Ryan Ginstrom wrote:
> "Brett Robson" <jet_boy@deja.com> wrote in message
> news:bru3ih010h4@drn.newsguy.com...

>>It's not insurance companies this time. Over the last 5 years there has
> 
> been a
> 
>>lot of actions that most people would regard as inapproriate.
> 
> OK, so a couple cases have made the media. And I am sure the insurance
> companies were very glad to see them there.

Aye, as Brett has pointed out there were some inappropriate cases.
Compared to the cases that made the meeja though, the main problem has
been a steady and exponentially increasing cost for employer's in terms
of insurance - to the point where it has become a serious disincentive
to invest. Considering that Sydney basically competes with Singapore,
Hong Kong and Tokyo for inbound investment, it needed to be addressed.

> And as a result, everybody is dependent on the honest and good will of their
> insurance companies?

If it was the US (assuming the situation is the same/similar in
each/every US state) then yes there would be fair cause for worry. In
NSW though, just as there is "socialised medicine" (a federal issue),
there is socialised industrial relations, worker's compensation etc.
Instead of being dependent of the insurance companies, its a dependence
on the publicly owned WorkCover Authority (the inspectors hired by the
WA are considered unusually stringent, as are its auditors) and the role
of the NSW Ombudsman.



-- 
"Originality usually amounts only to plagiarising something unfamiliar"
- Katharine Fullerton Gerould