19. May 6, 2008 — WSIB experience rating programs are one of the ways to better safety in the workplace. It is a statistics-based system so it is theoretically possible a firm with a fatality could receive a refund. But that is not likely the norm. A potential solution could be rescinding any refund privilege with a fatality conviction along with other penalties The fact remains that when good experience ratings are rewarded, people see another tangible benefits in keeping a safe workplace. Respond to this comment

John Mohle, Wellington Construction, Palmerson, Ontario

18. May 6, 2008 — Thank you to Geoff Kinney on behalf of ASCO Construction Ltd. for presenting his views on this topic, which we subscribe to whole heartedly. Respond to this comment

Pat Truyens, District Manager, ASCO Construction Ltd.

17. May 6, 2008 — The discussion on Experience Rating must not be taken out of context. Experience Rating is simply a quantitative measure used by insurance companies to determine how much a given policy should cost, calculated using historical data to determine the risk of future claims. In the case of the WSIB, they do not establish premiums based on individual assessment of an employer’s safety management system. They simply use historical industry data to forecast what the expected costs should be. Past costs are used to predict the future. An employerrdquo;s premium is based on this best guess. Experience rating is the mechanism to correct this “guess-timated” premium rate. Employers are surcharged if they exceed expected costs, and receive a rebate if their costs are lower. This gives employers an incentive to manage risks and return employees to work as soon as possible. Suggesting that employers, or workers for that matter, are individually responsible and liable for workplace accidents and therefore should be penalized by the insurer in some manner, is in direct conflict with the original principles of the no-fault insurance scheme envisioned by Judge William Meredith.
There are five Meredith Principles:
No-fault compensation: Workplace injuries are compensated regardless of fault. The worker and employer waive the right to sue. There is no argument over responsibility or liability for an injury. Fault becomes irrelevant, and providing compensation becomes the focus.
Collective liability: The total cost of the compensation system is shared by all employers. All employers contribute to a common fund. Financial liability becomes their collective responsibility.
Security of payment: A fund is established to guarantee that compensation monies will be available. Injured workers are assured of prompt compensation and future benefits.
Exclusive jurisdiction: All compensation claims are directed solely to the compensation board. The Board is the decision-maker and final authority for all claims. Nor is the Board bound by legal precedent; it has the power and authority to judge each case on its individual merits.
Independent board: The governing board is both autonomous and non-political. The Board is financially independent of government or any special interest group. The administration of the system is focused on the needs of its employer and labour clients, providing service with efficiency and impartiality.
Rather than conducting a review of the experience rating program, employers and labour should instead be calling for a thorough review of the Workplace Safety & Insurance System in Ontario. Respond to this comment

Gary Robertson, CHRP, President, Wellington At Work, Hamilton, Ontario

16. May 6, 2008 — Working for a construction company as a safety coordinator, I pondered this question at length. Is the rating system working? I feel that it is. Contractor Management programs stipulated by the WSIB Workwell Audit, if done correctly, force companies to consider who they are working with and for. Contracts and jobs are becoming harder to get if you do not show good performance in safety based on your company’s rating. Establishing safety programs and enforcing your program will make you more competitive and profitable. A rating given out by the WSIB innately sets goals for companies. We, as people and companies, always want to do better. The nature of business is to show a profit. To show a profit, one has to improve. Improving on safety is profitable by paying less insurance, rebates and being awarded larger or more contracts for being safe. The rating is the target to beat each year. As the number gets closer to perfect, it becomes harder to improve and therefore forces more changes to be better. No one wants to move backwards. The year-end rebate is incentive enough to employers to instill safety in the workplace. As a member of a regional safety group, there are members that belong only for the chance of a rebate. Money is a motivator to businesses and if the rebate is going to promote safety then continue with the rebates. I am however in complete favour of not rewarding companies with a fatality. This would seem like letting the robber keep the gold after they get caught. Sadly, it comes across in the Cost Statements that a death in the workplace is cheaper than a life-long impairment to a worker. There is the one time payout, penalties and premium adjustments. After that, the company moves on. The impairment is continuous with costs for medical services, on-going treatments and impairment pension. Please do not interpret this as not caring about workers, but more of a business comment referring to the bottom line, profit. Respond to this comment

Derek Drekic, 3-D Safety & Consulting, Brantford, Ontario

15. May 6, 2008 — Perhaps if the employees paid their WSIB costs, they would take more responsibility for their safety. I have been in business since 1966 and it is my experience that no matter how much training, fees, fines, costs, lecturing, punishments, threats, whatever, 99.9 per cent of any accidents in my company are employee error, through carelessness, laziness, or lack of common sense, lack of respect for themselves and others or something in their veins that should not be there at work.
We supply training and every possible safety device available and I cannot recall an equipment failure accident, of course if the safety equipment is in the truck or thrown aside because it is hot or uncomfortable, or forgotten, I guess I will continue to be punished with penalties. Respond to this comment

Glen Bogart, President, London Caulking & Installations Ltd., Weathertech Restoration Services Inc., London, Ontario

14. May 6, 2008 — Absolutely yes. The rebate cheque is shared with all of our site workers. Our managers get nothing. All of these workers understand the impact of a safe site as it relates to this rebate . A Lost Time Injury free year is worth $500 into each of their pockets at the end of the fiscal period. This simple share-the-wealth approach has been our standard for years. We have a happy crew out there. They feel safe. They work and play safe.
Thank you to WSIB for continuing the rebate program Respond to this comment

Bernard Melloul, President, Melloul-Blamey Construction Inc., Waterloo, Ontario

13. May 6, 2008 — If your WSIB experience rating is bad, you will not get the job even if you are low bidder. This is true in the mining industry and government jobs. It is becoming more important to most owners out there. Respond to this comment

Claudette Therrien, Office Manager, LaRo Construction, Sudbury, Ontario

12. May 6, 2008 — What I believe the experience rating program has done is put employers into a defensive position, causing them to focus on how to reduce costs alone without allowing them to focus resources on developing good safety programs that actually impact work processes such that they are safer. Many companies with good experience ratings have them ‘by accident,’ not because they put any effort into it. Other employers really work hard on safety, and still end up paying through the nose. How good safety truly looks statistically I’m not sure, but, the experience rating currently in place can give a false picture. Respond to this comment

Sue Keating, Manager, Finance & Administration, Trane Sales and Service, London, Ontario

11. May 6, 2008 — As an owner of a general contracting business, I read some of the comments published and realize how misinformed people can really take bits of information and draw conclusions that are “off the wall.” Any rebate that a company may get certainly does not diminish significantly the company’s required remittance amount. And they are only given out if overall safety standards improve. The rebates are intended to be an incentive only — to help promote safe practices in the workplace. As far as employers ‘getting off’ when a serious injury occurs, the Ministry of Labour investigations and fines usually have a huge financial impact on the employers. Now that is incentive. Also keep in mind that without WSIB, many small to mid-sized companies could go bankrupt fighting many frivolous lawsuits. Respond to this comment

Janice Klassen, Bromac Construction and Engineering Ltd., Fenwick, Ontario

10. May 6, 2008 — The WSIB experience rating program encourages companies to maintain effective safety programs. It is a carrot and not a stick.
Corporations face far too many sticks in the course of doing business in this province and precious few rewards for good performance. Delinquent companies who do not take the safety of employees as a serious responsibility and who experience too high an accident frequency under this system not only pay higher WSIB rates but also face heavy penalties through the court system. It should be remembered that companies are made up of people. To blame management for all accidents is as unfair as blaming only the employee. It takes teamwork to prevent accidents and a mixture of reward and penalty to encourage good behaviour and discourage bad. Our firm is a member of the Ontario General Contractors Association. Its member companies range in size from the smallest to the largest builders in this province. The record clearly shows that great strides have been made by the construction industry in Ontario toward eliminating accidents on the worksite. Accident frequencies are very low among member firms. Credit goes to both labour and management for being serious and diligent about maintaining safe and healthy worksites. Respond to this comment

Sandy Graham, General Manager, Kenalex Construction Co. Ltd., North Bay, Ontario

9. May 6, 2008 — Since the experience rating system for construction (CAD7) is at best 9 months late and the worst 21 months late, the financial impact of an incident is not immediately known to the employer and therefore it can’t be viewed as immediate incentive to improve Health & Safety. The cost of a WSIB claim occurring on January 1, 2008 would not show its impact on a CAD 7 report until mid September of 2009. It is the assistance of safety groups, Ministry of Labour and the Construction Safety Association that has driven our improvement in our health and safety environment, not the impact of our CAD 7 report. I feel that any proposed increases in the penalties imposed by a revised CAD 7 would be better spent by establishing training incentives to the employer in the education and improvement of health and safety to further reduce WSIB claims on our jobsites. Respond to this comment

Dan DeLeye, President, Reid & Deleye Contractors Ltd., Courtland, Ontario

8. May 6, 2008 — The rebate we get from the experience rebated system is rewarded back to the employees for their effort in keeping our workplace safe. We use the funds to provide lunches at our safety meetings, give out prizes, award individuals for special efforts and hold a company event. We feel if we are being rewarded for our efforts, some it should be passed onto our employees for their effort Respond to this comment

Ron Roeder, President, Nith Valley Construction Ltd. New Hamburg, Ontario

7. May 6, 2008 — As I said in my letter (DCN, April 24, 2008), it is an “established fact that experience rating works, and contrary to the themes getting public airing, it does not reward unsafe employers”. I again point out that a 2005 independent study by the Institute for Work and Health concluded: “Our research indicates that (experience rating) functions well, encourages prevention and contributes to positive workplace health and safety practices.” At any rate, the WSIB has now done the right thing and has begun a full scale, comprehensive review of experience rating, releasing a "Request for Proposal" just the other day. It is clear the Board seeks an independent, qualified and unbiased assessment of all of its experience rating programs. This is the first step to a positive, fact driven approach to this volatile debate. Respond to this comment

L.A. Liversidge, LL.B., Markham, Ontario

6. May 6, 2008 — Those who remember the battles 20 and 30 years ago to get WSIB to recognize that incentive drives safety are disheartened that we appear to have come full circle now in challenging this fundamental principle. It may not be a palatable concept — that incentive is required to drive safety — but it is a practical one that recognizes that incentive works. WSIB now has to decide whether its governing philosophy will be to continue to provide incentive for safety performance or to return to the days when punishing employers for poor performance was the order of the day. The former works. The latter feeds the underground economy, creates a negative attitude to the safety imperative and drives a wedge into the relationship between the employer and the WSIB. Experience over the past couple of decades has proven that the carrot works much better than the stick. A return to the stick will have a negative impact on the tremendous progress we have made in making Ontario workplaces safer. Respond to this comment

Rob Bradford, Executive Director,Ontario Road Builders’ Association

5. April 29, 2008 — A fatality at work is the ultimate tragedy. It profoundly affects countless people for the rest of their lives (family members, co-workers and employers). No one wants a fatality in the workplace.
A workplace incident is a failure of the safety system to work effectively. Whether this is the result of an employee failing to follow safe work procedures, the failure of an employer to ensure that safe work procedures are followed or a building owner who permits unsafe work habits on their site — all accidents and fatalities can be avoided through careful planning, cooperation and care.
The view that employers do not care about fatalities (or accidents) is absolutely ludicrous. Employers bear a great burden. They bear the ultimate responsibility of taking every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker each day. This is no easy task.
The Experience Rating system, like all insurance programs, provides an incentive for safe employers to promote the highest quality health and safety practices amongst its employees throughout the performance of their work. Unsafe employers are penalized under this system too.
Over the past decade, significant improvements in the safety culture of the construction industry have reduced all types of workplace incidents. Everyone needs to be diligent to protect themselves, and others, at all times. Safety is after all — everyone’s responsibility. Respond to this comment

Geoff Kinney, The Concrete Floor Contractors Association of Ontario

4. April 28, 2008 — Safety is no longer a concern to employers, there is no accountability. Now the truth is finally out. Employers get financial rewards for killing employees, therefore, job creation for workers compensation board employees. Think about this: A transportation company knows that if they have a major accident and their old semi-truck gets totaled. With the rewards they can go out and buy shiny new truck. Ever wonder why truck drivers are in such short supply? What a system. Only in Canada, Eh? Respond to this comment

Bruce Junker, Saskatchewan

3. April 28, 2008 — The WSIB is paid for by employers and serves employers interests by preventing lawsuits against companies from injured employees. Companies who receive more rebates from WSIB than they have to pay out in fines can then see these deaths as irrelevant to their bottom line. The experience rating system is ‘fatally’ flawed and does nothing for fostering a safety atmosphere in the workplace. Respond to this comment

Jane Edgett

2. April 28, 2008 — WSIB’s “Dirty Little Secrets” are finally being revealed. Respond to this comment

Pete Clare

1. April 25, 2008 — If it is so true that WSIB doesn't reward unsafe employers, then why would this topic be heavily investigated and proven under empirical evidence that it is? This is not just a problem that exists with in Ontario, this is a problem that exists across Canada. Respond to this comment

Mindy Barnett, British Columbia, Canada