10/30/2018
1
for the British Columbia Construction Safety Alliance
October 26, 2018
Terrance J. BogyoIndependent Researcher | Speaker | Consultant
Note The slides in this handout have been adapted to reveal most but
not all elements that are animated in the presentation.
Some slides in this handout provide background or additional information beyond those included in the live presentation.
Due to time constraints at the time of presentation, some slides may be omitted.
Check against delivery.
10/30/2018
2
Introduction: Who is this presenter?Terrance (Terry) J. Bogyo
I n d e p e n de n t Re s e a rc h er | S p e a ke r | Con s u l t a n t
1665 58 A Street
Delta, BC V4L 1X5
e-mail: [email protected]
Blog: www.WorkersCompPerspectives.blogspot.com
Phone: (604) 943-3545
Skype: terry.bogyo
Work Injury carries a BIG human cost Fatalities in
developed countries are nearly 1 per 1000 employees.
OSHA-EU,
An international
comparison of the
cost of work-related
accidents and
illnesses, 08/09/2017
10/30/2018
3
Measurement Matters Construction, Science, Engineering depend on measurement
Measurement requires
Definition of what you want to measure
Length, weight, age, speed, cost
Taste, beauty, pain
A reference for comparison
Standard, comparator, last year’s results, rank
Beyond a reasonable doubt, balance of probabilities
Context and Choice
Purpose, reason, method, precision
How do we measure up? Let’s look at the Construction Sector and indicators of
Human costs (injury rate, “serious” injuries, injuries to workers, fatalities)
Financial costs (disability, medical, survivor benefits)
Trends over time and comparisons with other
Compare WorkSafeBC cwith other workers’ compensation and OH&S jurisdiction
Mandate
Coverage
Costs
Compensation and other Benefits
10/30/2018
4
Are Work-related Construction Sector injuries disproportionately high?
The human and financial costs of work-related injury, illness and disease are high
Are they disproportionately high for the Construction Sector?
Some perspective from within BC on how Construction measures up:
Employment
Costs of other sectors
Human Cost: Injury Claims BC Covered workers in BC: 2.33 million
In 2017, 106,808 claims were paid for the first time.
Of these:
Health care–only claims : 52,422
Short-term disability (STD) claims: 48,771
Long-term disability (LTD) claims: 5,461
Work-related death claims: 154
BC Construction Sector
225,500 10%
17,150 16%
9,422 18%6,672 14% 1,010 18%
46 30%
[Source: Extracted from WorkSafeBC, Statistics 2017
BCCA, BC Construction Statistics 2017]
10/30/2018
5
Financial Cost: Injury Claims BCIncurred Claim Cost 2017
Short-term Disability (incl. Healthcare and VR) $447,039,069
Long-term Disability (incl. Healthcare and VR) 616,664,347
Survivor benefits (incl. Healthcare and VR) 35,630,953
Healthcare Only costs 55,366,907
Total (less Sec. 39 and Other costs) $894,734,109
[Source: Extracted from WorkSafeBC, Statistics 2017, Table 3-3]
BC Construction Sector $ 66,252,232 15%
96,207,127 16%5,173,269 15%
9,548,509 17%
$ 134,295,022 15%
Work Injury carries a BIG financial cost Financial
Losses represent 3 to 5% of GDP.
OSHA-EU,
An international
comparison of the
cost of work-related
accidents and
illnesses, 08/09/2017
10/30/2018
6
Construction Injury Age Profile
2017 2008 Age
19 and under 615
20–24 1,940
25–29 1,575
30–34 1,195
35–39 1,195
40–44 1,165
45–49 1,100
50–54 705
55–59 490
60–64 285
Over 120
TOTAL 10,397
AVG. 36
Age
19 and under 30020–24 1,01525–29 1,10030–34 1,06535–39 83040–44 72045–49 70550–54 77055–59 630
60–64 390Over 200Total 7,728Avg. 39
In the last 10 years:
• Injuries to workers
Under 25 have dropped
by 52%
• Injuries to workers
55 and older have
increased
by 34%Source: WorkSafeBC,
Statistics 2008 and 2017
2008: Older worker injuries were 50% those of younger workers
2017: Older worker injuries are 20% greater those of younger workers
Decline of ~25%
Chart Source: Developed from CANSIM data from Labour Force Survey (LFS) Table 282-0001 Data downloaded August 23, 2016
050
100150200250300350400450500
Mar
-76
May
-77
Jul-
78
Sep
-79
No
v-8
0
Jan
-82
Mar
-83
May
-84
Jul-
85
Sep
-86
No
v-8
7
Jan
-89
Mar
-90
May
-91
Jul-
92
Sep
-93
No
v-9
4
Jan
-96
Mar
-97
May
-98
Jul-
99
Sep
-00
No
v-0
1
Jan
-03
Mar
-04
May
-05
Jul-
06
Sep
-07
No
v-0
8
Jan
-10
Mar
-11
May
-12
Jul-
13
Sep
-14
No
v-15
Th
ou
san
ds
Full and Part-time employment Persons Aged 65 and OlderCanada March 1976 to July 2016
Full time65 +
2001-2015
Population age
65+ has grown
47.7%
Employment
growth
(Jul 2016/Jul 2001):
FT 65+ 345%
PT 65+ 356%
FT 70+ 280%
PT 70+ 321%
Population data source: Statistics Canada. Table 051-0001 - Estimates of population, by age group and sex for July 1, Canada, provinces and territories, annual)
(accessed: September 02, 2016)
10/30/2018
7
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350S
ep-7
6
Jul-
80
May
-84
Mar
-88
Jan
-92
No
v-9
5
Sep
-99
Jul-
03
May
-07
Mar
-11
Jan
-15
Em
plo
ymen
t x1
00
0BC Monthly Employment LFS M/F 15-24 and 55+
Jun 1976 to Jan 2018 (not seasonally adjusted)
British Columbia Employment (x1,000) (4) Males 15 to 24 yearsEstimate Unadjusted
British Columbia Employment (x1,000) (4) Males 55 years and overEstimate Unadjusted
British Columbia Employment (x1,000) (4) Females 15 to 24 yearsEstimate Unadjusted
British Columbia Employment (x1,000) (4) Females 55 years andover Estimate Unadjusted
4 Number of persons who, during the reference week,
worked for pay or profit, or performed unpaid family work or had a job
but were not at work due to own illness or disability, personal or family
responsibilities, labour dispute, vacation, or other reason. Those persons on layoff and persons without work but who had a job to start
at a definite date in the future are not considered employed. Estimates
in thousands, rounded to the nearest hundred.
Source:
Statistics Canada. Table 282-0087 - Labour Force Survey estimates (LFS), by sex and age group,
seasonally adjusted and unadjusted, monthly (persons unless otherwise noted)
(accessed: February 16, 2018)
You are seeing many older workers
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
199
8
199
9
200
0
200
1
200
2
200
3
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
8
200
9
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
BC Employment Rate for Age Category 65-69 1998-2017
Males 65 to 69 years Females 65 to 69 years
Statistics Canada: Labour force characteristics
by sex and detailed age group, annual 1
Annual
Table: 14-10-0018-01 (formerly CANSIM 282-
0002)
Employment rate age
65 to 70 2000 to 2017
has tripled… and rising
10/30/2018
8
Comparing Performance Provides reference points for assessing own performance
Identifies possibilities for improvement
Offers possible alternatives for change
BUT…
Performance Comparison is not easy
No one dimension of comparison tells the how story
What you compare and Who you compare with really matters.
My starting point: If you think you want to compare
DON’T!
Not unless you are willing to put a lot of work into comparison
And you don’t mind looking backward All comparative data is historical
There is often a long delay before data are available to make comparisons
Comparison is hard Hard to do (getting the context right, making measures
comparable…)
Hard in what it might mean…
10/30/2018
9
Before we talk about workers’ comp systems…
Let’s talk about fruit…
How would you compare these two pieces of fruit?
What about these two?
By Evan-Amos - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph
p?curid=36735411BC Tree Fruits,
http://www.bctree.com/frui
ts/apples/
Some things to compare
Mushy
Cheap
Rare
Sour
Low
Less
Local
Crisp
Expensive
Plentiful
Sugary
High
More
Distant
Texture
Price
Availability
Sweetness
Nutritional Value
“natural” (Organic, GMO)
Where produced / Fair trade
10/30/2018
10
Comparing “apples”?
Comparisons can be objective BUT are not the full story
Not all comparisons are numeric
Not always clear if “higher” or “lower” is “better” or “worse”
Comparisons without context are problematic
Some terms are the same but mean something different
Social, political, economic, geographic and other factors are important
No one measure tells the whole story
Varieties of Apples… and Jurisdictions Not all apples are the same
With very, very few exceptions, no two jurisdictions are anywhere near close to being identical
No two jurisdictions will have the same insurance and workers’ compensation environment
Even very similar apples can be very different Look at as many factors as you can
10/30/2018
11
Who should we compare with? Workers’ compensation coverage exists in more than 130
countries
Predominant models:
National Systems (most of the world)
Private Insurance – Employer Liability
Social Insurance
State/Provincial Models
Canada
US States
Australia
…(and then there is New Zealand)
Other “WorkSafe” organizations…
10/30/2018
12
Other “Workers’ Compensation” Jurisdictions… 138 countries have some form
of compensation for work injury and disease
Most systems are national
Most are part of broader social security structure
Most involve Individual employer liability
Private insurance
Comparison with all of these makes little sense
Better to select jurisdictions that are
Closer to home
Similar in structure
With similar economic and societal contexts
US WC Models State Funds types and examples
Exclusive (4) (with or without Self-insurance)
Washington State, Ohio,
ND, Wyoming
Competitive
SAIF Oregon
Pinnacol Assurance Colorado
Insurer of Last Resort
California State Fund
Private or Mutual Insurers (predominant model) Liberty Mutual AIG Zenith Hanover The Hartford…
Self-Insured with Self-Administration
Self-insured with Third Party Administration
Non-mandatory Texas (and Oklahoma)
10/30/2018
13
Australian/NZ Models Exclusive, with state
administration Queensland, ComCare
Exclusive, Integrated OH&S and claims admin contracted to private insurers WorkSafe Victoria,
WorkCover NSW
Exclusive Standalone with contracted admin WorkCover South Australia
Private Insurance Northern Territory
Accident (rather than “Work-related” injury) compensation ACC New Zealand
[works with WorkSafe NZ]
Canadian Models: Two basic types
Standalone WC, exclusive jurisdictions
WCB Alberta
WCB Sask
WCB NS
WSIB Ontario
WCB Manitoba
WHSCC NL
Integrated OH&S with WC, exclusive jurisdictions
WorkSafeBC
WorkSafeNB
CSST
WCB PEI
WSCC NT/NU
WCB YT
10/30/2018
14
Classic Components:
Regulation
Legislators, BoD (WorkSafeBC), Policy
Enforcement (Inspection with potential of penalty)
“Inspectorate”, officers, administration
Includes responsive and programmed inspections
Training / Education
Publications, Videos, Conferences…
Prevention (Consultation, Invited Inspection, promotion)
“Loss Prevention” specialists
Auditors (CoR)
The Occ Health and Safety Mandate
OH&S Mandates Canada (condensed from AWCBC.org)
Jurisdiction
% Employed Labour Force
Covered Enforcement RegulationTraining/ Education Prevention
PE 98.04 WCB WCB WCB WCBNL 97.61 Government Government WHSCC WHSCCBC 97.61 WorkSafeBC WorkSafeBC* WorkSafeBC WorkSafeBCYT 97.32 WCB WCB WCB WCB
NT/NU 97.16 WSCC WSCC WSCC WSCCQC 92.6 CSST CSST CSST CSSTNB 91.39 WorkSafeNB WorkSafeNB WorkSafeNB WorkSafeNB
Canada 84.38
AB 84.36 Government Government Government GovernmentMB 77.4 Government Government Government WCB
ON 76.24 Government Government Government Government
NS 75.4 Government Government WCB WCBSK 71.3 Government Government Government Gov. & WCB
AWCBC KSM 22 (2016 data)
10/30/2018
15
Injury Rate
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Lost Time Injury Frequency (per 100 workers) 2016 [AWCBC]
BC has a Lost-time
Injury Rate of 2.03 per
100 FTEs
BC is in the upper third
of jurisdictions in terms
injury rate
10/30/2018
16
Percentage of claims off comp at 90 days post injury
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Percentage of Wage Loss Claims off Compensation at 90 Days (%) 2016 [AWCBC]
78% of BC time-loss
claims are off
compensation by
90 days post injury
In the middle third of
reporting jurisdictions
Duration – Calendar Days
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Duration (Average - Calendar Days) 2016 [AWCBC]
Workers with Time-loss
claims in BC are on
compensation for
an average of 71 days
Mid-range of reporting
jurisdictions for claim
duration
10/30/2018
17
Average Assessment Rate
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
Average Assessment Rate ($/$100 assessable payroll) 2016 [AWCBC]
Employers pay an
average $1.70 per
$100 of assessable
payroll for coverage
Mid-range (lower half)
of reporting
jurisdictions for employer
cost (premiums)
Assessment rates: Overall Only one detailed workers’ compensation rate comparison study
exists
The Oregon Workers’ Compensation Premium Rate Raking study takes
54 classifications most important to the Oregon economy, representing about 70% of payroll
Collects assessment rates from all US states for these classifications
Generates an average assessment rate for each state
Answers the question: “ What would the average premium be if every state had Oregon’s economic mix?”
10/30/2018
18
The 2016 Oregon StudyIf every US state, BC, and Ontario had Oregon’s industrial mix.
2016 Study – Range of Index Values
BC would rank
among the lowest
in terms of employer
assessment cost in
the Oregon study
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
#1 state WA Median OR ONT #51 state BC
$3.24
$1.97 $1.84
$1.28 $1.31
$0.89 $0.94
Source: Oregon Workers’ Compensation Rate Study,
2016 and WorkSafeBC Assessments Dept.
10/30/2018
19
10/30/2018
20
Duration of Disability –Days Away from Work - US
Source: Condensed and extracted from BLS, R65. Detailed industry by number of days away from work, 2016
https://www.bls.gov/web/osh/cd_r65.xlsx
Total
cases
All Industry3,5 892,270 14.3 11 17.3 11.8 11 6.5 28.2
Construction 82,760 14.1 10.7 16.1 10.9 9.4 7.3 31.4
Construction of buildings 16,590 17.2 12.6 15.9 12.1 6.6 5.2 30.4
Residential building construction 11,150 16.1 15.3 18.7 10.9 4.5 3.4 30.9
Nonresidential building construction 5,440 19.3 7 10.3 14.3 10.8 8.6 29.4
Heavy and civil engineering construction 9,510 10.7 6.7 18.2 11.9 10 5.7 36.7
Roofing contractors 4,300 12.6 6 9.5 13.3 14.4 9.8 34.2
Electrical and wiring contractors 8,030 9.7 16.3 16.3 8.5 12.2 4.7 32.4
Plumbing and hvac contractors 14,180 17.1 11.4 16.5 7.8 9.8 11.1 26.3
Drywall and insulation contractors 3,010 13.3 7.3 16.9 8.3 8 4.7 41.2
N
u
Days-away-from-work cases involving:
1 day 2 days 3 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 20 21 - 30 31 days
PercentIndustry1 N
u
Percent Percent N
u
PercentPercent Percent N
u
Percent N
u
Duration of Disability –Days away from work- BC
1 day 2 days 3-5 days6-10 days
11-20 days
21-30 days
31+ days
All sectors 10.0% 8.2% 17.1% 14.0% 12.6% 7.2% 30.9%Sector 72
Construction 9.6% 8.0% 17.2% 13.8% 12.5% 6.5% 32.4%Subsector 7210
General Construction 9.6% 8.2% 17.4% 13.7% 12.5% 6.4% 32.3%Subsector 7220 Heavy
Construction 12.7% 10.1% 16.5% 12.7% 10.1% 11.4% 26.6%Subsector 7230
Road Construction 8.3% 4.5% 12.8% 16.3% 12.8% 8.7% 36.5%Note from Joseph Wong, WorkSafeBC – Statistics :
Days (unadjusted) away:
I took a look at the methodology used by the US BLS for their survey (SOII), and used the following basis to calculate the figures above:- claims with a year of injury of 2016- days “covered” up to Dec 31, 2016- payments made by Jan 31, 2017- claims with no days paid are not included (each horizontal row in the table should add up to 100%, subject to rounding difference)
10/30/2018
21
Duration of Disability –Days Away from Work – US and BC
Total
cases
All Industry3,5 892,270 14.3 11 17.3 11.8 11 6.5 28.2
Construction 82,760 14.1 10.7 16.1 10.9 9.4 7.3 31.4
Construction of buildings 16,590 17.2 12.6 15.9 12.1 6.6 5.2 30.4
Residential building construction 11,150 16.1 15.3 18.7 10.9 4.5 3.4 30.9
Nonresidential building construction 5,440 19.3 7 10.3 14.3 10.8 8.6 29.4
Heavy and civil engineering construction 9,510 10.7 6.7 18.2 11.9 10 5.7 36.7
Roofing contractors 4,300 12.6 6 9.5 13.3 14.4 9.8 34.2
Electrical and wiring contractors 8,030 9.7 16.3 16.3 8.5 12.2 4.7 32.4
Plumbing and hvac contractors 14,180 17.1 11.4 16.5 7.8 9.8 11.1 26.3
Drywall and insulation contractors 3,010 13.3 7.3 16.9 8.3 8 4.7 41.2
N
u
Days-away-from-work cases involving:
1 day 2 days 3 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 20 21 - 30 31 days
PercentIndustry1 N
u
Percent Percent N
u
PercentPercent Percent N
u
Percent N
u10.00% 8.20% 17.10% 14.00% 12.60% 7.20% 30.90% All Sectors
9.60% 8.00% 17.20% 13.80% 12.50% 6.50% 32.40% 72 Construction
12.70% 10.10% 16.50% 12.70% 10.10% 11.40% 26.60% 7220 Heavy
Construction – Serious Injury Rate
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Seri
ou
s In
juri
es p
er 1
00
per
son
yea
rs
BC Construction Sector (72)Serious Injury Rate 2012-2016
Serious Injury Rate
for Construction is
more than double the
BC average-- Average Serious Injury Rate (2012-2016) 0.29
Source: Based on WorkSafeBC Statistics 2017 Table 1-6b
10/30/2018
22
Australia Construction –“Serious” Injury
Source: SafeWork Australia, Comparative performance monitoring report 19th Edition–Part 1. Oct 2017, https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/node/8981
Australia
Construction
Serious Injury rate
is more than 1.5
times
the average
Investigations/Inspections and Prosecutions/Penalties
Compliance Measures 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
Annual workplace visits 41,566 40,711 46,259 45,761
Prosecution success rate 89% 93% 94% 90%
Investigations proceeding to prosecution charges within 12 months
75% 83% 91% 82%
Completed investigations proceeding to legal review outcome
67% 66% 71% 68%
Prosecutions commenced 107 114 119 138
WorkSafe Victoria Annual Report 2017, p. 21
2017 Measure
43,125 Inspection Reports
27,341 Worksite Visits
339 Net Penalties Imposed
132 Initiated WorkSafeBC Investigations
WorkSafeBC Statistics Report 2017, p. 75-76
10/30/2018
23
In Victoria Australia… 71% of employers believe they are likely to receive a visit from a
WorkSafe Inspector in the next 12 months
74% of employers agree WorkSafe is effective in catching and prosecuting employers who break safety laws
88% of people have considered making changes to the health and safety of their workplaces as a result of hearing about [WorkSafe] prosecutions
-WorkSafe Victoria, Annual Report 2009, p.24https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/208379/ISBN-Worksafe-victoria-annual-report-2009-09.pdf
In Victoria Australia… 71% of employers believe they are likely to receive a visit from a
WorkSafe Inspector in the next 12 months
74% of employers agree WorkSafe is effective in catching and prosecuting employers who break safety laws
88% of people have considered making changes to the health and safety of their workplaces as a result of hearing about [WorkSafe] prosecutions
-WorkSafe Victoria, Annual Report 2009, p.24https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/208379/ISBN-Worksafe-victoria-annual-report-2009-09.pdf
10/30/2018
24
More likely to be aware of WorkSafe NZ than other regions
Workers’ Health and Safety was particularly likely to be in the top three business considerations for Canterbury employers (72% cf. 50% in Auckland and 55% across the rest of New Zealand)
59% of Canterbury employers thought it was likely an inspector might visit in the next 12 months
Compared with 38% in the rest of New Zealand, 36% in Auckland
WorkSafe NZ, (2015: April), Health and Safety Attitudes and Behaviours in the New Zealand Workforce: A Survey of Workers and Employers, (2014 BASELINE SURVEY CONSTRUCTION REPORT) Retrieved from
https://www.sitesafe.org.nz/globalassets/guides-and-resources/research/worksafe.pdf
Construction Employers in Canterbury
BC has low cost… what about “benefits”? Workers’ compensation pays:
Medical, rehabilitation costs
Compensation for lost wages
Funeral/burial costs and survivor benefits
Compensation for permanent disability
10/30/2018
25
Medical Percent of Total Benefit
Medical51%
All other49%
Estimate Workers’ Compensation Benefits 2016 (NASI)
Jurisdiction(NASI)
Percent Paid Benefits –Medical (2016)
Washington State 31.3%
Alaska 65.8%
Idaho 63.8%
Montana 66.5%
In BC,
Healthcare Costs represent 26%
of Total Cash Benefits Paid
in 2016 [Source: calculated from
WorkSafeBC Annual Report Note 10,
Benefit Payments before Admin costs]
Alberta 36.3% (based on 2017 Annual Report, P .75 Health care
payments over all payments less admin cost)
Statutory Benefit ProvisionsWA OR AK AL SK MN ON NB YK BC
Maximum insurable/assessable earnings
$98,700 (2018)
$82,627 (2018)
$127,000 assessable (2018)/ no
max insurable
$90,300 (2018)
$63,600 (2018)
$86,971 (2018)
$82,700 (2018)
Maximum Weekly Benefit
$1299 (2017)
$1296 (2017)
$1239 (2017)
$1,238.51 (2017)
None$1098.45
(2017)$ 1,251.02 $1,095.48
Compensation Rate60-75%
PIWW
66 2/3%
PIWW
80% of
spend-able
90% of
Net
90% of Net
90% of Net
85% of Net
85% of Net
75% of gross
90% of Net
Waiting Period 3 days 3 days 3 days None None None None3/5ths of weekly benefit
None None
Retroactive Period14
days14
days28
daysn/a n/a n/a m/a
20 working
daysn/a n/a
For BC, this
is about
$41.35 / hour
based on
2000 hours
per year
(40 hours x
50 weeks)
Alberta, Sept 2018: Eliminates cap on insurable but retains max
assessable
10/30/2018
26
Source: Statistics Canada, Total Income Explorer, 2016 Census, Dec 18, 2017
Why Max Insurable matters Earning above Maximum Insurable are not covered
Statistics Canada 2016, Census (extract)
Median wages,
salaries and
commissions
($)
Average
wages,
salaries and
commissions
($)
7201 Contractors and supervisors, machining, metal forming,
shaping and erecting trades and related occupations
73,438 85,236
7202 Contractors and supervisors, electrical trades and
telecommunications occupations
82,254 89,089
7203 Contractors and supervisors, pipefitting trades 83,722 90,158
7242 Industrial electricians 83,254 87,066
7243 Power system electricians 89,643 89,072
7244 Electrical power line and cable workers 96,493 96,133
10/30/2018
27
Labour Market Info – Prevailing Wage(Job Bank extract July 13, 2018)
Occupation Region Low $/hour Median $/hour High $/hour
Site Manger, Construction
Lower Mainland -Southwest Region
19.50 38.46 57.69
Crane Operator BC 25.00 32.00 42.75
Road Construction Foreman
BC23.80 34.00 50.48
For Construction sector:
• Coverage is equal to or better than comparators for most workers
• Those with incomes above $82,700 per year (about $41 per hour on
a full year basis) are not covered for amount above that level.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
020000400006000080000
100000120000140000160000180000200000
49
99
an
d u
nd
er
500
0 -
99
99
100
00
- 1
49
99
150
00
- 1
99
99
200
00
- 2
49
99
250
00
- 2
99
99
300
00
- 3
49
99
350
00
- 3
99
99
40
00
0 -
44
99
9
450
00
- 4
99
99
500
00
- 5
49
99
550
00
- 5
99
99
60
00
0 -
69
99
9
700
00
- 7
99
99
80
00
0 -
89
99
9
90
00
0 -
99
99
9
100
00
0 -
14
99
99
150
00
0 -
24
99
99
250
00
0 a
nd
ove
r
Cu
mu
lati
ve P
erce
nt
Nu
mb
er o
f R
etu
rns
Income Category ($)
Income From Employment - BC 2015 T1s Count and Cumulative Percent by Income Category Only income from
Employment shown on Line 4 of T1 Individual Tax Returns for Taxation year 2015
Excludes income from Business, Commissions, Farming, Fishing, etc.
Source: Developed from data extracted from Canada Revenue Agency, T1 Final Statistics 2017 edition (for the 2015 tax year), Table 2 BC
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/programs/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/income-statistics-gst-hst-statistics/t1-final-statistics/final-statistics-2017-edition-2015-tax-year.html#_Tables_in_CSV_1
WorkSafeBC Max Insurable 2015
$78,600 (below 80% of filers)
10/30/2018
28
Max Alberta 2015 $95,300 Max Ontario 2015 $85,200
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
49
99
an
d u
nd
er
500
0 -
99
99
100
00
- 1
49
99
150
00
- 1
99
99
200
00
- 2
499
9
250
00
- 2
99
99
300
00
- 3
49
99
350
00
- 3
99
99
40
00
0 -
44
99
9
450
00
- 4
99
99
500
00
- 5
49
99
550
00
- 5
99
99
60
00
0 -
69
99
9
700
00
- 7
99
99
80
00
0 -
89
99
9
90
00
0 -
99
99
9
100
00
0 -
14
99
99
150
00
0 -
24
99
99
250
00
0 a
nd
ove
r
Cu
mu
lati
ve P
erce
nt
Nu
mb
er o
f R
etu
rns
Income Category ($)
Income From Employment - Alberta 2015 T1s Count and Cumulative Percent by Income Category
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
49
99
an
d u
nd
er
500
0 -
99
99
100
00
- 1
49
99
150
00
- 1
99
99
200
00
- 2
499
9
250
00
- 2
99
99
300
00
- 3
49
99
350
00
- 3
99
99
40
00
0 -
44
99
9
450
00
- 4
99
99
500
00
- 5
49
99
550
00
- 5
99
99
60
00
0 -
69
99
9
700
00
- 7
99
99
80
00
0 -
89
99
9
90
00
0 -
99
99
9
100
00
0 -
14
99
99
150
00
0 -
24
99
99
250
00
0 a
nd
ove
r
Cu
mu
lati
ve P
erce
nt
Nu
mb
er o
f R
etu
rns
Income Category ($)
Income From Employment - Ontario 2015 T1s Count and Cumulative Percent by Income Category
Note: Alberta removed cap on insurable earning Sept 2018
but retained max assessable at $98,700
Alberta logic before Sept 2018: The maximum amount set ensured 90% of
the workforce was covered for 100% of their wages.
BC’s workers’ compensation benefits Compares well with other jurisdictions
Maximum covered earnings at - Mid to upper range
But 20-25% of earners have wages above current maximum so are not covered for these losses
Short-term disability compensation rate – Upper range
But 90% of 20-25% of high wage earners will effectively receive less
Long-term disability level – Mid to upper range
But restricted cost of living indexing
Total disability cases lose income support at retirement age
Some work-related deaths receive little or no compensation
10/30/2018
29
Prevention Approaches and Initiatives Access to Information/Transparency
Comprehensive Loss Prevention
Enhanced Loss Prevention
Traditional Loss Prevention
Human and Financial
Costs
Direct cost drivers
Frequency
Severity (medical)
Duration of disability (claim cost)
Timeliness and effectiveness of
Return to Work (RTW)
Indirect cost drivers
Attitudes, Beliefs (safety culture)
Awareness, Engagement
Wellness
Loss Prevention Strategies
10/30/2018
30
10/30/2018
31
Alberta
10/30/2018
32
Mates in Construction - Australia Suicide Prevention in the Construction Industry
http://matesinconstruction.org.au/
10/30/2018
33
How does BC measure up? Construction Sector
Improving but somewhat higher share of injuries and costs
Rate of serious injury about twice the provincial average
Room for further improvement prevention and RTW
Workers’ Compensation (insurance and OH&S)
Mandate appropriate but serious injury rate persistently level
Among the lowest employer costs particularly in Construction
Among the highest compensation rate but
Maximum insurable limits compensation for higher wage earners common in the construction sector
Relatively long duration of injury: opportunity for faster RTW
According to the Mayo Clinic, the person you report to at work is more important for your health than your family doctor.
- Mob Chapman, CEO of Barry-Wehmillerand author of Everybody Matters as quoted in Jeffrey Pfeffer’s Dying for a Paycheck Chapter 1
One more thing I want you to know:
10/30/2018
34
In closing: Keep comparing... It may not be easy but others face the same
issues and risks we do… We can learn from their efforts, failures and successes
Ask questions, support research, learn from others, and share
Speak up for health & safety!
Research shows as the number of safety-oriented communications between supervisors and workers approaches 70%, violations of safe work procedures approaches zero
If you see something unsafe anywhere, say something.
Be safe out there…
At home, on the road, at play and on the job
Thanks to WorkSafeBC
Statistics Department, Joseph Wong
Assessments, Gerry Paquette, Kim Karunaratne
AWCBC
NASI
WorkSafeVictoria
SafeWork Australia
State Fund of California
10/30/2018
35
for the British Columbia Construction Safety Alliance
October 26, 2018
Terrance J. BogyoIndependent Researcher | Speaker | Consultant