2010’s rate is the lowest recorded in Washington since 2003, when the injury rate stood at 6.9. 2003 was the year when L&I adopted the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which is also used by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

Within private industries themselves, Washington’s injury and illness rate is still above the average national rate. Injuries among Washington workers stood at 4.8 per 100 full-time employees in 2010, while the national rate was 3.5.

Nearly every major industry in Washington showed better numbers in 2010. Injury and illness rates among construction workers, for instance, fell from 8.2 per 100 in 2009 to 7.2 in 2010. Nursing and Residential Care Facilities experienced a decline of 11.4 injuries per 100 workers in 2009 to 9.4 injuries last year.

Another significant change in this latest survey was the occurrence of “serious injuries” – injuries severe enough to prevent a worker from performing their usual job duties. In 2010, half of workers who were injured or became ill were in need of time off or modified work duties during recovery. That rate represented a drop of a few percentage points from the 2009 rate.

If you have been injured at work or have developed a work-related illness and need help with your L&I Claim, contact a Washington Workers Compensation Lawyer for assistance with your case. Our attorneys also provide confidential legal advice and professional observers to accompany workers during the independent medical examination process.

The rule was enacted in response to a bill passed by the Washington State Legislature, which requires L&I to implement protections that abide by recommendations in the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health reports of 2004 and 2010.

L&I will host a public meeting to discuss the creation of a Hazardous Drugs Advisory Committee, as well as model programs that support employers as they implement the rule.  This event will take place at the L&I Tumwater building from 2 – 4 pm on Wednesday, January 25^th. The Auditorium is located at:

Department of Labor & Industries Auditorium
7273 Linderson Way SW
Tumwater, WA 98501-5414

When the Hazardous Drugs rule goes into effect it will cover all health care settings where workers come into contact with these hazardous drugs. Some of those substances have been identified as cancer-causing agents, while others are known to cause irreversible harm to health care workers – even at low-level exposure rates.

Under this new rule, “health care facilities” will be defined as sites where a health care provider administers medical care to patients.

The rule includes minimum requirements for advancing a hazardous drug control program.  Using existing hazard assessments, employers will establish programs to reduce or eliminate employee exposure to hazardous substances.

If you or someone you know has suffered a work-related illness due to exposure to hazardous substances, contact an Employment Attorney at Emery Reddy for help recovering damages.

The Department of Labor & Industries re-adjusts the state minimum wage every September, as mandated by the voter-approved Initiative 688.  That initiative went into effect in 1998, and requires the state to adjust its minimum wage according to changes in the federal CPI-W, a national index of the cost of goods and services necessary for daily living. The index increased 4.3% over this past year.

L&I provides employers with poster announcements of the new 2012 minimum wage; these can be printed and displayed as needed. The announcement is offered as a convenience only; neither L&I nor Washington State law requires businesses to display these. However, employers do need to post the “Your Rights as a Worker” poster, which gives general information regarding the minimum wage and other related topics.  These workplace posters are available free of charge from any L&I office, and can be downloaded from the L&I website.

Does the Minimum Wage Increase Unemployment?

Some economic theorists argue that a minimum wage set above a so-called “natural market wage” produces higher unemployment – especially for unskilled workers or others who might be considered a “risk” to employ. However, experts hotly debate this question using a wide variety of data, economic theory, and historical cases.

Seattle Times editorialist Bruce Ramsey cautiously suggests that higher unemployment could result from higher wages. He bases his misgivings about the new minimum wage on comparative state figures for the number of workers experiencing underemployment (defined as officially unemployed — not working and looking for work), workers employed part-time but seeking full-time work, “other marginally attached” workers, and individuals who want a job but are discouraged from looking. In light of these figures, Ramsey offers the following account:

“Combined, these ‘underemployed’ were the biggest problem in Oregon, Alaska, Washington, Michigan and California, in that order. This was not for one year, but was an average of 2003 to 2010, which includes boom years and recession years. Notable was that every one of the five states with the worst underemployment has a state minimum wage higher than the federal minimum of $7.25: Oregon is at $8.80, Alaska $7.75, Washington $9.04, Michigan $7.40 and California $8.00. (The listdoes not include the changes since 2003.) The five states with the lowest underemployment from 2003 to 2010 were Nebraska, Delaware, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Virginia. None has a state minimum higher than $7.25. If you start with the states with the highest minimum and see where they fall, there is less correlation. Still, Washington and Oregon have the highest state minimums, and in the period of 2003-2010 they were third and first, respectively, in rates of underemployment. That is not proof of economic theory–there are lots of reasons why a state will do well or poorly–but it is suggestive.”

However, other experts refute these implications, citing studies that suggest a zero (or near-zero) net job loss resulting from higher minimum wage rates. In an interview with NPR, David Cooper, an analyst with the pro-labor Economic Policy Institute, argues the minimum wage is especially important to America’s struggling workforce now:

“When you have lines of the unemployed around the corner looking for jobs, there’s no real pressure for employers to raise wages,” Cooper says.

And in this age of Occupy Wall Street, Cooper says, pushing up that wage floor is one way to address growing income inequality.

“Increases in the minimum wage are essentially a shift from corporate profits to low-wage employees,” he says. “And we know that low-wage employees spend more of their money. They’re going to spend essentially every penny they get, so that increased demand is going to result in more economic activity and potentially more jobs.”

If you are involved in a wage or hour dispute with your employer, contact a Seattle Employment Attorney or Wage & Hour Violation Attorney to represent your case.

Earlier this year, the Department of Labor & Industries projected a double-digit increase for workers compensation rates in 2012. Yet Gregoire’s reforms, along with improving trends in L&I claims indicating lower future cost, have resulted in overall workers’ compensation rates remaining flat. L&I projects that the governor’s reform will save $1.1 billion over the next four years.

Judy Schurke, Director of the Department of Labor and Industries, stated that “During the public hearing process we heard that we need to do all we can to reduce or hold the line on the cost of providing a job. That’s why this flat rate is so important.”

While there will be no general rate increase, individual employers may see rates go up or down, depending on their recent claims history, and changes in the frequency and cost of claims in their industry. For example, a 3% increase is slated for the construction industry, while the retail sector will experience a 3% drop.

Gregoire commented that the news “couldn’t come at a better time for Washington businesses and workers. Thanks to the reforms we passed earlier this year and the hard work of our state employees, businesses will have more money to hire and get Washingtonians working again.”

The Employment Security Division originally estimated that February’s unemployment tax reform bill would save businesses more than $300 million in 2011. Less than a year later, the effectiveness of these reforms seems to have surpassed initial expectations:
• Updated estimates indicate that businesses will save more than $500 million in the two-year period — $300 million in 2011 and $207 million in 2012.
• 88% of Washington’s employers will pay lower unemployment tax rates in 2012 than what they pay now.
• The overall average unemployment tax rate will drop by 13%.
• For the 77,338 employers that have had no layoffs in the past four years, the tax rate will decrease by 71%.

Employment Security Commissioner Paul Trause has been unreserved in expressing pride for this outcome: “The stability of our unemployment benefits fund and tax system is the envy of many other states. No other state has been able to reduce taxes and provide temporary benefit increases in this economy.”

New workers’ compensation and unemployment tax rates will both take effect January 2012.

Oklahoma Senate Bill 878 purports to be a comprehensive approach to workers’ compensation reform.  Brian Bingman, R-Salupa said, “We are committed to reducing Oklahoma’s workers’ compensation rates and making our state more competitive for job creation in every way.  This bill is progress towards a goal of making Oklahoma more competitive economically with surrounding states.”

The provisions of the Bill include mandating a judge to render a decision within 60 days, mandatory annual reviews of disability recipients, placing more authority in the hands of medical experts when reviewing claims, and encouraging early return to work as a form of rehabilitation.

Critics are skeptical of bill’s true intent.  Barbara Hoberock reports that the bill could limit injured workers’ access to medical treatment. It ties rates of compensation for doctors treating injured workers to 120 percent of Medicare. She quotes Dr. William Gillock, who practices occupational medicine in Tulsa. “We are concerned it would eliminate access to care and affect the quality of care we can provide,” he said.  The primary concern is that the reduction of compensation would make it difficult for doctors to refer their patients to specialists who charge higher raters.

Another measure passed by the Oklahoma Senate is aimed at limiting the amount workers’ compensation lawyers can be paid to represent injured workers.  Critics like Senate Minority Leader Charles Laster argue that the resolution would force injured worker’s to stand alone against the well-funded legal teams representing insurance companies.  Although supporters argue the measure would motivate workers’ compensation lawyers to work harder on behalf of their clients to obtain larger compensation, another possible outcome is reluctance to take cases in the first place.

The Washington State legislature is also pushing major changes in workers’ compensation benefits under the banner of reducing costs to the State.  While Governor Chris Gregoire’s proposal to push workers back into “light duty” while still recovering from injuries and to offer buy-outs to injured workers does not go as far the Oklahoma measures, it does reflect the national trend to push injured workers back into the workplace perhaps before they are ready.  The Seattle Times reports the “idea is to reconnect the worker with his boss, co-workers and paycheck, instead of having him sit at home on state benefit.”  One should note that the Times’ description of a worker sitting “at home” reflects an ugly prejudice in the mass media and by politicians against the plight of the injured worker.  As anyone who has suffered a workplace injury will tell you, recovery is a physically and emotionally exhausting process.

Labor and Industries laws continue to change across the nation.  Injured workers should consult with a Washington Workers Compensation Lawyer to ensure they receive the full protection of the law.

It is well known that the suspect in the shooting, Jared Lee Loughner, suffered from various mental health issues and many sources in the Arizona Mental Health community commented that he might have received help had he sought it.  While this can never be known, his mental illness has prompted several discussions about the many cuts proposed to health care budgets as states tighten their belts across the country.

The flip side of this issue of access to health care is the fact that Representative Gabrielle Giffords was injured while on the job and her closely scrutinized recovery could be the result of Federal workers’ compensation.

According to Rebecca Shafer, President of Amaxx Risks Solutions, “As Congresswoman Giffords and the members of her staff are federal employees, and as they were at an official function for Congresswoman Giffords, she and her staff would be covered for workers compensation by the U.S. Department of Labors Office of Workers Compensation Programs, which administers the Division of Federal Employees Compensation.”  Shafer notes this kind of workers’ compensation is known as FECA – Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.

The next step in Giffords’ recovery will be a lengthy rehabilitation process. On January 21 she was transferred to the Memorial Hermann Medical Center in Houston, Texas and then moved to the Institute for Rehabilitation and Research.   Many experts have assured the public that she is receiving the absolute best care possible for someone with her severe neurological injuries.

The Federal Workers’ Compensation that covers Giffords and her staff is often singled out as a kind of “gold standard” by which other workers’ compensation programs are measured. Still, even Federal workers’ compensation benefits are under greater scrutiny in the current fiscal climate.

Joe Davidson writes in the Washington Post that Senator Susan M. Collins wants “the Government Accountability Office to study the program that provides income to injured federal workers.” Collins argues elderly workers who have no intention of returning to work continue to collect workers’ compensation benefits at taxpayer’s expense.

As Representative Giffords continues to recover under the best medical care available and with the well wishes of the Nation, it seems important to reflect on how her recovery stands in relation to the thousands of other injured workers who struggle to receive the same benefits guaranteed to them under the law.  As states continue to slash entitlement budgets, workers injured in preventable workplace incidents will need to find workers’ compensation attorneys who are abreast of the rapidly changing landscape of workers’ compensation law.  Injured workers should consult a Washington Worker’s Compensation Lawyer at Emery Reddy.

In a conference announcing the proposed penalties, Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis stated that “Accurate workplace injury and illness records are vital tools for identifying hazards and protecting workers’ health and safety. Workers and employers need this information to recognize patterns of injuries and illnesses, and prevent future hazards.”

OSHA’s investigation of Goodman Manufacturing began in March 2010 after the agency received a series of complaints that Goodman had violated OSHA’s regulations by systematically failing to properly document workplace injuries and occupational illnesses. The investigation determined that from January 2008 to March 2010, the company had inaccurately recorded—or simply declined to document altogether—nearly 75 percent of employee injuries and illnesses on its premises.

Workers and regulators have commented that Goodman is highly knowledgeable of OSHA’s recordkeeping procedures, but nevertheless persisted in the decisions and actions resulting in the alleged violations.  Critical information pertaining to the degree and duration of its workers’ injuries and illnesses have been inaccurately documented, including the duration of their time off the job.  Such figures are vital to properly handling and treating injured workers in a workers’ compensation claim.

As OSHA’s Assistant Secretary of Labor, Dr. David Michaels explains, “OSHA takes these violations extremely seriously. We need accurate data to effectively target inspections and resources, and to measure the impact of OSHA’s actions on workplace safety. Employers and workers need to understand how important accurate data are to workplace safety and health.”

According to OSHA regulations, the definition of a willful violation is one that is committed with gross indifference to or intentional neglect for a worker’s safety and health.
Goodman Manufacturing was given 15 business days after the citations were issued to comply with OSHA’s protocol and request a consultation with the agency’s Houston director.  Goodman can also contest the citations with the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

OSHA recently implemented a National Emphasis Program on Recordkeeping to evaluate the accuracy of employer documentation of worker injury and illness.

All workers are urged to immediately report accidents, fatalities or dangerous workplace conditions to OSHA’s toll-free hotline at 800-321-6742. 
 Injured workers should also consult a Washington Workers’ Compensation Lawyer at Emery Reddy.

The default rate among self-insured group trusts has produced an alarming level of assessments on small businesses throughout the country. Workers’ compensation boards in states like New York are increasingly deliberating “safety programs” that would lower workers’ compensation costs.

Certain critics—notably the insurance industry itself—have long argued that the injury benefits awarded by state workers’ compensation boards are overinflated, and do not accurately reflect the true costs of a given injury.

While cases of fraud and “presumptions” are significant factors, many claim that the inability of workers’ compensation boards to objectively assess and quantify disability is a much greater problem. For years, many WCBs have not had a working definition of levels of disability or percentage-based schedules of loss. These boards have used arbitrary and every-changing criteria to calculate hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of permanent damages benefits. On top of this there have been the massive cost of trials and testimonies to calculate what WCBs claimed had no definition in the first place.

At the present moment, workers’ compensation boards across the nation are once again involved in debates over the creation and use of more standardized, objective guidelines to evaluate disability. Yet for generations, the workers compensation system has carried on profitably by not having such standards. In short, disputes have been resolved by an arrangement in which worker’s compensation attorneys and insurers must engage in expensive and inefficient disputes until both sides are worn down and settle for a number around 50%, giving the misleading impression of a fair and reasonable outcome.

According to Seattle Workers’ Compensation Attorney Theodore Ronca, this state of affairs has come about through the unique history of workers comp boards.  In New York State, for example, the board has employed a medical advisor since its very first days. The initial advisors established guidelines that were widely accepted and implemented, until they eventually came to be considered obsolete in the 1950s.  After that point, the New York State workers’ compensation board had no working guidelines, and attempts to create new criteria came to a state of deadlock through stubborn opposition on all sides.

The New York Workers’ Compensation Board continued to operate (unofficially) with the older guidelines, and then later with no criteria at all for the next forty years. Responding to pressure in the 1990s, it produced new written guideline for workers’ compensation benefits, but failed to make these binding.  In practice, they were generally ignored when negotiating workers’ compensation claims.

This, of course, raises the question as to whether guidelines would automatically solve anything. As Ronca points out, “unless the guideline can be tested to determine if it can measure what it purports to measure it remains a blank yardstick masquerading as a set of calipers.”  Calculations of workers’ compensation disability, ultimately, result in the final settlements of injury claims, some that currently stand above $200,000 (and rising).  Whether these numbers are too high or too low is a question for which many workers’ compensation boards still have no satisfactory answer.

A federal district court recently ruled in favor of an employee suing several human resources executives after he was allegedly fired for requesting time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  The ruling may set a precedent in which individuals can be held personally liable for damages allowed through FMLA, including financial loss from a denial of benefits, compensation for back pay, lost wages and attorney fees.

The suit was brought against Cardone Industries and five of its senior HR executives by Dmitry Narodetsky, a tool designer who worked for the company for nearly twelve years before his termination.  His case includes a three-count complaint for violation of the Family Medical Leave Act, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Several weeks prior to his termination, Narodetsky was diagnosed with a leg injury requiring surgery.  His wife promptly notified Narodetsky’s managers that her husband would need time off for the upcoming operation, and requested that they provide short-term disability for his medical leave.  Following the conversation, three of the company’s HR executives and another manager conducted a forensic examination of Narodetsky’s work computer, uncovering evidence of a pornographic email he allegedly forwarded to a coworker over a year earlier.  Before scheduling the surgery, Narodetsky was called into a meeting attended by the defendants, shown the email he had allegedly forwarded, and fired.

Narodetsky alleges that his employers conducted the computer search solely to find a pretext for terminating his employment so they could avoid granting him leave. He filed a suit alleging that not only the company, but also the five individual defendants interfered with his rights under FMLA and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Attorneys for the defense argued that none of the individual claims were warranted because Narodetsky’s suit did “little more than simply list each such defendant’s title,” and because it failed to include “any facts showing how each defendant was involved in plaintiff’s alleged request for medical leave or the decision to terminate.”

Yet U.S. District Judge Thomas N. O’Neill of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania refused to dismiss Narodetsky’s claim, noting that it went well beyond the narrow characterization of the defense by alleging that each of the individual defendants “participated in the forensic search of [the plaintiff’s] computer with the goal of finding a reason to justify his termination because he had requested FMLA leave.”  O’Neill also maintained that the executives and manager were properly named as defendants since each possessed the authority to fire and played a role in the decision to terminate Narodetsky. “The allegations support an inference that each of the defendants exercised control over the plaintiff in the decision to terminate him,” O’Neill wrote.  The judge also stated that “Given the timing of his termination–falling right on the heels of his request for medical leave–I find that it is reasonable to infer that the defendants terminated his employment for the purpose of interfering with his plan benefits.”

Both the individual defendants and Cardone Industries, Inc. have declined to comment publicly on the ruling.  The case is now proceeding to adjudication in a new trial. See O’Neill’s full opinion in Narodetsky v. Cardone Industries Inc. (pdf)

Citation: Narodetsky v. Cardone Industries et al., Case #09-4734; February 24, 2010, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Companies that cut costs by misclassifying regular employees as “independent contractors” will face tighter regulations and stricter penalties in 2010. The Obama administration has already begun to crack down on companies that misrepresent worker status, recently hiring one hundred additional enforcement agents to effect compliance with the law. Meanwhile, auditors at the IRS have launched an intensified campaign to determine if over 6,000 major companies are using misclassification as a way to cheat on taxes.

Business experts have shown that a growing number of companies wrongfully classify regular workers as “independent contractors” to avoid paying unemployment insurance premiums and Social Security and Medicare taxes on the wages of their employees. Since taxes are not generally paid on the compensation of independent contractors, employers reduce business costs by improperly applying this designation to individuals who should be regarded as regular employees (some of these “contractors” even have company office space and work the same hours as employees).

In a recent New York Times article, Steven Greenhouse indicated that companies wrongfully classify about 3.4 million workers as contractors; the Department of Labor largely corroborates these figures, and estimates that up to 30% of U.S. companies participate in worker misclassification at some level.

The practice has enormous economic repercussions. In Ohio, for example, close to 100,000 misclassified workers have cost the state an estimated $35 million a year in unemployment insurance taxes, and over $100 million in worker’s compensation premiums. With federal and state governments currently struggling under record deficits, businesses can expect a significant increase in penalties for misclassification in the near future. Steven Greenhouse reports that the attorney general of California is currently seeking $4.3 million from a single construction company accused of misclassifying its workers. When implemented on a comprehensive, nation-wide scale, these measures could yield significant results. According to the Obama administration’s 2010 budget estimates, tightened enforcement could translate into $7 billion in revenue over 10 years.

Yet wrongful classification of workers is not merely a matter of concern for government officials; the practice has implications on a more personal level as well, denying basic employment rights to workers. Employers often misrepresent regular W-2 employees as contractors to circumvent minimum wage, overtime and antidiscrimination laws. If workers are designated as contractors and then laid off, they are ineligible for unemployment insurance. Those who are injured on the job cannot receive workers’ compensation benefits.

Prominent members of the business community have responded to the impending crackdown with alarm. When the IRS or state tax authorities identify instances of wrongfully misclassifying workers, companies often face fines and penalties, and can be liable for back-taxes on the reclassified employee. Most employers maintain that worker misclassification is unintentional, resulting from confusion and ambiguity in the legal distinctions between independent contractors and regular employees.

While current developments demonstrate a growing political will to enforce compliance with the law, cases of misclassifying workers have repeatedly emerged in the national spotlight in recent years. Last year the attorneys general of several states threatened to sue FedEx Ground for wrongfully classifying its drivers.  According to allegations by the Teamsters, FedEx has used misclassification to prevent drivers from unionizing (since independent contractors, unlike traditional employees, cannot form unions).

Yet perhaps the most prominent case of misclassification surfaced in 2007, when the private security firm Blackwater USA came under investigation for evading payment of millions of dollars in taxes by classifying workers in Iraq as “independent contractors.” Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, accused Blackwater of engaging in an “illegal tax scheme” that allowed it to avoid an estimated $31 million in employment-related taxes in the last year of its contract alone. The company also attempted to prevent one of its guards from contacting members of Congress after the worker discovered this illegal practice. In a letter to Blackwater’s CEO, Waxman wrote that “it is deplorable that a company that depends on federal tax dollars for over 90 percent of its business would even contemplate forbidding an employee to report corporate wrongdoing to Congress and federal law enforcement officials.” Despite the fact that it routinely misclassifies workers as contractors, Blackwater has been awarded more than $1 billion in government contracts since 2001.

According to guidelines established by the IRS, an employee is defined as anyone who works for an employer when that employer controls what will be done on the job and how those services will be performed. Independent contractors, on the other hand, are defined in a such as way that the payer or employer can only control the result of the work performed, but not the means of accomplishing that result. This distinction is codified in revenue ruling 87-41 (generally referred to as “the twenty factor test”). For a more extensive discussion on properly classifying employees and contractors, see the official guidelines as detailed on the IRS website.