Have a "bad apple" among your employees? Hope that things will improve on their own? Waiting to see if your performance management efforts will lead to the results you want? Feel sorry for the individual, who may have a difficult personal life? Too busy to terminate them? Nervous about the reaction of your other employees? 

There may be several reasons why you are procrastinating, but ever wonder what keeping that "bad apple" in your organization is costing your organization? Here are some of the implications of not firing when you really should.

• Keeping the wrong people “on the bus:” In his book "Good to Great," author Jim Collins famously stated that that building a company is like driving a bus. You need a driver, but you also need the right people in all the key seats. Keeping employees that do not bring value to your organization both diminishes your company's ability to succeed and costs you the benefits the right person would bring. Writer David DeWolfe expands check the link on this metaphor by stating that just because someone was the right fit at the last stop doesn’t mean they are the right fit for the next stop. Companies outgrow employees. Employees outgrow companies. Learn to recognize when that is happening within your organization.

• Negative influence: A bad apple's negative influence on peers cannot be underestimated. Allowing someone to turn formerly effective team members into "problem children" is a real possibility. You can quickly move from one person with an attendance or performance issue to an entire department displaying that behaviour.

• Lost productivity: Achieving your company's objectives will be increasingly difficult if you do not have team members dedicated to achieving them or not possessing the skill sets your business needs. As well, if management's time must continually be focused on performance issues, they will almost certainly be unable to focus on growth and new opportunities. David DeWolfe encourages managers to measure production versus aggravation. A business owner may be willing to live with a certain level of "drama" from a high performer, although there are limits to this if the high performer serves as a distraction for the rest of your employees. Of course, lower performers with a high level of "drama" should be removed immediately.

• Damage to customer relationships and your business reputation: Having sub-par employees interacting with your clients can be incredibly dangerous to your ongoing success. You may be lucky enough to receive the "gift" in the form of a complaint or feedback from a customer, as discussed in Janelle Barlow's book, A Complaint is a Gift. and once you become aware of the situation, you can make quick adjustments. However, many clients who are disappointed in the service they are receiving or in the fact that you have assigned such a poor employee to their account may leave you without warning (and perhaps without the opportunity to win them back).

• Risk of loss of a key employee frustrated by performance of colleagues: We all know that not all employees are created equal. Some employees have a higher skill level and you must take specific steps to retain them as long as possible. However, if those high-functioning and high performing employees become frustrated by their lower functioning peers, they may decide to leave the company for greener pastures - and take the value they bring with them. Think about who you'll be left with then.

Next steps:

Removing "bad apples" from your organization certainly has its benefits. But knowing you have an issue and actually going through the steps to revolve the problem including potential termination, are two entirely different things. 

Want to learn valuable tips and best practices? Join Clear Path for our "Hiring and Firing Effectively" learning session on September 25th. Click here to learn more or to register.

Related posts you may enjoy:

• Checklist When Terminating an Employee
• Big Brother Contestants - Rightfully Terminated?
  
• Number of Arrests in the NFL - Too Many Bad Apples?

This week marks the 15th anniversary of cyclist Lance Armstrong's first of seven consecutive Tour de France titles (July 25, 1999). As most people know, he was stripped of all his titles and banned from the sport in 2012 for his involvement in a doping scandal.

So what can a hiring manager learn from this unfortunate story? Lots, actually.

I'm sure that the cycling world wishes it had done some more due diligence in checking out the validity of Armstrong's claims and not simply taken his word for it, regardless of how impressive his resume or how convincing his arguments.

Steven D. Levitt, the coauthor of Freakonomics and an economics professor at the University of Chicago, cites research suggesting that more than 50% of job applicants lie on their resumes. Cover letters are notorious for embellishment and exaggeration.

Seven tips to avoid making a bad hire:

​1. Understand the most common resume misrepresentations (and be prepared to challenge them) during an interview:

• Stretching dates to cover any potential gaps in employment history (go through the resume thoroughly and ask specific questions around dates in the interview)
• Enhancing job titles, level of authority or their salary (these can be confirmed during reference checks)
• Embellishing job duties and achievements (ask behavioural questions to clarify what they actually did and which successes were individual or part of a larger team)
• Inventing past employers (a quick Google search is good idea)
• Listing falsified or non-existent degrees or certifications (you may request proof of the certifications)

2. Always, always, always perform reference checks for every hire:

• Use a consistent list of questions for each person
• Speak with at least 3 references (possibly include others than those listed in the candidates references, such as former direct supervisors, for more objective feedback)
• Listen for subtle cues such as a hesitancy to speak about the employee's performance, as some employers are cautious about being sued if they say anything negative (they may even limit their reference to confirming that the individual was in their employ during the period in question)
• If you are uncomfortable doing reference checks or do not have the time, outsource this to a 3rd party but don't skip this step!

3. Make good interviewing choices:

• Use a consistent set of questions, customized to the position
• "Dig in" for more specific details, don't allow vague answers
• Ensure that you are not persuaded by a likeable personality or your own bias (they went to my alma mater, therefore they must be good)
• Conduct at least 2 interviews with anyone you intend to hire (Ideally have them meet with more than one individual in your company. This can be an opportunity to dig deeper into any areas of concern or get a more indepth understanding of the person's qualifications.)

4. Ask the candidate to participate in a mock work requirement simulation or test them for proficiency in required skills:

• If the position requires a high aptitude with technology or a software like Microsoft Excel, ask them to perform some tasks on a computer in your office or utilize a third party skills testing service
• Ask them to write a short blog or marketing message on a topic of your choice (either to check out their writing ability or their industry knowledge)
• Request that they prepare a "case study" based on a real world example from your business and present their results to select members of your team
• Ask for writing samples or other work examples

5. Create a "Zero Tolerance" policy for lying or exaggerating on your credentials:

• Provide each candidate with a form to sign stating that everything they have stated is accurate
• If you find the candidate has lied or exaggerated credentials in any way, remove them from the list of potential candidates
• If you discover a current employee committed any type of fraud during the hiring process, investigate, and then terminate the person’s employment 

6. Perform an internet search on the candidate:

• Perform a Google search on your candidate, including details from their resume (such as schools attended or companies worked for). You may also include social media tools such as LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook
• If you come across content that concerns you, give them the chance to address it during an interview

7. Weed out some potential "bad apples" by creating obstacles to overcome during the hiring process:

• If may seem counterintuititve to get few candidates for a position, but it is better to concentrate on a smaller group of people who are serious about working for you than a larger one that includes people may not ultimately be a good fit
• Rather than simply submitting a resume or an online application, require your applicants to take an additional step such as leaving a phone message and answering three simple questions or to come in and participate in a group interview. You would be amazed how many people will de-select themselves from the process.

Bottom Line

Hiring the right person for the position and your company is incredibly important. Using these steps can increase the likelihood of making a good choice.

Would you like to learn more best practices for hiring employees? Attend our workshop "Hiring and Firing Effectively" on September 25th in Cambridge, ON. Click here to learn more.

If you have any immediate questions, contact Anna at anna@clearpathemployer.com or call (519) 624-0800.

Related posts:

• Five Mistakes Interviewers Make
• How I Hire: LinkedIn Thought Leaders

Terminating an employee is never a fun experience for anyone involved, the person being let go or the person delivering the news. However, a well-executed, carefully planned termination can avoid any serious disturbance in your workplace. In contrast, a poorly executed, "shoot from the hip" approach can lead to bigger problems for your organization.

The HR consultants at Clear Path Employer Services have created this handy checklist for you or your managers to follow when preparing to terminate an employee. This blog does not get into whether or not a particular case should be terminated "for cause" or "not for cause," but rather gives general steps to ensure that when you decide the timing is right for a termination you have a step by step checklist to follow:

Avoid drama and future lawsuits:

• Have a witness in the room with you -  Another person in the room will be able to verify exactly what was said and may defuse a potentially hostile situation.
• Keep your meeting and comments brief and to the point - Ensure that none of your actions or comments could be construed as embarrassing or humiliating to the person being terminated. 
• Arrange for a different time (after work or weekend) for the employee to collect personal items rather than going to empty their desk immediately. If you do allow them to return to their workspace to collect car keys, a phone or a purse, encourage them not to speak to other employees. 
• Assess the risk of a potential hostile situation and arrange and arrange for security measures accordingly, as per Ontario's Bill 168 legislation. Ensure that the person managing the termination is not alone with the terminated employee or never left in a vulnerable situation.
• Escort the terminated employee to their vehicle and out of your building – any encounters with other employees can be very awkward and difficult for both parties, ensure that someone is with that employee to avoid these types of situations

How to handle the conversation in considerate manner:

• Say as little as possible during the termination. This may be difficult, as you may feel the need to respond or explain your decision, especially when someone is upset, asking questions or making accusations.
• Follow a prepared script, be calm and respectful at all times. In the case of a "not for cause" termination, do NOT discuss performance issues (even if these are factors that led to the decision to terminate). 
• Ensure that the conversation is held in a private meeting room, preferably in an area where chance encounters with other employees are minimized. Meeting them off site can be a viable option.
• Consider arranging transportation home, preferably a taxi service, if the employee is so upset that safe driving comes into question.
• Plan the meeting on a work day between Monday and Thursday so employee can seek advice regarding employment insurance benefits, legal counsel, or counselling immediately. It is also recommended to have the meeting at the beginning of the work day so there is not an impression that you wanted to "squeeze" more working hours out of them before severing the relationship. You will be paying them for the entire day regardless.

Practical tips:

• Consider protecting your intellectual property and immediately removing access to your company's online systems and email. It is recommended that they not be given access to their computer, to minimize any inadvertent loss of important client or work information.
• Don't forget to get keys, ID badges, and passcodes from the terminated employee.
• Generally, do not allow terminated employees to “work their notice” as this may become very awkward and an opportunity for the terminated individual to air their differences with existing staff.

Termination agreement:

• Have a written termination agreement prepared by legal counsel and/or HR professional that details payouts to the employee (notice period, severance, benefits, etc.) and includes reminders about restrictive covenants or other agreements you want them to honour after the termination (such as non-compete clause)
• Allow for sufficient “consideration” of termination agreement. It’s not recommended to request the terminated employee to “sign on the spot.”  Encourage them to seek independent legal advice prior to signing any agreements.
• As for the amount of payouts to the employee, consider both ESA (Employment Standards Act) requirements, common law standards and possibly precedents set from previous packages to other former employees.
• Obtain a full and final release if payments exceed contracted termination payouts or employment standard minimums or require signing a non-compete agreement and to avoid lengthy negotiations.

Want to learn more? Clear Path is offering an informative learning session on "Hiring and Firing Effectively" on September 25th in Cambridge. Click here to learn more or to register.

If you require immediate assistance with any HR issue, please contact Anna Aceto-Guerin at 519-624-0800 or by email at anna@clearpathemployer.com.

Related posts:

• What Not to Do When Downsizing (3/20/13)
• Big Brother Contestants Rightfully Terminated? (7/22/13)

The process of interviewing candidates for a position in your company is one that few truly enjoy. It can be stressful and awkward for everyone involved. With the potential risk of breaching recent AODA legislation or Human Rights legislation, hiring managers may make errors unknowingly that could create bigger headaches for their company down the road.

Here is a list of five mistakes to avoid when interviewing:

1. Avoid questions that could lead to a Human Rights complaint. Sometimes questions you deem innocuous can be loaded for the interviewee. Do not ask questions such as "What nationality is your last name?” or "How many children do you have?" Asking if they are available to work on Sundays can be problematic (this may be interpreted as a question about someone's religious beliefs since many faiths have church services on Sundays). If this is a requirement of the position, it should be explicitly stated in the job posting. By doing so, you are free to ask about working on that day.
2. Do not ask for the candidates Social Insurance Number (SIN) or driver's license. You are not entitled to have this information without a job offer. If having a valid driver's license is a bona fide job requirement, you may make the job offer conditional of possessing one.
3. Don't project your own biases onto the candidate. Remember that bias runs both ways. You may irrationally dislike a candidate or be more vigorous in your questioning if they remind you of someone you did not like or have pre-formed opinions about someone from a particular school, city, company, social status, or ethnic background. On the other hand, you may unconsciously prefer or take it easy on someone for the same reasons - regardless of their actual qualifications. Be consistent with your questions, always ask for further details when given unclear answers, and have more than one person involved in the interviewing process.
4. Don't make any quick agreements or promises around benefits, compensation, future vacation days, or other entitlements. A comment you make during the interview, such as "We could revisit your salary after six months" or "We could probably increase those vacation days in the future" might be forgotten by you, but will not be forgotten by the candidate and they will expect you to act upon those "promises."
5. Don't forget to keep records of your interviews, use a standard interview “guide” or list of questions that you can refer to later. With new AODA legislation, it has become more critical to ensuring that you are hiring the candidate based on legitimate criteria and with a unprejudiced process.  Should someone come back to you indicating you did not hire due to a potential disability or accommodation that was requested you need to be able to support your hiring decision was based on objective criteria.

Have a question or want to share your tips for hiring effectively? Please share them in the Comments below.

Need some help with implementing hiring best practices in your organization? Clear Path is hosting a learning session on "Hiring and Firing Effectively" on September 25th. Click here to learn more or to register.

Related blog posts:

• Hiring Lessons from Lance Armstrong
• How I Hire Insights from Thought Leaders in LinkedIn
• Google's Diversity Crisis
• What Hiring Managers Can Learn From Selection of the New Pope

Canada's aggressive new Anti-Spam legislation came into effect on July 1, 2014. A key component of the legislation is that the sender must receive consent (approval) in order to send someone a "Commercial Electronic Message." A CEM is defined as "any electronic message that encourages participation in a commercial activity, regardless of whether there is an expectation for profit."

This blog is not a comprehensive review of the legislation or a list of everything your organization needs to do to comply. Instead, we will focus on the "people" aspects that impact HR professionals and business managers.

Build awareness among your team members:

• Get all team members to include an "Unsubscribe" option at the bottom of each email message. Many companies are already putting security and privacy disclaimers at the bottom of each email already. Best practice would be to include a link to your website where people can opt-out or explicitly opt-in and your webmaster can track it.
• Employers are expected to keep track of consents and withdrawn consents, which can be tricky since an "opt out" request could come into anyone in the organization. Establishing a centralized location for this data is critical, as is training all employees on what to do with such a request.
• Update your company's employee policies and procedures with respect to CASL and ensure that are employees are aware of the changes. Consistently discipline team members who are in breach of these policies and procedures.
• Your organization should provide CASL training for all employees (even those who do not typically send CEM messages) and it as part of your ongoing new employee orientation program.
• Audit all the communications that go out from your organization and treat ongoing CASL compliance as an ongoing project for the entire business (with a designated project manager).

Some of the exceptions to the need for explicit consent:

• Internal messages between employees, provided that they relate to the activities of the organization
• Any communications with a former employee, such as sending information related to benefits, payouts, Records of Employment, etc.
• Communication that represents the completion of a transaction (including sending an invoice for services provided)
• Existing business relationship (employees may continue to send emails to clients)
• Existing non-business relationship and CEMs have been sent previously
• Personal relationship exists
• Any communications related to warranty information, product recalls and safety/security information

Real world example: 

• An employee sends out a company-wide email informing everyone that Girl Guide cookies are available for sale in your lobby. This is a CEM, but is it exempt? 
• It depends. If everyone in the office is known personally by the sender (as in a small business), then it would be exempt. But for large organizations with thousands of employees, this would not be exempt and the sender might get in some hot water.

What about Social Media posts? 

• Posting on your LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook pages is not considered a CEM, especially since people have to agree to "like you" or "follow you" to see those messages. 
• However, if you send someone an unsolicited message via direct message, this could be considered a CEM and subject to the legislation. This is particularly relevant for users of LinkedIn's premium services that allow you to send "InMail" messages.

What about recruiting new employees?

• There does seem to a potential issue in sending unsolicited emails to prospective employees. Finding ways to gain consent will be a necessity.
• Outsourcing this function to a 3rd party "headhunter" firm will not absolve your company of liabililty.
• "Vicarious liability" means that if an external company doing business on your behalf is not compliant, both your company and the offender will be held liable.
• Ask for proof of CASL compliance from any external recruitment firm you utilize.

Want to learn more about establishing employee policies and procedures?

You should attend Clear Path's upcoming "Setting the Rules of the Game: Creating an Effective Employee Policy Book" session. It is being held on November 6th and will cover a wide variety of topics, including CASL Compliance policies. Click here to learn more or to register.

Q:  In his editorial titled “Ontario’s worker compensation system is under attack,”  former WSIB chair Odoardo Di Santo stated that claim denials have increased 50% and benefit payments have been reduced by $631 million. The WSIB responded in a piece titled "Support for Ontario's injured workers is stronger than ever," declaring that the decrease is due to fewer workplace accidents and more effective Return-To-Work (RTW) strategies. What is your perspective?

A: Clear Path has noticed a modest increase in initial entitlement denials over the past five years, but not a 50% increase. We have definitely noticed the WSIB's focus on RTW, which it has been aggressively promoting since the change from the former Labour Market Re-Entry (LMR) program to the current Work Reintegration (WR) program. If long-term wage benefits are down, perhaps it is due to the fact that the entire point of the WR program is to return workers to employment and to avoid long-term claims.

Q: Mr. Di Santo suggests that the primary focus of the WSIB these days is cost containment and working to reduce its unfunded liability. He says this is being done by reducing benefits to injured workers without enough focus on the "revenue side" and believes employers should be paying more into the system. What are your thoughts?

A: We take issue with Mr. Di Santo's claim that the WSIB has not been focused on increasing revenue from employers over the past five years. Here are some specific things that employers have had to manage:

1. Premium rates have steadily increased for employers (some industries are hit much higher than others)
2. WSIB has significantly decreased the NEER Expected Cost factors for employers. Once you lower the expected cost, your rebate gets smaller and this also dramatically increases the chance you will hit a surcharge faster. Expected costs drive both sides of this calculation.
3. Move to a 4 year NEER window (from a 3 year) with little to know actual warning of implementation, essentially increasing their liability by 33%
4. Reserve factor tables are changing regularly now over the review year, which rarely happened in the past. This essentially changes the "multiplier" being used to determine the reserves and calculate future claim costs. Typically we saw Reserve factor tables lock in after the preliminary table was issued.  Now we have seen changes as late as August in the review year for claims that are 4 years old. This increases costs and the employer has no way to impact those costs so late in the game.
5. Approvals for SIEF cost relief are now becoming a rarity, we estimate approvals are given less than 50% as often as in the past. The program provides cost relief for employers who have employed a worker with a previous disability or pre-existing condition. It reduces the amount the employer is financially responsible for but does not decrease the benefits to the worker. It may have been given out too generously in the past as a way of "pacifying" employers, but now it is increasingly difficult to acquire.
6. Penalties for not meeting re-employment obligations and for non-cooperation with RTW have jumped significantly. If an employer was able to accommodate an injured worker for a while, but is no longer able to do so, they will be threatened with a penalty.

Q: Can you help us understand a bit more about this proposed policy?

A: The draft policy regarding pre-existing conditions seems very similar to the Aggravation Basis policy. Under the Aggravation policy, If an incident has aggravated a worker’s pre-existing condition, then the period of disability would be contained to the ACUTE period. If the recovery goes beyond the acute period, the WSIB would attempt to determine when the "normal" healing time for work related impairment typically have ended and then how much is attributable to the pre-existing condition. 

This draft policy states that "If the pre-existing condition is degenerative in nature and is impacting the worker’s ongoing level of impairment, then WSIB benefits continue until clinical evidence is presented that the worker is at the point he/she would have been if the workplace injury had not occurred." 

By identifying that a pre-existing condition may affect recovery the WSIB is essentially putting a marker in the sand, and then trying to determine the effect of that pre-existing condition or impairment on the recovery period. How long would that recovery have been without the pre-existing condition? You can’t just say that a worker would be at the same point whether they had a pre-existing condition or not, you are now acknowledging that the pre-existing has to impacted recovery.

It looks like this will be a complicated policy to implement. You're getting into an area that is very "foggy." Typically many injured workers won't have the "baseline" medical evidence of where they were prior to the injury. The WSIB won't have a comparator of the worker’s status before the incident on which to base its decisions, they will have to rely a doctor's best guess.

Q: What is Clear Path's perspective on changes at the WSIB?

A: I believe that most employers we know would find the suggestion that the system is pro-employer as "laughable." Perhaps our perspective is biased, but we would suggest that over the past 10 years the system seems to be more worker friendly, not less. 

The employers' experience has often been frustrating, with little information being shared and little notice of big changes (that have a significant impact on employers and are implemented in a way that is punitive, such as reserve factors being changed at the last moment.)

That being said, the WSIB has made some strides in becoming a more fair and modern organization:

• They have worked hard to improve their customer service
• Implemented eService options
• Allowed employers to retrieve their NEER and monthly cost statements online
• Will now allow us to send emails to Board employees (not possible only a couple of years back)

Structural changes at the WSIB have been a mixed bag for employers. In the past, they used to have a dedicated case manager that likely understood your company and might come out and see your workplace or facility. Now there is a team approach with multiple people on your claims. It can be frustrating to explain the story over and over again.

Ultimately, the WSIB continues to be an expensive and often confusing system for employers. The NEER program alone is excessively complicated and results in different results for small employers vs large ones.

Q: Where can people learn more?

A: We are always available to assist via phone if you have a questions about a claim or generally about WSIB.  We also encourage anyone involved in WSIB claims management to participate in one of our upcoming learning sessions, which will increase your knowledge and give you practical strategies to deploy in your workplace.

Sessions include:

• Introduction to the WSIB and Disability Management
• Introduction to the WSIB's NEER Program
• Advanced NEER Strategies
• Advanced Claims Management (including Complex Claims and WSIB Appeals)

Related blog posts:

• War of Words on WSIB Changes (7/8/2014)
• WSIB Making Progress: Hard Reality for Employers (11/25/2013)
• WSIB Releases 2013 Stats, Show Decrease in Claims (7/9/2013)
• Clear Path's 2013 Year in Review (12/17/2013)

Real-world proof that you should always be checking:

Clear Path recently received a decision at an ARO Appeal resulting in 6 months of Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits being denied on a client’s claim, in addition to 50% SIEF cost relief we had already acquired on the same claim. 

Checking the customer’s monthly cost statement, we discovered that the SIEF was applied correctly but that the LOE had not been removed. With a bit more investigation, we discovered from the WSIB Case manager that the Appeals decision from the ARO had not been referred to the implementation team. Someone at the WSIB had “dropped the ball” and without our follow-up this mistake may never have been found – which would have resulted in significant costs for the employer.

Here are a few things to watch out for:

1. Ensure any SIEF cost relief has been applied properly. 

• Know what the % of SIEF should be, as the % acquired is not actually indicated on the monthly cost or the NEER statement. 
• Ensure the math is right by checking the numbers on your monthly cost statement.

2. Ensure that any LOE that has been denied is actually removed on your next statement.

• See our case study above, which saved the client thousands of dollars.

3. Keep an eye on when a Non-Economic Loss (NEL) award is actually paid out.

• NEL awards which are paid out between January 1 - August 31 will make a claim active for that September's NEER review period.
• Active claims will result in dramatically higher costs for your company, so you need to be aware of this change in status.

4. Notice if costs for a claim allowed as a REO have gone onto a new claim in error.

• An incident that is deemed a reoccurrence should not receive a new claim number.
• A reoccurrence (or REO claim) may already be outside of your 4 year NEER window, meaning that your company will not be responsible for related costs.

5. Ensure old claims are not re-activated without you knowing.

• This can be particularly tricky in cases where a division or location might be shut down, as the individual may no longer work at the facility but may start to collect benefits again.

6. Physiotherapist or other healthcare costs that continue when a claim is closed

• If the worker has returned to regular duties, continued healthcare costs (such as physiotherapy) may indicate that the worker is having ongoing issues.​

Want to learn more?
​
Come out to one of our upcoming NEER sessions to find out what to look for (offered in both Introductory and Advanced levels). If you can’t make a session, call one of our friendly consultants who will help you make sure that you are not missing any costs savings! We can be reached at (519) 624-0800.

Ontario's Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (WSIB) has just released its "By The Numbers: 2013 WSIB Statistical Report" and it contains some interesting details. 

They have created distinct reports for Schedule 1 Employers (majority of employers) and Schedule 2 Employers (those that self-insure the provisions of benefits under the WSIA). Click here to download each report.

Fatalities:

• 82 workers died in a work-related traumatic incident in 2013, the highest number since 2007
• Motor vehicle accidents were the cause of 35% of the deaths
• Males make up 91.9% of all workplace deaths since 2004
• Top industry sectors with fatalities: Construction (26.6%), Transportation (25.4%), Services (12.2%)

We encourage you to take a deeper look at the "By The Numbers: 2013 WSIB Statistical Report" for yourself. If you have any questions about WSIB claims management or how to reduce your own claim-related costs, please contact Anna at anna@clearpathemployer.com or (519) 624-0800.

Did you know that Clear Path offers a free, no-obligation review of your NEER Statement? Learn more here.

A war of words is brewing over changes at the WSIB and The Toronto Star seems to be the chosen battlefield.

In recent weeks, the newspaper has covered a number of stories that are critical of changes in how the WSIB is treating injured workers and then opinion pieces by former WSIB chair Odoardo Di Santo and past president of the Ontario Federation of Labour Gordon Wilson.

On July 4th, Kate Lamb, Chief of Corporate Services at WSIB, weighed in with a rebuttal. The most contentious issue appears to be the WSIB's proposed policy to look at a worker's pre-existing medical conditions when it comes to the amount paid out in pension and other long-term worker benefits.

Here's a summary of what's being said:

He is disburbed by a trend towards a reduction in worker benefits since David Marshall took over the role in 2010, rather than a focus on increasing "the revenue side," including:

• Denied claims increased by 50%
• Benefits to injured workers reduced by $631 million
• Rehabilitation programs decimated
• Long-term wage loss benefits reduced by 28%
• Hundreds of WSIB employees being laid off
• Injured workers' pension reduced by 31.3%

Di Santo also claims that David Marshall was granted the "unprecedented authority to change autocratically most WSIB policies without board approval." He is extremely critical of the "infamous" pre-existing condition policy and claims that the board has already begun "illegally implementing the policy."

*** Please see the WSIB's rebuttal below.

Mr. Wilson states that there are "over 8,000 workers within Ontario who have claims that have been denied, many without a hearing at the WSIB of their initial claim" and are waiting for an Appeal that may never happen due to the slow-moving Appeals process.

He makes the inflamatory claim that "some employers, aided by bureaucrats with the MOL and its subordinate body the Prevention Office, have developed a strategy that compliments (sic) the denial of worker benefits." He states that businesses can implement ineffective Health & Safety programs and "when workers pay the price, have the WSIB deny their benefits."

Wilson is also critical of demands from the MOL for the well regarded Workers Health and Safety Centre to comply with "a myriad of operational directives, none of which support the WHSC's ability to deliver as they have in the past."

The WSIB's perspective:

Kate Lamb, Chief of Corporate Services for the WSIB, published a rebuttal to Odolardo Di Santo's commentary on July 4th in a  Toronto Star piece called "Support for Ontario's injured workers is stronger than ever." (Full article) 

Ms. Lamb is "disappointed" to read Mr. Di Santo's commentary and seeks to "correct the record" by stating the following:

• The WSIB is not cutting benefits to injured workers, only the government can enact legislation to change benefits (including the change in 1994 when Mr. Di Santo was chair, when the government introduced the Friedland formula to end full indexation of benefits.

• The WSIB is doing better on every measure of success than it was in the early 1990s (during his tenure), including the fact that today the compensation system is over 64% funded and well on its way to meet the government's requirement to be fully funded by 2027 (compared to only 37% in the early 1990s).

• She agrees with his suggestion that the WSIB should focus on prevention of workplace injuries and the re-employment of injured workers. Ms. Lamb states that there has been a nearly 20% reduction on workplace injuries in Ontario since 2009 and that despite suggestions otherwise, the number of claims allowed each year has remained steady at approximately 80% for more than a decade.

• Injured workers are benefiting from faster and more accessible health care specific to occupational injuries. Since 2010, the WSIB has also hired more than 300 return-to-work staff who made over 26,000 workplace visits in 2013.

• Since 2009, the number of workers still off work on year after their injury has dropped by 50%.

• Financial improvements since 2009 have come from three sources: First, WSIB premium increases and payroll growth have employers paying $1 billion more in revenue per year (despite the fact that injuries are down 20%). Second, prevention activities, fewer injuries and more timely access to medical care have reduced the cost of benefits by over $600 million. Third, better financial investment portfolio management has seen it grow from $14 billion to $22 billion since 2009.
• Ms. Lamb takes issue with Mr. Di Santo's suggestion that the WSIB is "illegally implementing" policies around pre-existing conditions. She confirms that the WSIB has been engaging stakeholders for more than 2 years on the development of new policies to provide clarity to the issue of pre-exisitng conditions. See the list of draft policies on the WSIB website here.
  

Bottom Line:

So what do you think about this "war of words?" Are Toronto Star writers, Mr. Di Santo, and Mr. Wilson raising reasonable alarms that should be heard? Or are they offering a distinctly pro-worker bias? Have you noticed the use of the proposed policies with your claims?

What do you think about Ms. Lamb's rebuttal? Are they on the right track to a "balanced" approach that still meets fiscal requirements? Her piece was not very specific about the current implementation of the draft policy regarding pre-existing conditions, only emphasizing that Ontario is the only province without a policy and that it is continuing to engage stakeholders about any potential policy change.

We'd love to hear from you! Share your comments below. Watch for an upcoming blog where Clear Path shares its perspective on the comments of Mr. Di Santo.