looks likely we will not have a team. All the other teams come under the state workers comp legislation/insurance.
We even looked at getting more union membership for the insurance coverage but any sport (excluding running) is excluded from your coverage.
Regards,