Can Workers' Compensation Show the Way?
We've just emerged from a national orgy of high dollar commercials and finger pointing, otherwise known as the Presidential Election. Now that the business of governance is actually back in the news, the predictable calls emerge for our politicians "to get along and to get something done for the American people." Oy vey. Maybe the calls for an end to gridlock make sense in terms of a yearning for a more activist role in government. If, however, the voter considers the message of his vote not as a request for more but instead as a restraining order, gridlock is exactly what you want. Volumes have been written about the schizophrenia of the American electorate and yet every two years, we're supposed to forget that we just don't agree amongst ourselves about what we want, what is proper and, heaven forfend, the question of whether we can afford it. So, the questions remain: what are we to do and is there a better way to do it?
If we can't get along, can we at least leave each other alone long enough to get something done? If all answers must come from Washington, it would seem that the answer is no. If, however, we take a clue from the state Workers' Compensation systems, and solve the problems in our own states then it won't be necessary for one solution that is as ill-fitting as a one size fits all snuggie. We don't have uniformity over something that is as simple as the income benefit and yet, somehow, the sky isn't falling. Furthermore, if State A enacts a policy that seems like a good idea but has disastrous consequences,not only does neighboring State B not have to partake in the misery but State B might even profit from State A's failure to rectify its legislative missteps. The built in incentive towards flexibility, agility and actual problem-solving is enhanced when the dissatisfied constituency lives 5 miles away rather than 500 or 5000. Never underestimate the power of negative feedback that our elected officials can feel when the constituent is providing that feedback in person rather than by phone call or email. The possibilities are just delicious.
I call this radical concept "Federalism." Maybe it's time we gave the 10th Amendment a fresh look. Since no Government has ever figured out how to repeal the law of unintended consequences and since today's reform sews the seed of tomorrow's problem, would it not make sense to have as many possible laboratories testing whether this or that reform works better, whether one idea causes unforeseen problems or whether a given idea might, while protecting workers from injury, cost their employer so much that the business must close its doors. Actions have consequences. There is not a single person among us who wouldn't rather rubber-neck while passing by an accident rather than being involved in that accident. Of course we'd rather that the accident not happen but wishes do not make reality.
"
Skedsvold, White & Wesley
Join us on Facebook
Stay informed about the right answers to Worker's Comp
See the new Compworx Return-to-Work System
