So things can never change in that way from here on out, huh? It’s nice to know we have a clairvoyant among us.
Pardon my French, but I think that’s bullshit. Try again.
Thank you. So you understand that it’s illogical to make any claim about there being any choice that is “best” in an objective sense, and that, if you make any such claim anyway, you’re therefore being dishonest.
This again begs the question that you’re trying to avoid - what do you think constitutes employers injuring employees? I will continue to bring up this question every single time you try to avoid it.
Move to Somalia or Hong Kong and you’ll get your wish.
Nope.
Yes.
I used that word incorrectly. Employers shoving ramrods up one’s ass would constitute injury. But if they’re not forced to pay for unsafe workplaces, they’re probably going to care as much about safety.
You really don’t know what I wish. For you to claim otherwise only compounds your arrogance (earlier established by your implicit claim of clairvoyancy).
What are you afraid of?
I accept your concession. The question now is, what do you think constitutes an “unsafe workplace”?
Let’s suppose there’s a workplace that carries a 33% of losing a limb within one year. A worker is informed of this risk before agreeing to work there. Within a year, he ends up losing a limb while working there. Although the worker understood the risk and agreed to take it on, would you say that his employer is nevertheless liable for his injury? Why or why not?
Yes. Why? Because establishing employer liability has a broad effect on deterring unsafe work practices, and after these laws were introduced injuries fell a great deal. You may consider this unimportant. But I’ll trade reducing a 33% risk of losing an arm for a fraction of a percent loss of wages from legal costs any day. As for what constitutes an injury, I would say that, at a minimum, the employer should cover any medical costs incurred by permanent injury at the workplace.
Because we so often get involved in arguments like, “are morals objective?” or “does worker safety matter much?”
Any one where workers are getting hurt. It’s a matter of degree. Worker’s comp doesn’t bother with pedantics. It taxes employers for each injury that happens on their watch.
I consider those issues to be fundamental and therefore of vital importance. If you disagree, oh well. Your disagreement is certainly not going to change my opinion.
By that standard, if I spill some coffee on myself while at work, it’s my employer’s fault. In fact, even if I were to intentionally injure myself at work - for example, cutting my finger on purpose - your standard would hold my employer liable for it. In other words, your standard takes away any notion of distinct responsibility for workplace events. It simply considers where the event occurred.
In theory, yes. But how many people are going to give themselves severe burns (and paper cuts which don’t incur medical cost) in order to gain worker’s comp, realistically?
That’s irrelevant to your standard. By your standard, any workplace where someone gets hurt is an unsafe workplace. Hence the government would be within its rights to compel the employer who operates the unsafe workplace to pay compensation for the person who got hurt there.
Yes. I agree there might be some leeway if employees are just being fradulent, but for the most part I don’t see many people pouring coffee on themselves for worker’s comp, although it might occasionally happen.
But by your standard, people pouring coffee on themselves at their workplaces isn’t fraudulent at all with respect to worker’s compensation. All that matters to your standard is that a worker was injured at his workplace. No other circumstances mean anything.
Thanks for telling me what my opinion is. However, if the judge thinks that the guy is coming to work and chopping off his fingers every day for the sole purpose of obtaining worker’s comp, I’m inclined to see it as an extenuating circumstance.
Hey, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. In other words, I’ve been pointing out the logical consequences of your opinion. If you don’t like what they are, the only way to rectify that is to change your opinion. But I haven’t seen you do that yet.
Why? You said that an unsafe workplace is any workplace where someone gets hurt, period, full stop, end of story. You haven’t added any sort of qualifications to that standard. So it’s disingenuous of you to try to sneak in qualifications through the back door, as it were.
Let me make my opinion clear. I’m for worker comp without fraud. If this is different from my previous statements, it’s only because you take them literally.
So instead of actually answering my question, you make a confession of faith? Or is this your way of saying “I know it when I see it”, like the infamous “definition” of “obscenity” declared by one Supreme Court justice?
This isn’t a question, but “I know it when I see it” doesn’t constitute a valid definition for any word. So I consider that to be a big, gaping hole in your position.