Who's next: Employers (Hospitality & Tourism)

[Marmoot]

In case noone heard the news, the employers (mainly hospitality and tourism operators) are now pissed off at ACC levy increases they have to foot, where general employers need to foot about 10% increase but hospitality and tourism (due to their "high risk") need to foot more than 70% increases.

To put it in perspective, Ski field operators are looking at over $300k in increases alone.

They are not happy.

Should've come out and supported us when we were making noise, eh?

[cold comfort]

For sure- i bet our "whos next" cries were dismissed by many as mere bleating by self indulgent bikers. Good to be able to say "i told you so" eh?

[Brian d marge]

Theyy really HAVE been told to cut the cloth, I mean WHY would any government risk pissing off such a large group , unless they can lose it in the pols?

and to be fair they are cutting the deficit ( or appearing to do )

even so ... I know they were told by the IMF to cut health care costs , ACC ! , but to expose themselves to this amount ,,, I thinks they are in doo doo ! or really are in bed with the IMF/World Bank ( thats scary as they are American,,,)

Whose next ,,,,Hmmmmm

Rugby players ,,,,,,if that happens ...leave. move to Auzstraya

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

For sure- i bet our "whos next" cries were dismissed by many as mere bleating by self indulgent bikers. Good to be able to say "i told you so" eh?

Some of us have been telling some of you for along time this was going to happen, Can I say I/We told you so ???? or should I/we wait a little longer ???

Stephen

[Conquiztador]

What I can not understand is that National is all for enterprise and business. And now they are giving the death sentence to many small businesses. Something just does not add up!

[speights_bud]

So rather than saying 'I told you so' should we not be getting together and meeting with the 'important people' of hospitality and tourism and start working together?

[Pegasus]

So rather than saying 'I told you so' should we not be getting together and meeting with the 'important people' of hospitality and tourism and start working together?

I guess that needs to be the next step. But past experience has shown that NZérs are sheep (GST, Employment Contracts Act, etc etc etc). How do we get people to stand up for once??? Or do we just form our own political group, and show them that way???

[Conquiztador]

I guess that needs to be the next step. But past experience has shown that NZérs are sheep (GST, Employment Contracts Act, etc etc etc). How do we get people to stand up for once??? Or do we just form our own political group, and show them that way???

My job tried to get people to meetings re their future/situation. But only a few would come. Then we put on a BBQ with free sausages, and we got heaps of ppl. Perhaps if we give them food they will follow us anywhere...

[cave weta]

Basic problem is that ACC cover overseas tourists here for all accidents. someone has to pay for it.

They have decided that adventure tourism - ME - Fuckit ! will pay for this.
Ive been operating for 4 years- no incedents- no claims. why cant they issue exesses for places like ski fields where they DO have claims and drop the fees for operators who have proved that they are safe operators by not having claims?

[swbarnett]

Why cant they issue exesses for places like ski fields where they DO have claims and drop the fees for operators who have proved that they are safe operators by not having claims?
Because this goes against the whole point of the ACC scheme. The entire population of NZ funds the claims of the unlucky (or reckless, it doesn't matter which) in order to maintain the freedom that we enjoy to partake in whatever we see fit, no matter how risky.

To have higher levies for those that are at a higher risk of claiming will eventually lead to everyone just paying for their own accidents.

[saxet]

Perhaps it's a way to piss people off sooo much with ACC that there will be no opposition or even positive support for scrapping of ACC.
An awful lot of people who are eligible for ACC do not cover them selves via ACC levies at present so it would appear that ACC is seen as too hard to manage and not something any government should be involved in. I get the feeling that those( who ever THEY are) people advising governments think it should all come down to private insurance which seems to work in other counties as long as youré not like myself with exisitng medical prolems and can't get medical insurance.

[speights_bud]

i agree that as Nzer's most of us have been to lazy to make a stand against poor decisions by our governments, i don't know how to get people off their arses to join the campaign but i do think that it needs to begin with the leaders of the affected areas.

just like how we have used BRONZ to get a voice out there and make them notice, i think that to get the public on our side first the leaders of the recreations/industry's they are involved in need to show their support, and for them to do this we need to made sure they are getting the correct information.

i believe bunch of bikers turning up at parliment to put our foot down is a great start. Now, like BRONZ are working on we need to start pushing the paper under their noses and taking more action in this manner, they know we are here and they know we'll come back, but maybe a little less happy to do what we are told this time.

[MSTRS]

To have higher levies for those that are at a higher risk of claiming will eventually lead to everyone just paying for their own accidents.Um...you are being deliberately ironic. Aren't you?

... private insurance which seems to work in other counties ....
Does it, really? Endless court litigation to settle claims that insurers don't want to pay out on says otherwise. Which was the whole reason that Woodhouse was tasked with fixing in NZ prior to ACC becoming reality.

[gwigs]

Put a levy on all the tourists as they arrive,if they stay for 2 weeks they pay for 2 weeks cover.We shouldn,t be paying for them,we would,nt be covered in their countries.

[Marmoot]

Put a levy on all the tourists as they arrive,if they stay for 2 weeks they pay for 2 weeks cover.We shouldn,t be paying for them,we would,nt be covered in their countries.

This kind of thinking is the one destroying our economy. For example, a guy in parliament once said we don't want foreign students. They left yea, great. Then the accommodation industry collapsed, car sales went down, tourism declined because their parents stopped coming, and lots of people got made redundant. It's a bit like cleaning your shop floor by shooing your shoppers, methinks.

Surely there must be a better way.

Besides, they stay for 2 weeks then they bugger off. There's no income compensation etc that costs a lot. Unlike our resident accidenters....

Anyway, I bet the "Who's Next" are the boaties. Watch this space.

[nosebleed]

So rather than saying 'I told you so' should we not be getting together and meeting with the 'important people' of hospitality and tourism and start working together?

Sure. But only after a few "we told youse so" 's.

[MadDuck]

Anyway, I bet the "Who's Next" are the boaties. Watch this space.

...interesting thought. It could be quite easily achieved.

[swbarnett]

... it would appear that ACC is seen as too hard to manage and not something any government should be involved in.
And yet in 2007 a Price Waterhouse audit said that the NZ ACC scheme was a model of efficiency when compared to other schemes internationaly.

[swbarnett]

Um...you are being deliberately ironic. Aren't you?
No. ACC is designed so that all pay for the mishaps of the few and we all benifit. Just like a good old barn raising in Amish communities.

[MSTRS]

No. ACC is designed so that all pay for the mishaps of the few and we all benifit. Just like a good old barn raising in Amish communities.

That is so. 'Everyone' pays the same. And no targetted levies at various user sub-groups.
But that is what we have now. And why your comment is so ironic.

[saxet]

That is so. 'Everyone' pays the same. And no targetted levies at various user sub-groups.
But that is what we have now. And why your comment is so ironic.

How true...the irony started as soon as various work catagories were charged differently to others.
"If I may put forward a slice of my own personal philosaphy" I'm sick to death of living in a society where anyone holding even a trace power cannot be trusted!

[ukusa]

So when will they target Sport? The big ones like rugby & netball.
Bet they won't do it prior to the RWC next year, coz the Govt has invested heavily in that, maybe the year after?

[geoffm]

...interesting thought. It could be quite easily achieved.

I could be wrong, but boat accidents are usually fatilities - not long term injuries. ACC doesn't care about fatilities - the are cheap. At most there is one claim and it is over with. injuries and care cost money.

[p.dath]

Basic problem is that ACC cover overseas tourists here for all accidents. someone has to pay for it.

Are you sure about this? I was under the impression that tourists were NOT covered.

[cave weta]

Are you sure about this? I was under the impression that tourists were NOT covered.

After hearing people who know more about this on the TV news, discuss it -that is what I understand.

[PrincessBandit]

Cut and pasted from stuff's homepage this morning:


"More than 700 people have been cut from ACC's long-term client list in six months as the organisation moves to slash costs.

ACC hopes to save about $1 billion by 2013.......

Those being targeted have "high-cost claims" of more than $600 a week.

ACC has also brought in 67 extra case managers for long-term clients to boost staff numbers to 135.

The unit's focus includes scheme-liability management, dealing with non-compliant clients, and increasing clients' personal responsibility.

A 2007 study on people removed from the ACC scheme showed 46 per cent were not working and nearly one quarter were getting the unemployment benefit.

ACC long-term claims project leader Phil Riley said most would "return to independence without a job".

Riley said the recover independence unit was set up in response to increasing claims and costs.

Staff were working with the 7500 claimants nationally who had been receiving weekly compensation for more than 2 1/2 years.....

The strategy paper, written in February last year, said if current growth rates continued, a further $1b would be added to ACC's liability by June 2009.

The focus on long-term clients would knock $200m off the scheme's liability by June this year, and $900m by 2013 if case managers removed 12 claimants every year. If they managed to remove 20 clients a year, $1.4b would be saved.

The document said there had been a shift in ACC's ideological role from a "social insurer" to an "insurer".

"The emphasis over the past few years has been on improving trust and confidence, access and customer focus," it said.

"There is a need now to balance this with an increased focus on scheme liability, cost containment and value for money – while still achieving quality outcomes for clients."

Those being removed from ACC help included clients who were deemed fit to work a 35-hour week, or whose health problems were not injury-related.

Clients could be deemed "non-compliant" by case managers if they refused to do work programmes."

[PrincessBandit]

Again, public statement of the ideological position of ACC being a "social insurer" being altered to that of "insurer".

[bogan]

also all this talk of removing long term claimants sounds to me like they are going to get a bit shafted with care and recovery to save some money, I'm hoping not, but the way ACC is now being run I wouldn't be surprised.

[mashman]

Again, public statement of the ideological position of ACC being a "social insurer" being altered to that of "insurer".

Probably explains why "The emphasis over the past few years has been on improving trust and confidence, access and customer focus"... so we're customers now... i find that kinda cheeky considering they're using OUR money! and why haven't they shifted the focus towards providing a service, the service that ACC was setup to provide... I suppose you have to change the language to make the scheme more attractive to potential buyers...

[munster]

Anyway, I bet the "Who's Next" are the boaties. Watch this space.

Fucken' better not be, I've been a boatie all my life and only had one minor claim for the winch handle getting away on me at Kawakawa and splitting my right middle knuckle to the bone.

No claims for all the waterskiing, biscuiting, fishing, wakeboarding that we've done. Taught countless people to ski with no issues.


So when will they target Sport? The big ones like rugby & netball.
Bet they won't do it prior to the RWC next year, coz the Govt has invested heavily in that, maybe the year after?

How true! Wanker Politicians. I've had enough of 'em. Billy Connolly said it right "the desire to be a politician should bar you from life from ever being one"