This is part 2 of a mini series of my work place. I have titled, Psychological hardening in the workplace, Parts 1 and 2. Part 1 examined the situations leading up to the current employer employee relationship regarding the increasing cost of injuries and government premiums that employers have to pay for their employees as a result. The second part deals with the methods used by the employer to deal with the overgrowing cost of the insurance premiums.
Now, I have gone over the reasoning as to why the WCB came to be and its sole purpose to the employer and its role the workplace as protecting and ensuring the employees from harm and creating safety from whatever harm may come from those duties within the job function. The important factor is the implementation of who the employer is going to deal with safety and protecting the employee from harm while performing those job duties.
Perhaps some logic exercise are in order here. Lets assume that the goal of the three parties here, the government, the employer and the employee are true seekers of finding the best and most beneficial means of achieving the atmosphere of total safety within the workplace. The first form of logic would tell the employer that the authority of the government mandates them to seek resolutions to the employees if they are going to the doctors for injuries because of working conditions. Therefor if this measure does not stop the injuries, then increases in payments in lou of premiums will increase until they adversely effect the profits of the employer. So, it is in the best interest of the employer to solve the workplace area and fix the problems of how the workers are getting injured. Fixing the environmental problems will fix the work-injury problems. A meaning full solution, however, this may be easer said than done. What if the cost of fixing the workplace far exceeds the cost of paying out the WCB altogether. Would we see a situation where leaving the conditions of the workplace as they are becomes the alternative to securing the employee from harm solely based on cost? Remember, the employee cannot sue the employer because of the arraignment with WCB in guaranteeing the employee some form of insurance again injury. But now that we see the WCB cutting cost of it program and changing its philosophy in how it teats workers, perhaps the employees solution would be to sue the WCB, thus effect the employer as well as giving the employer its just deserts as well.
The second form of logic entitles a stronger relationship of the WCB and the employer, in a almost cohesive fashion. This example would mean a greater reach of the WCB and its policing strategies among employers and their workplaces. One type of administrative undertaking would be spot-checks done at random, akin to a police state where the employer would be caught in the act, so to speak. The balance of which would result in lower cost per capita, but will translate into huge penalties if caught and convicted. This method of logic would totaly leave the employee out of the loop. Another words, if the employee was found to be negligent in his or her own duties, then it would strictly rest on the WCB’s shoulders to terminate the employee rather than the employer’s. However, if the employer were to challenge the employee, it would need to commit to a tribunal under the WCB in order to put forth its case and prosecute the employee for harm and damages. The down side is the freedom of the employer to choose to run its business and freely make capital without governmental interference.
The third form of logic, and probably the most likely in todays political climate is the trickle-down effect of deference. Deference being the authority of the WCB and the employer being the receptor of its actions over the employees to ensure the safety and longevity so that compensation is nullified and prevented by its employees. So, the employer is governed by the WCB to change its conditions because of increased employee injuries via increased premiums. So, stemming from this action, the employer will see that the action of punishing those people, the persons who commits those injuries and seeks medical attention will loose any further employment. Like cutting the cancer before it spreads and causes further harm, in this case the effect on employers goal of increased capital will solve the problem.
With these tree variations of logic, I begin to look at how each of the three main groups reacted and respond to the situation as it unfolds. Each logical step takes us closer to the main even as each group sees it. Each group, distinct and separate from the other, the varying views of each group reacts in accordance to the responses of the other two groups.
So, from the WCBs perspective, the logical course of action as to punish the employer by means of increased premiums as to prevent any further or more catastrophic casualties of mass proportions from ever occurring, so to avoid a huge payout of money. This punishment by increased costs to a legal fiction such as a corporation is a classic example of implementing capital punishment to a entity that thrives for capital. Adding to the potential of risk to the corporation, the possibility of loss of business due to non compliance is the Achilles Heal of this business world.
From the employer’s perspective, the sole existence is to gain capital, outweighs the disobedience of not complying with the authority of the sovereign authority. To control a corporation in this manner breaks the concept of the capitalism that many believe in and worship. From the harden conservatism thinkers to the liberals, the business world must have true freedom from government to become successful. That is, the Independence of a free market society without any restrictions whatsoever will then and only then create success. Any such involvement is a cry of foul and is siad to prevent true business power from ever taking place in this jurisdiction. To state that if the government interferes on a daily bases, then ultimately, the corporation will relocate from that state and the threat would be loose of tax earnings for that State.
Being that the corporation is sandwiched between the State and the employees, i.e. the people, the voting public, total corporate dominance will never become in this time as of yet although the ground is loosing to the corporations on a slow millimetre by millimetre basics. So for now, corporations are free to use varying tactics that otherwise would never be allowed in the general world. Like a police state, employees somehow will become subversive in allowing the employer to control their natural identities and existence while giving up their sovereign rights that would never allow this conduct outside of the corporate gates. The corporation will and has taken advantage of this, and does so in a very similar manner that only the government of the police Sate would do so. For each employee, whether injured or not, the clampdown on employees seeking medical attention for their injuries will be placed under the microscope and will be subject to increase routine inspection and policing in the name of “prevention.”
I have tied the meaning of the word prevention to the act of coercion in the mental state and vis-versa to convey the physical act of how this play has transpired. To implement a police state style of coercion among the workers as to give the wrong example while still following the prescribe method used by the governing authority is typical among the power elite. We now see more acts of this aggression toward the employees whom for most have never qualified to the actual causations of those acts before. To simply persecute those who seemingly violate this ordinance, and prescribe sudden and retroactive law is an abomination in the greatest sense of the concept of justice. However, like slaves to the master, this seemingly unjust truth holds for fact rather than disbelief. We whole-heartedly accept this measure of fact and seem to embrace it in the name of capital.
Today, I see otherwise good people, under the title of employee who are being singled out as potential risk takers and punished by the labelling effect as they are escorted to the office, like a pared of official dignitaries, and presented with an appearance-notice, seemly and affectionately like that of a police officer issuing a ticket. For my co-workers, this is acceptable and reasonable. For them I wish them the best of luck.