Tag Archive for 'ACC'

Between the lines: Nats’ work rights policy

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on July 24, 2008
in national and workers' rights
. 80 Comments

You know you’re in for a treat when a political party’s ‘policy’ (I still refuse to consider half a dozen bullet points a policy) concerning the rights of New Zealanders at work – the place most of us spend a good part of our days – nearly avoids any mention of the word ‘rights’. On its surface, National’s ‘workplace’ policy seems fairly mild (bullet points help in that regard) but, when you look at what it actually means in practise it’s classic National: anti-worker, anti-rights, anti-wage rises. The difference between this policy and Brash’s extreme 2005 policy is one of tone, not substance.

Introduce a 90-day trial period for new employees by agreement between the employer and the employee, for businesses with fewer than 20 staff.

We’ve discussed the 90 Day No Rights policy already (1,2). It’s a mandate for bad bosses to stand over vulnerable workers. Workers will be able to be fired for refusing to work in unsafe conditions, refusing to do unpaid overtime, joining a union, or any of a limitless list of ‘reasons’. Bad bosses will be able to keep the threat of instant dismissal over new workers at all times.

Continue to allow union access to workplaces with the employer’s consent. • Restore workers’ rights to bargain collectively without having to belong to a union.

Unions currently have the right to reasonably access workplaces to talk to members and to recruit. This policy means National would allow employers to bar the union from the workplace. Non-union collective bargaining is when a ‘bargaining agent’ (often the boss or paid by the boss) draws up a collective contract between workers and the boss. The boss refuses to deal with the workers’ union because there’s already a collective contract; workers can accept the collective offered or get nothing. These moves are designed to undermine collective bargaining and, thereby, weaken workers’ power to win better pay and conditions.

Retain the Mediation Service but ensure it is properly resourced with properly qualified mediators. • Require the Employment Relations Authority to act judicially in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, and the right to cross-examine before an impartial referee. • Allow injunctions and important questions of law to be heard in the first instance in the Employment Court. • Allow a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The mediators in the Mediation service are already properly qualified, unless by ‘properly qualified’ National means ‘pro-employer’. The other changes seem designed to make the system more litigious and expensive, putting roadblocks in the way of workers being able to enforce their remaining work rights.

Keep four weeks annual leave, but allow employees to request trade of the fourth week for cash.

If you believe that the choice will genuinely be in workers’ hands, I have some magic beans you might be interested in buying.

Appoint a working party to review the Holidays Act, especially the issue of relevant daily pay.

Labour introduced relevant daily pay to make sure a worker’s leave pay equalled her average daily pay because many waged workers earn a large part of their pay through regular overtime but were previously only paid their ordinary time wages when they were sick or on holiday. National wants to reverse this.

Sometimes what is missing is just as revealing as what’s there: There’s no mention of ACC, paid parental leave, minimum wage increases, Kiwisaver, meal breaks, time and a half on public holidays, and so on. And despite all the rhetoric we’ve heard over the last year, absolutely no mention of how National would lift wages.

UPDATE: Jafapete has some good analysis here and Rogernome likewise here.

Nats unable to justify ACC policy

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on July 18, 2008
in ACC, national, workers' rights and youtube
. 46 Comments

Unlike some of our counterparts, the Standardistas aren’t into vanity posts. So, in this clip from TVNZ7’s Back Benches on Wednesday, ignore who’s asking the question and watch National’s Chris Tremain try to justify his party’s ACC policy.

Reaches for his cliches but they don’t fit the question so he resorts to attacking the question. Weak.

Nats’ ACC policy all about ideology

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on July 18, 2008
in election 2008, national and workers' rights
. 12 Comments

National’s ACC privatisation policy is another of its one page wonders (this time with three page backgrounder skimming the history of ACC and restating the policy in longer sentences with no more detail). In the policy documents and in the interviews by National and its allies, no evidence has been provided that privatised ACC will provide cheaper or better coverage or reduce accidents. There is just an ideological assumption that private sector is better. We shouldn’t base these decisions on ideology, we should do what works. The studies show ACC works well compared to other systems, there is no evidence from National that private companies will do better. Private companies need to make a profit, ultimately, that money has to come from Kiwis’ pockets. That’s only justified if better treatment and coverage will be available, there’s no evidence it will be.

The idea that businesses want privatisation so they can spend more on insurance to buy better coverage is laughable. Businesses are already permitted to by additional insurance. They want privatisation to decrease their premiums, not raise them.

There’s also a danger of employers refusing to allow claims to be made or trying to fob them off on ACC, rather than going through their private insurer. As with the 90 Day No Rights policy, it’s a charter for abuse by bad employers.

In Australia, one in ten claims wind up in a legal dispute compared to one in five hundred here - private insurers try to avoid payouts or pass the buck, hence there are more disputes. That’s bad for workers, and bad for the legal system because limited judicial resources are tied up needlessly. Insurers use their legal resources to avoid payouts, the taxpayer is left footing the bill for the Courts and the claims.

It’s simple, National can argue from it’s ideological position all it wants but the equation is clear:
Current Pool for claims = world-leading accident cover.
- minus $200 million in profits to insurers
- minus businesses taking lowest premiums
- minus higher admin costs from insurers (lawyers, marketing)
= smaller pool for claims = less coverage for workers

Not ready for prime time

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on July 17, 2008
in john key, slippery and workers' rights
. 28 Comments

John Key tries to reassure us that National’s policy to privatise ACC would keep the scheme’s principles intact.

Here’s how he defined those principles on Radio Live: “no fault, 24 hour, no fault, blah, blah, blah.”

Sorry, but that doesn’t fill me with confidence in our wannabe PM and his policies.

[Update: gobsmacked points out this soft RadioLive interview was conducted by Bill Ralston, John Key's media trainer. Conflict of interest? And Key didn't have his regular interview with Mikey Havoc, wonder why?]

CTU rips Nats’ ACC policy

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on July 17, 2008
in national and workers' rights
. 48 Comments

The Council of Trade Unions has put out a detailed, devastating critique of each of National’s arguments for privatising ACC. I’ve copied it in full below: Continue reading ‘CTU rips Nats’ ACC policy’

On the fourth estate

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on July 17, 2008
in media, national and slippery
. 38 Comments

Francesca Mold on National’s ACC announcment: ‘What’s interesting is the way they’ve put this out under the radar, perhaps showing how sensitive they are to how voters might react. And they’ve done that with a number of policies recently. Although, I have to say, it’s not hurting them in the polls’

a) It won’t hurt the Nats in the polls because no-one knows it’s happening (that’s why they’re doing it), but no polls have been released covering the three weeks National has been engaging in this process. So, we can’t yet say that it’s not hurting them.

b) National judges that a few people thinking they are sneaky will cost them fewer votes than people generally being aware of the policies. The intent is to keep voters uninformed. That’s anti-democratic - it can either be enabled or thwarted.

c) The fourth estate has a vital role - informing the voters on the policies and competence of politicians. In particular, the fourth estate exposes information politicians would rather keep hidden. If a party is trying to bury policy, journos should dig it up.

ACC and the rhetoric of ‘choice’

Published
by
Tane
on July 17, 2008
in ACC, national, spin and workers' rights
. 23 Comments

National says its ACC policy will provide ‘choice’ on accident compensation, but choice for who?

Employers will be able to choose between a variety of competing (mostly private) insurers, but for the likes of you and me we’ll have to take what we’re given and pay the consequences of our employers’ bad choices.

We won’t get to choose our provider. We won’t be allowed to choose to keep the same provider when we change jobs. We certainly won’t get to choose the efficient government monopoly we currently enjoy.

Like with John Howard’s WorkChoices legislation, the rhetoric of ‘choice’ promises empowerment but delivers the opposite. The power of choice is removed from democratic institutions under the control of the many, and is vested in private institutions under the control of the few.

When you hear the right try to justify a reform by using the rhetoric of choice, just ask yourself, who is it that gets to do the choosing? Where is the power being taken from, and who is it being given to?

For the vast bulk of the population, National’s ACC policy doesn’t provide choice, it removes it.

Nats’ ACC plan only good for insurance companies and lawyers

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on July 16, 2008
in national and workers' rights
. 49 Comments

National has confirmed it intends to privatise the ACC scheme starting with opening the work account to private competition. This would see private insurers cream off large and low-risk employers with special deals, leaving the taxpayer to shoulder the burden of the rest (which would, in turn, be the basis for privatising of the remainder).

National says privatisation will somehow bring workplace accident rates down, which it claims are rising. Wrong: workplace accident rates are falling. It claims premiums will fall. Wrong: our premiums are already among the cheapest in the world, and we don’t have to pay anyone’s profits.

Australian insurance companies expect to make $200 million off this privatisation. These profits will be made not by higher premiums but by reduced pay-outs. As you know, that’s how private insurers make profits - by avoiding paying out whenever possible. In practice, that will mean Kiwis missing out on speedy treatment and income coverage, while Aussie insurers get rich.

Part of the genius of ACC is in decoupling blame from compensation. Occupational Safety and Health investigates accidents and holds businesses to health and safety regulations, ACC ensures the injured get treatment and income compensation, and businesses are incentivised to be safe because higher accident rates mean higher levies. Because of this administration of injury compensation leads the world in cheapness and efficiency and there are few court cases. Introducing competing profit-making insurers who are trying to minimise payouts would mean more expensive administration and law suits between individuals, businesses, and insurers tying up the already stretched court system. This was the case before ACC, it’s the case overseas, and it was beginning to happen again when National introduced competition in 1998. The efficiency of ACC is the envy of personal injury law experts around the world* but introducing private insurers will put an end to that.

Only two groups stand to gain from National privatising ACC. Not businesses and workers - insurers and lawyers.

[*I was in a personal injury lecture in Finland, our American professor was introducing the perplexed European students to the common law personal injury litigation system. He concluded that only one common law country had managed find a way to get rid of this resource consuming, lawyer-enriching system. No prizes for guessing which one.]

Time to front up on ACC

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on July 3, 2008
in same old national, slippery and workers' rights
. 22 Comments

Some excellent journalism by Vernon Small has revealed that Australian insurers expect National to privatise the ACC scheme and they see $200 million profit in it for themselves. National has now been forced to admit its policy is to allow private competitors for workplace and accident insurance, although (as always) details are not provided.

Mr Key, if you want to be Prime Minister you have to start providing answers to basic questions, like these one:

  • -How would privatising the ACC scheme deliver cheaper workplace and accident insurance to Kiwis (or ‘customers’ as you call us) when a PriceWaterhouseCoopers study found the ACC system was world-leading providing the most cost-efficient universal cover there is?
  • -How will privatising the ACC scheme deliver cheaper cover and simultaneously deliver $200 million in profits to Australian insurers?
  • -If the Aussies are so keen to buy into our workplace and accident insurance, why should we be so keen to sell out of it?
  • -How can National guarantee private insurers won’t ‘cherry pick’ lucrative markets, while leaving the public insurer to insure the risky areas, marginalising and eventually ruining ACC?

Merrill Lynch: Nats will privatise ACC

Published
by
Tane
on July 2, 2008
in national, privatisation and workers' rights
. 83 Comments

It’s refreshing to see some proper investigative journalism in this morning’s Dominion Post, with a revelation from Vernon Small that while National continues to try and downplay ACC and talk about “no privatisation in the first term,” a report from John Key’s old firm Merrill Lynch suggests National’s privatisation plans are an open secret among Aussie insurance companies, who are lining up for windfall profits.

“Publicly, as best we can identify, and contrary to the statements made by several insurers we have met with in New Zealand, the National Party has made no formal statement on its plans for the ACC,” the report by analyst Andrew Kearnan says.

“Informally, however, we understand the National Party has been very clear in saying it will privatise the ACC.”

It is expected such a privatisation programme would involve the handing over of the workers’ compensation and motor casualty accounts to private insurers, worth $2.1 billion in new ‘premium’ income to the Aussie insurance companies.

The cost of this will of course fall to ordinary Kiwis, who will be forced to pay higher premiums for reduced coverage, as both Merrill Lynch and PriceWaterhouseCoopers point out. Clearly this is not a party with New Zealanders’ best interests at heart.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out National’s telling the public one thing and its backers in the insurance industry another on this one. You’ll recall this is exactly what happened last election when National met secretly with the private insurance lobby to collude on ACC policy, which was then deliberately withheld from the public to avoid political fallout.

Ultimately it worked for National last election - even when the damning memo leaked it was lost in the bustle and confusion of the election campaign and voters went to the polls none the wiser. National’s hoping to get away with the same trick this time; it’s up to the media to make sure that doesn’t happen.

UPDATE: Selected pages from the Merryl Lynch report [JPEG, 300k] are available by clicking the thumbnails below:

merryl lynch report on acc __________

Kremlinology: National on ACC

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on June 16, 2008
in election funding, kremlinology, same old national and workers' rights
. 41 Comments

In most countries, accident insurance is big business. Insurers and lawyers make billions off premiums, claims, and court cases but many people don’t actually get any cover if they are injured. The Third Labour Government set up ACC to ensure everyone would have cover if they were injured. It also freed up the court system for more important things. Studies show ACC provides top-notch cover and is cost-effective.

Of course, the insurance companies lost a great money spinner and have wanted it back ever since. So, they have donated heavily to National to get ACC privatised. National did that in its dying days in 1999 but Labour reversed privatisation in 2000 – just in time, as one of the major workplace insurance providers, HIH, later collapsed owing $1 billion. Privatisation of ACC remained a policy into the 2005 election, when the insurance industry gave National $1 million. National and the insurance industry agreed to keep the policy secret. But this memo leaked.

So, what’s their policy now? The hints are privatisation is still on the cards. National is still in secret talks with big business about policy. In recent days, both Bill English and Pansy Wong have been quoted talking about wanting ‘competition’. Allowing private companies to compete with ACC would see the insurers siphon off the most profitable, low-risk businesses and workers and put the principle of universal cover in jeopardy. But, hey, at least the insurers will make big bucks.

There would be no waiting until the last minute this time, either. Having learnt their lesson from 1999, National would rush through privatisation at the start of their term this time in an effort to make it harder to reverse later.