|
Hi John,
Actually, these type of things do have something to do with
understanding Social Credit. In the case of Worker's Compensation here
we've seen what the WCB itself proclaims as 'the Great Compromise'
~ the workers giving up the right to sue their employer for injuries
sustained, and the uncertainty of ever collecting damages even if successful, in
return for a mandatory employer funded, 'no-fault', insurance scheme that
can compensate them for loss with greater certainty ~ now evolve into
bureaucratic system where 'fault' can be determined by an 'Administration' that
is, in effect, prosecutor, judge, and executioner all rolled into one.
No one , I think, would denigrate the efforts made by the WCB to prevent
accidents in the workplace. And it is as much, or more, in an employer's
interests to see that his workplace can be maintained in as safe a manner as
possible, and all possible steps taken to mitigate injuries, as it is in an
employee's to try to engage in safe work practices. But when accidents do
happen, oftentimes after all reasonable precautions have been taken, for an
'administrative' body to now arbitrarily assess 'fault' in what is supposed
to be a 'no-fault' system, and impose severe penalties over and above an
actuarial increase in the premium rate any accidents might warrant, is an
example of the growth of a type of 'Administrative lawlessness' that removes the
rights of the individual.
It is but one example of many other instances of the growth of virtually
the same thing. There isn't hardly a month that goes by now when we don't
receive an invitation to attend some seminar either put on by the respective
'authority' over some facet of the many regulations we now labour under, or,
more often now, some private firm of 'consultants' who'll tell us, for a
substantial fee, how we can protect ourselves 'legally' through copious
documentation against being caught in 'non-compliance' with a potential
bureaucratic 'judgement' of some type.
What small enterprise could ever afford to maintain the necessary
'paper-trail' these 'authorities' are said to demand? (Let alone the time
and money to attend these types of 'seminars'?) They involve costs which
cannot be 'passed on' to the public, since they can't, in the case of smaller
firms, be spread over a large enough volume of sales. The 'little guy',
often in reality the 'safest' place for a worker to be employed, the most
'benign' in negative effects upon the 'environment', the place of greatest
'contentment' amongst employers and employees as far as the 'standards of
employment' are concerned, and numerous other things, is systematically squeezed
out in favour of the 'compliant' monopoly. The one, when the 'competiton'
is finally eliminated, will very handily be able to pass the 'costs of
regulatory compliance' on, whether the public can pay them without further
indebting itself or not.
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 12:48
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] 'No-Fault'-
Joe replies to John Rawson
Thanks, Joe.
Ah, but Kiwis are never left out! We have one of them too, called OSH
(Occupational Safety and Health.) Another great idea stuffed up by
bureaucrats. I'll send you a story privately some time, because outside
the need of some "importance of the individual" philosophy, it has nothing to
do with understanding SC. Your story would fit.
Regards. John R.
From: Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
'No-Fault'- Joe replies to John Rawson
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005
08:35:25 -0800
Thanks, John. Your system is much broader
based than what's in effect here.
With WCB here the intervention of the
'politician' into the process can have some rather ridiculous consequences
sometimes.
I started in business on my own back in
1969, when BC still had a 'Social Credit' government. Being a regime
that favoured 'free enterprise' and minimum intereference in business by the
'government', the WCB inspected my plant not long after we started making
remissions to them, didn't find any infractions of their rules, and left us
alone afterwards. We never had any accidents that were compensatable,
and the view at that time was as long as there weren't any they'd leave well
enough alone.
In 1972 'Social Credit' lost the election to
the then very 'socialist' minded New Democratic Party. Which soon
announced that BC's workplace accident rate was way too high, and that they
intended in future to follow the ''ounce of prevention being worth a pound
of cure'' policy, and start regularly inspecting every workplace. So
every three months or so afterwards the WCB 'Accident Prevention Inspector'
would be around for a tour of the plant.
At first, these were people who'd been
APIs for a long time, and were individuals who'd generally had a lot of
experience around industry and in noticing potential hazards. And on
our first inspection under the new regime, the API noticed our trim saw, a
'swing saw' at that time, didn't have a 'safety latch'. If the
operator had let go of the handle he used to pull it through a cut when it
was more than halfway through a board it could go back to its 'at rest'
position too fast and possibly rebound. He informed me that wouldn't
do, citing a horror story of 'some Paki' (likely a turbaned Sikh millworker,
newly arrived from India) who'd lopped his hand off due to the abscense of
such a device at some mill in Vancouver. He said I'd have to
install one right away.
When I asked just how such a device might be
made, he drew out a rough sketch of how he'd seen them elsewhere. With
that in hand, I got busy and installed one. It worked like a charm, and I
remember thinking to myself at the time, "this is the way the accident
prevention system should work." And it should.
Several more inspections in ensuing three month
intervals revealed no further threats to life and limb. Though in that
period we saw some new faces appear as APIs. The NDP government was
hiring 'civil servants', including new APIs with reckless abandon. In
spite of this 'ounce of prevention' policy though, the overall accident rate
didn't go down. It went up. So came the pronouncement from 'on
high' that the WCB was really going to 'get tough' with employers in
future.
And soon this became noticeable. Very
noticeable. For after a couple of more inspections where no
infractions had again been found, the 'new' API seemed to be operating like
he was almost 'under the gun' to find 'something', indeed 'anything', that
was wrong that he could write us up for.
And so his eyes feasted on an unused circular
saw balde, 5 feet in diameter, that reposed at a thirty degree angle against
one wall of the mill. There was a board nailed to the floor to keep it
at that angle and from any possibility of it sliding down the wall due to
vibration in the plant. It took two of us to stand it upright from the
position it was in, and the area, back of the mill's carriage, was not a
regular passageway for anybody.
But to our ever alert inspector this was
suddenly a major safety hazard. "That saw could fall on someone.", he
proclaimed. "How do you figure?", I queried, being certain that even
an earthquake at 7.9 on the Richter scale wouldn't dislodge it. "It
could tip over, it's got to be better secured. You should have a rope
across it." he pronounced, writing his findings on his Accident Prevention
Inspection Report on his clipboard. "Fine", said I, "I'll fix that
right now." I nipped into the shop, grabbed a stout piece of nylon
rope, made my way over to the offending saw and secured it to the
wall.
"Will that do?", I asked. He
looked at me glumly, almost like I'd ruined his day, and said "Yes.
But you'll have to write a letter to the Board telling them you've corrected
the problem." "Why?", I said. "You've just seen me correct
it. Mark it down on your Report." "No," he said, "that's not the
way it's done now. You'll have to write a letter." And so, after
what was never less than a 11 hour day, (in those days), and often longer, I
sat down at the typewriter to do one more thing. Write a letter to the
WCB, detailing how I'd tied a rope across the face of a saw and done my
'capitalist' duty in preserving the safety of the "Worker's Paradise" that
was BC under the NDP!
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005
1:50 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
'No-Fault'- Joe replies to John Rawson
Greetings, Joe.
No, I doubt if the two are similar. While I believe some very
exceptional cases are possible, basically nobody in NZ has the right to
sue over accidental happenings. In the broadest sense, including for
example bungled surgery. Everyone pays into the Accident
Compensation Commission according to earnings (employers deduct for
employees, but also pay their own dues) and the Commission looks after the
victims. "Lump sum" payments are minimal. The Commmission can
sue for negligence, but doesn't seem to do so in most cases.
It was a brilliant idea, but socialistic thinking such as you mention
tends to detract from it. But as a result, for example, Kiwis still
rush in to save drowning people or pull them out of burning cars.
They do not fear being penalised financially for the least mistake as in
England etc.
Regards. John R.
From: Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
'No-Fault'- Joe replies to John Rawson
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005
08:22:42 -0800
Hi John,
I presume from what you've written what you
call 'ACC' in NZ is what we call 'Worker's Compensation' in BC.
The two situations you describe below are not unknown here either.
The latter one, having a compensatable accident in a year when personal
income is low is something I'm very familiar with, since I was caught in
that situation once myself.
It provided a rather hard lesson that if
one is going to take a 'low salary' to 'subsidise' one's business, (and
save income tax, WCB, and other mandated deductions in the process), it
is far better to 'pay' the gross salary 'on the books', (and remit the
mandated deductions from it), and adjust the net as between 'take-home
pay' and 'shareholder loans', (redeemable when the company again has
money~if ever!), than to tempt fate and fiddle with the gross. And
demonstrate the truth of the old maxim, "the things you learn the hard
way, you never forget!"
But enough of that. The concept of
mandatory employer funded 'no-fault' worker's compensation coverage has
been in force here in BC since early in the last century. 1919, or
so, I believe. Prior to that an injured worker had to often sue
his employer to be compensated. Or his dependant survivors
had to in workplace accidents that proved fatal. Often a highly
uncertain process for the worker or those dependant
survivors. And often financially fatal to the employer's business,
and in some cases him personally, when such suits were successful.
The establishment of the WCB and the 'no-fault' concept was a great leap
forward.
What's evolved from that today is not
entirely a 'no-fault' system, however. For along with a rise in
premiums to an individual business that has an accident, 'fault' can be
found. Often quite arbitrarily, too. And can be very costly
to an employer. And in some cases personally, to those charged
with supervision in the workplace if the WCB, in its sole discretion,
decides they have been negligent.
This has created a number of perversions in
recent years, both for large employers and smaller ones. In our
case, for instance, I would have a great reluctance to hire people I
might otherwise take on when we're 'busy', simply because, no matter how
extensively I train or supervise the new employee, if he injures himself
the WCB will say ''he wasn't trained properly'' 'Properly' being a
rather vague sort of concept, known only to the
bureaucrat. For no matter the circumstance, nowadays it
seems the attitude automatically is, ''It's all the employer's
fault''. And on go the penalties and increased
assessments.
Now in case any who've read this so far are
starting to think, ''Just what has any of this to do with 'social
credit'?", let me get to that. As with 'banking' there are many
who no doubt feel that 'insurance' should be the exclusive purview of
the State. We have here , as mentioned, 'worker's compensation'
managed by the Provincial 'Worker's Compensation Board'. We have,
again here in BC, government mandated public liability and property
damage auto insurance. With ICBC, a Crown owned agency having a
'monopoly' on this type of coverage. And we have that most sacred
of all Canadian institutions, so it is often proclaimed,
"Medicare". Every British Columbian has to pay into the Medical
Services Plan of BC, though those with no or little income are
subsidized in full or in part by the provincial government.
All things bright an beautiful, which few
if any here now might ever envision not being resonsibilities of the
State. But we should never lose sight of the fact these things are
'monopolies'. And while there are no doubt certain 'advantages' to
be had in that they are in regards to effecting the broad concept that
might be put "the well must keep the sick", or "the rich should help the
poor", we should always be aware of the flip side of that, especially as
it relates to the present 'money system' and personal
freedoms.
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005
12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] straw
vote (Joe replies to Ken)
Just in passing, I presume that by "N.Z. 'no fault' insurance" you
mean our national ACC scheme.
It is a superlative idea that,
like so many others, has been turned into no little of a shambles by
bureacracy. Try to get some of your money back as a newly self
employed person in the ealry stages of building up his business, for
example. Or the bloke who has earned and paid tax on multiple of
tens of thousands for years, but because of some weird situation had
very little income over the few months before having an accident.
Nothing that couldn't be fixed by a common-sense clause making it
mandatory for common and visible justice to be done in every case, but
you know the official mind. "Sorry, we are unable to ..."
Good discussion. John R.
From: kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Kenneth
Palmerton)
Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
CC:
kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk
Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] straw vote (Joe replies to Ken)
Date: Mon,
21 Nov 2005 15:26 +0000 (GMT)
>In-Reply-To:
<001b01c5ee05$d7f482a0$bad44246@cc.shawcable.net>
>Hi
Joe.
>
>Fascinating discussion. And I hope that we can
keep it friendly, and avoid
>some of the entrenched positions,
and bad temper that have torn this
>movement apart in the past
:-)
>
>In trying to struggle with the intricacies of our
money system, I have had
>the benefit of many opinions about
what we do for the future, which is
>what interests me. These
contacts I value.
>
>Most come down to an understanding
of the difference between money,
and
>wealth.
>
>What went to the bottom of the
Atlantic all those years ago was wealth,
>not money. It was
huge lump of raw materials that had been won from the
>earth,
and converted by human labour into something of value. The
very
>idea of the construction of such a product leaving
behind it a money debt
>is the stuff that Social Credit,
before many other studies, has attempted
>to
address.
>
>As for recompense for loss, this has been
the subject of much debate this
>side of the pond, with I
think the conclusion that it is heartless to
>stand aside and
not help in the hardship of ones neighbours, when it
is
>within our power to do something constructive about that
loss. Personally
>I favour the sort of mutual response of the
Amish, and their practice of
>turning up with materials, and
their labour, when a neighbours barn burns
>down
:-)
>
>The New Zealand initiatives on "No fault"
insurance has much to commend it.
>
>Yes Joe, I know,
utopian. But such condemnation comes mainly from those
>whose
power is being challenged. It does give some illustration of
just
>how far we have travelled down the road of damnation. We
as a society seem
>to care so little for our fellow
man.
>
>However, I do not see why we as a society should
hand over all recompense
>to a rapacious clan of money men.
The increase in cost, though not
>generally recognised, is
considerable, and diminishes what we are able to
>produce by
that money cost. Not to mention all the devious practices
that
>allow too many to be defrauded of their
livelihoods.
>
>You mention "Risk" several times. That
is exactly what our Usurers will
>not take a part of. They
alone are demanding certainty. Almost everything
>they do is
to shift that risk to others, if they can. The "laying off"
of
>their bets, which is what they enter into, is exactly like
a racecourse
>bookmaker. Maybe that is where they learned
their trade
:-)))
>
>Ken.
>
Discover fun and games at XtraMSN Kids!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Check out the latest video at Xtra Broadband
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Need a new job? Check out XtraMSN Careers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Reply to this message
