The News You Need for Dec. 16
Risky business and COVID-related questions.
Unfair Treatment of Workers in High-Risk Industries: Addressing Systemic Issues and Creating Solutions
High-risk industries like agriculture and non-traditional workplaces significantly challenge workers' safety, rights, and well-being. Workers in these sectors often face inequitable treatment, unsafe conditions, and a lack of access to adequate protections, including workers' compensation. These issues highlight systemic flaws that harm workers and affect organizational productivity, industry sustainability, and community well-being. Despite the foundational intent of workers' compensation systems to protect injured workers, gaps in coverage, enforcement, and employer practices leave many vulnerable. Addressing these challenges requires systemic change, a commitment to education, and a cultural shift toward fairness and empathy. Empathy in leadership is a powerful tool that can significantly improve outcomes.
Gaps in Workers’ Compensation Protections
One of the most significant issues in high-risk industries is the lack of universal access to workers' compensation coverage. Family farms, for example, are often exempt from workers' compensation requirements in many states. While these exemptions are designed to support small businesses, they inadvertently exclude hired laborers, particularly seasonal or migrant workers, from protections in the event of workplace injuries. Without coverage, these workers face financial ruin, as they are left to shoulder the burden of medical costs and lost income. This lack of access endangers individual workers and creates disparities that undermine the integrity of the broader workers' compensation system.
Similarly, workers in unconventional workplaces, such as caves used for storage, tourism, or research, face unique risks that existing regulatory frameworks often need to address. The environment poses challenges like limited ventilation, unstable structures, and difficult emergency access. These risks demand specialized safety protocols, training, and equipment that employees sometimes always prioritize. Cost-cutting measures often precede safety investments, leaving workers vulnerable to avoidable hazards. This gap between workplace risks and safety measures highlights the urgent need for reforms tailored to unconventional environments.
The Human and Economic Costs of Unsafe Work Environments
The consequences of unfair treatment in high-risk industries extend far beyond physical injuries. Workers frequently experience psychological and emotional stress that compounds the physical toll of their jobs. Fear of retaliation for reporting injuries or unsafe conditions discourages workers from speaking up, perpetuating a cycle of silence and inaction. Delayed reporting of injuries often leads to worsened conditions for the worker and higher costs for the employer, creating a lose-lose scenario. This toxic culture undermines worker trust, contributing to lower morale, decreased productivity, and high turnover rates. From an economic perspective, the ripple effects are significant. Employers face increased workers' compensation premiums and litigation costs when injuries are mishandled or ignored. The productivity losses from unaddressed injuries and poor morale can impact the company's bottom line. Reputational damage from perceived neglect of workers' welfare can harm an employer's ability to attract talent and maintain client relationships. For workers, the financial burden of medical expenses and lost wages often extends to their families, creating long-term economic instability. The cumulative effect of these human and economic costs underscores the need for proactive solutions.
Systemic Issues in High-Risk Industries
Several systemic issues contribute to the ongoing inequities faced by workers in high-risk industries. These challenges stem from regulatory gaps, employer practices, and cultural norms prioritizing cost-saving measures over worker welfare. Addressing these issues requires a comprehensive understanding of the structural barriers perpetuating unfair treatment.
Regulatory exemptions for family farms and small businesses are intended to ease the burden on employers but often leave workers unprotected. In many states, family farms with fewer than a specified number of employees are not required to provide workers' compensation coverage. As a result, laborers in one of the most dangerous industries often lack access to basic protections. These exemptions create a two-tiered system where some workers are covered while others are left to fend for themselves. This disparity undermines the fairness principle central to workers' compensation laws.
Many workers in high-risk industries hesitate to report injuries or unsafe conditions due to fear of retaliation. Migrant and undocumented workers are particularly vulnerable, as they risk job loss or deportation for speaking up. This fear creates a culture of silence that allows unsafe practices to persist. Workers who do report injuries may face social stigma, ostracization, or punitive actions from employers. Over time, this systemic fear erodes trust and further entrenches inequities.
Employers in high-risk industries often underinvest in safety measures to cut costs. However, it's important to note that investing in safety can lead to long-term cost savings. This underinvestment includes providing outdated or inadequate equipment, skipping safety training, or neglecting to implement comprehensive risk management plans. These lapses can have catastrophic consequences in unconventional workplaces, such as caves or mines. Workers in these environments need the proper tools and knowledge to navigate their jobs safely. This cost-saving mentality ultimately results in higher expenses from injuries, claims, and lawsuits.
Many workers need to know their rights and access to resources to help them navigate the system. Grassroots organizations and unions are vital in bridging this gap, but their reach is often limited. With strong advocacy, workers can face systemic barriers. This lack of awareness perpetuates cycles of exploitation, as workers are unable to advocate for themselves effectively. Increasing education and resources for workers is essential for long-term change.
Strategies for Addressing Unfair Treatment
Tackling unfair treatment of workers in high-risk industries requires a multi-pronged approach incorporating policy reform, education, and cultural shifts. By addressing the root causes of inequities, stakeholders, including policymakers, can create safer, more equitable workplaces.
Policy Reforms: Closing regulatory gaps is essential to ensure workers in all industries have access to workers' compensation protections. States should evaluate and eliminate exemptions for small farms or establish alternative systems to provide basic coverage for all workers. Enforcement mechanisms for workplace safety standards must also be strengthened, with increased penalties for noncompliance. These changes would create a more equitable baseline for worker protection. Over time, consistent enforcement can improve workplace safety and reduce injury costs.
Worker Education and Advocacy: Education is a powerful tool for empowering workers and ensuring they can advocate for themselves. Accessible resources on workplace rights, safety standards, and reporting mechanisms are essential for creating informed workers. Partnering with community organizations and unions can amplify these efforts and extend their reach to marginalized groups. Advocacy groups should prioritize outreach to vulnerable populations, such as migrant and undocumented workers. By creating a culture of awareness, industries can improve compliance and worker satisfaction. Labor advocates and academics can play a significant role in this educational component.
Employer Accountability: Employers must be accountable for creating and maintaining safe workplaces. Stricter penalties for noncompliance with safety regulations can serve as a deterrent for neglectful practices. Transparent processes for workers' compensation claims and injury reporting are essential for building trust. Employers should also be encouraged to implement proactive safety measures, such as regular training and risk assessments—this shift toward accountability benefits workers and organizations by reducing injuries and associated costs.
Cultural Shifts Toward Empathy: Empathy in leadership is increasingly recognized as a cornerstone of effective workplace culture—employers who prioritize the well-being of their workers foster environments of trust and collaboration. Practical steps include implementing comprehensive safety training, providing clear communication during the claims process, and treating injured workers with dignity. Creating a culture of empathy reduces the stigma around injury reporting and improves morale. Long-term, empathetic leadership leads to stronger organizations and healthier, more resilient workforces.
The Role of Behavioral Science in Improving Outcomes
Behavioral science offers critical insights into improving workers' compensation outcomes and fostering safer workplaces. Addressing workers' psychological and emotional needs is key to creating lasting change. Injured workers benefit from clear communication, timely follow-ups, and support throughout the claims process. These practices reduce stress and improve overall satisfaction with the system. Employers who integrate behavioral science principles into their practices also see lower turnover rates and increased productivity. Organizations can drive meaningful change by focusing on the human element of workers' compensation.
Cultivating Awareness
The unfair treatment of workers in high-risk industries is a systemic issue that demands coordinated action. Industries can create safer and more equitable workplaces by addressing gaps in workers' compensation protections, empowering workers through education, and fostering a culture of empathy. These changes not only improve outcomes for workers but also strengthen organizations and communities. Workers' compensation is about restoring people's livelihoods, the ultimate form of caring for people.
Could Mental Health Worker get Benefits for A-fib by Linking it to COVID-19?
Chris Parker
What Do You Think?
Booneville, AK (WorkersCompensation.com) – In Arkansas, medical conditions that are a natural consequence of a compensable workplace injury may entitle an employee to additional benefits. As one case illustrates, when defending against such cases, the best time to present medical expert testimony and other medical evidence is generally during the worker’s compensation commission’s review of the case.
As a case involving an employee who contracted COVID-19 at work, and later developed atrial fibrillation, by the time an employer appeals a decision in court, it may be too late, even when it's questionable whether the primary injury and new medical condition are really related.
The employee, who worked in a youth mental health facility was obese and had a family history of heart disease when he contracted COVID-19. He spent months in the hospital, including intensive care, having contracted a particularly severe case.
After several weeks in a rehabilitation facility, he went home and began to experience symptoms of atrial fibrillation. He received workers’ compensation benefits for COVID-19.
The workers’ compensation commission then awarded him benefits for the A-fib. In doing so, it relied on a report of one doctor and testimony of a second doctor who noted that the employee had suffered a very severe case of COVID-19 followed by a deterioration of his general health, and that he had been diagnosed with A-fib. It also relied on the employee’s statement that he had not suffered A-fib prior to having COVID.
A third doctor, a cardiologist, indicated that he could not state with certainty whether the employee’s COVID caused his A-fib.
The employer appealed, arguing that the commission made the wrong decision because it interpreted the medical records improperly.
The court explained that when the primary injury is shown to have arisen out of and in the course of employment, the employer is responsible for any natural consequence that flows from that injury. The test is whether there is a causal connection between the injury and the consequences of the injury.
Was the employee’s atrial fibrillation compensable?
A. Yes. The commission determined that the medical evidence and the employee’s testimony were sufficient to show the A-fib was caused by COVID-19.
B. No. Neither of the doctors explicitly stated that the two conditions were causally connected.
If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Booneville Human Dev. Ctr. v. Foster., No. CV-23-750 (Ark. Ct. App. 12/07/24), which declined to overturn the commission’s decision.
First, the court rejected the employer’s argument that the employee had to show COVID was a “major cause” of his heart issue. That requirement, the court noted, applies to cardiovascular accidents, and was not relevant in this case.
The employer, the court stated, essentially argued that the commission, on reviewing the medical records and testimony, drew the wrong conclusion because that information never explicitly linked the employee’s COVID to his A-fib. Instead, the doctors merely listed the diagnosis and indicated that the employee had severe COVID followed by a deterioration of his health. The commission also overlooked the employee’s obesity and family history of heart disease, which could have caused his A-fib, according to the employer.
The court emphasized that the commission has authority to weigh medical evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses.
“Here, the Commission relied on [the employee’s] testimony that he had not been diagnosed with atrial fibrillation before his COVID-19 illness along with the medical records showing that [the employee] had a complicated course of COVID-19 that resulted in a deterioration of his health and included a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation,” the court wrote.
The court noted that the issue was not whether it would reach the same decision as the commission but whether reasonable minds could reach the same result.
Substantial evidence supported the commission’s ruling that A-fib was a natural consequence of the employee’s COVID-19.
The court affirmed the commission's finding that the A-fib was compensable.