4 ms·

Yes, sort of. When someone gets workers comp, they get a reduced salary.. and that injury may also reduce their ability to work in the future. So by reducing i

Yes, sort of. When someone gets workers comp, they get a reduced salary.. and that injury may also reduce their ability to work in the future. So by reducing injuries, those employees receive higher pay (because they get their normal salary instead of the lesser workers comp pay), and they are able to work more years.

mcgarnagle 9y ago
So in other words, no. No to the direct question asked, however, you do have some good points.
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  > they are able to work more years It's clever actually, taking attention from the question which was (total pay / time worked) to (pay rate * time worked). Most wouldn't notice, I'm sure, and it makes things look favourable - especially since your question was about the average worker, not the injured worker, i.e. the exceptional one.
muninet 9y ago
That’s fucked up: “You weren’t completely maimed, so you get to make your regular crap wage instead of making even less while also rotting in a wheel chair.” Like, are you joking or do you really think that “not being disabled” counts as an increase in pay? It is Ford’s job to make sure no one gets hurt. Period. That it happens less is not some kind of reward or pay bump.
- nradov 9y ago
  Ford assembly workers don't make crap wages.
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  but they do get injured. And these workers are at quite a risk of being injured, which will reduce their pay and shorten their working life.. reducing their lifetime earnings. That's the reality of working in manufacturing today. To pretend otherwise is a fantasy. So a device that reduces injuries, will enable them to work more years, and increase their lifetime earnings.
- imtringued 9y ago
  The regular wages being too low high are a completely different topic. If you think they are too low then just get a different job. If you think the wage is fair then you will appreciate the lower fatigue and reduced risk of injuries. The risk is already priced in the insurance so by reducing risk you effectively increase the income spent on insurance.
  - muninet 9y ago
    Yeah, why don’t poor people just stop being poor too?
FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
That is not higher pay, which is generally considered a rate($X/hrs workes). They are simply working more in your scenario
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  It is higher pay to any worker that would have been injured without it. Once they reach that point in time when an injury would have occurred, they are then receiving more pay than they would have if the injury occurred. We shouldn't stop the comparison of pay at the moment a person is injured. These are people, they don't stop existing the moment they aren't useful to a company. And an injury does effectively reduce their pay by preventing them from working, or forcing them to change careers. This is a safety device, and no productivity improvements have been shown yet. So you wouldn't expect an outright increase in hourly wages. But an increase in working years without injury is a benefit to workers, and does increase their lifetime earnings.

mcgarnagle 9y ago

So in other words, no. No to the direct question asked, however, you do have some good points.

justinjlynn 9y ago
> they are able to work more years It's clever actually, taking attention from the question which was (total pay / time worked) to (pay rate * time worked). Most wouldn't notice, I'm sure, and it makes things look favourable - especially since your question was about the average worker, not the injured worker, i.e. the exceptional one.

muninet 9y ago

That’s fucked up: “You weren’t completely maimed, so you get to make your regular crap wage instead of making even less while also rotting in a wheel chair.” Like, are you joking or do you really think that “not being disabled” counts as an increase in pay? It is Ford’s job to make sure no one gets hurt. Period. That it happens less is not some kind of reward or pay bump.

nradov 9y ago
Ford assembly workers don't make crap wages.
rgbrenner 9y ago
but they do get injured. And these workers are at quite a risk of being injured, which will reduce their pay and shorten their working life.. reducing their lifetime earnings. That's the reality of working in manufacturing today. To pretend otherwise is a fantasy. So a device that reduces injuries, will enable them to work more years, and increase their lifetime earnings.
imtringued 9y ago
The regular wages being too low high are a completely different topic. If you think they are too low then just get a different job. If you think the wage is fair then you will appreciate the lower fatigue and reduced risk of injuries. The risk is already priced in the insurance so by reducing risk you effectively increase the income spent on insurance.
- muninet 9y ago
  Yeah, why don’t poor people just stop being poor too?

FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago

That is not higher pay, which is generally considered a rate($X/hrs workes). They are simply working more in your scenario

rgbrenner 9y ago
It is higher pay to any worker that would have been injured without it. Once they reach that point in time when an injury would have occurred, they are then receiving more pay than they would have if the injury occurred. We shouldn't stop the comparison of pay at the moment a person is injured. These are people, they don't stop existing the moment they aren't useful to a company. And an injury does effectively reduce their pay by preventing them from working, or forcing them to change careers. This is a safety device, and no productivity improvements have been shown yet. So you wouldn't expect an outright increase in hourly wages. But an increase in working years without injury is a benefit to workers, and does increase their lifetime earnings.