Not allowed to hand out BikersAgainstACCLevies pamphlet at CHCH Biketoberfest

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Sort of but not exactly. High risk occupations have always paid more ACC. Cars used to pay more ACC than bikes.

There's no "user pays" going on here, just an attempt to rebalance the risk profile. I don't agree with it but can understand the argument.

Overall we still have a scheme where the vast majority of funding is provided by the community.

You keep pointing out risk, however, risk was never part of the orginal concept and it shouldn't be... as the founder of ACC said we all benefit from the high risk activities... the only reason ACC notice a chunck like the bikers is due to seperating the accounts... (which only a fraction of the overal claim)

ACC was also never designed to have the smaller seperate accounts and the more of those we have the higher the levy's will be... the bigger the one big main pool is (which is the way it was set up to be, and should be) the easier it is and lower you levies could be...


The sooner ACC goes back to the way it was designed to be the better for all. ACC is not an insurance... and should never be classed as that

[caseye]

Sad to say but in the confirmation of my ACC submission it finishes with joe bloggs "ACC Insurance" in black and white.

[Winston001]

You keep pointing out risk, however, risk was never part of the orginal concept and it shouldn't be... as the founder of ACC said we all benefit from the high risk activities...

LOL yes I keep pointing out risk because it has been part of ACC since 1972. Sir Owen Woodhouse produced a fine report but Parliament didn't accept every single point.

I am not aware of anyone on this forum or elsewhere who has a strong rational argument to remove occupational risk rating for ACC levies. Its accepted as fair and reasonable.

One very good reason is we do not want to encourage employers in dangerous occupations to be careless. If they paid the same levies as for office workers but the claim rate was 6 times as high, that wouldn't be fair.

The sooner ACC goes back to the way it was designed to be the better for all. ACC is not an insurance... and should never be classed as that

Ok but like it or not, ACC is a type of insurance scheme. In the not too distant future there will be far fewer taxpayers upon whom the burden falls. Pay-as-you-go will fail at that point because the workers will refuse to pay the huge sums required.

So - just like saving for your retirement - we need to establish a fund to cover future ACC payments. The Cullen Superfund is exactly the same.

[Silage]

I'm not going to take one side of this as against the other as I was not present.
What I will say................is We are all on the same side on this issue
LET'S NOT FORGET THAT.
Skyryder

I'm with Skyrider here. A lot of thought, effort and emotion has gone into this thread and it seems to have progressed to biker vs biker.

Lakedaemonian, I would like to see a copy of your submission to the ACC committee (if you think that is appropriate). It might help me get off my butt and also write something.

Ohh and I did go to Biketoberfest on Saturday after the protest ride. Talked to a few, bought some chain oil and then home. Looked like something that should be repeated for sure.

[Clockwork]

One very good reason is we do not want to encourage employers in dangerous occupations to be careless. If they paid the same levies as for office workers but the claim rate was 6 times as high, that wouldn't be fair.

Yes but as I understand it, when assessing employers for the levy contributions their "Accident/claim history" is taken into consideration and their individual levy rates adjusted accordingly. Thereby reindtroducing some element of "Fairness" and rewarding the employer for improving their practices.

Do employees in high risk industries pay any more or is their contribution related only to their remuneration rate like everyone else?

[lakedaemonian]

I'm with Skyrider here. A lot of thought, effort and emotion has gone into this thread and it seems to have progressed to biker vs biker.

Lakedaemonian, I would like to see a copy of your submission to the ACC committee (if you think that is appropriate). It might help me get off my butt and also write something.

Ohh and I did go to Biketoberfest on Saturday after the protest ride. Talked to a few, bought some chain oil and then home. Looked like something that should be repeated for sure.

Hi Silage.....I agree...we are in this together.

I'd be happy to share my submission......I think I'd be comfortable to make it public(why not?)....but I might shoot a copy to you and a few others in PM FIRST once I'm finished. Having some folks look it over first will probably find some opportunities to edit/improve.

Thanks for the encouragement on Biketoberfest......lots of points for improvement have already come up and will be covered(along with others I'm sure) next Tuesday!

Cheers,
Chris

[lakedaemonian]

Yes but as I understand it, when assessing employers for the levy contributions their "Accident/claim history" is taken into consideration and their individual levy rates adjusted accordingly. Thereby reindtroducing some element of "Fairness" and rewarding the employer for improving their practices.

Do employees in high risk industries pay any more or is their contribution related only to their remuneration rate like everyone else?

Hi Clockwork, I believe you are correct.

It's my understanding with our ACC work levy that two things are taken into account:

1.) Our work category

2.) Our company accident/safety/ACC claim history

That's my understanding, but I could be off the mark.....but I can assure you it's something I'll be having a closer look at to better understand it as soon as I get the chance.

[Ixion]

Yes but as I understand it, when assessing employers for the levy contributions their "Accident/claim history" is taken into consideration and their individual levy rates adjusted accordingly. Thereby reindtroducing some element of "Fairness" and rewarding the employer for improving their practices.

Do employees in high risk industries pay any more or is their contribution related only to their remuneration rate like everyone else?

Just so. The different industry rates are set in a transparent and contestable fashion. Quite the reverse of the highway robbery approach to motorcyclists. No, employees pay the same rate (deducted from pay) regardless of industry.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Just so. The different industry rates are set in a transparent and contestable fashion. Quite the reverse of the highway robbery approach to motorcyclists. No, employees pay the same rate (deducted from pay) regardless of industry.

correct it is just a % in the dollar you earn as an employee, which cover anything you do as a citizen. (yes riding as well)

The employer also pays a fee to help cover any work place accidents, ours last year was around 4g and going up to 5... this is only 3 people that work here full time, and it is so high because we are in the printing industry however we are not with the big printing presses etc, we are pad and screen printers but pay the say levy as the rest of the printing industry...

Its pretty hard to get injuired at on our printers.... sheese

[Pixie]

correct it is just a % in the dollar you earn as an employee, which cover anything you do as a citizen. (yes riding as well)

The employer also pays a fee to help cover any work place accidents, ours last year was around 4g and going up to 5... this is only 3 people that work here full time, and it is so high because we are in the printing industry however we are not with the big printing presses etc, we are pad and screen printers but pay the say levy as the rest of the printing industry...

Its pretty hard to get injuired at on our printers.... sheese

Your boss should look at changing the classification to something like artists etc.

I service automated lab systems.
Being an Electronic Service Technician I would go into the electrical industry classification.
As I don't do any high voltage work,I said to ACC that my work and risk was the same as a lab scientist and they accepted this.
The levy is half that of an electrician.(still too much)

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Your boss should look at changing the classification to something like artists etc.

We tried and the answer was no, you are classed as printers... we do print on products, like pens etc, but it is no where near as hig risk as a huge printing press...

The most you would get is a cut finger if you do follow the safety guides and if you don't then you glump and should be there... I had a look at our ACC log boog the other day it goes back 15 years and well there was one accident and it was a cut hand... and it turn out that the user wasn't following the safety proceedures...

So how do we put levy's on that... they need to drop all levy's and have one for being human and the more aqccidents you have the more you pay... as there are some people that are just accident prone

[Winston001]

Yes but as I understand it, when assessing employers for the levy contributions their "Accident/claim history" is taken into consideration and their individual levy rates adjusted accordingly. Thereby reindtroducing some element of "Fairness" and rewarding the employer for improving their practices.

Do employees in high risk industries pay any more or is their contribution related only to their remuneration rate like everyone else?

The industry levies vary vastly. The basic white-collar office worker levy is $0.46 per $100 of salary. A forestry worker by contrast costs $6.24 per $100 of salary. That's more than ten times as much - for a high risk job.

Levy booklet in PDF at the bottom of this page http://www.acc.co.nz/for-business/sm...US00009#P2_451

Yes there is a 10% discount for dangerous industries if there are no claims and the business enters a safety program with ACC. Nice to have but inconsequential.

We need to clarify who makes the payments. These levies are billed to employers and are a cost of having an employee. So the employee will not be aware of the specific cost of their job.

Quite separately, all of us who earn an income pay 0.5c with our tax as our personal contribution to ACC. That is not risk assessed but of course if you earn plenty, you pay plenty which is another unfairness. Why should one person pay more than the next for ACC???

[Ixion]

..
Quite separately, all of us who earn an income pay 0.5c with our tax as our personal contribution to ACC. That is not risk assessed but of course if you earn plenty, you pay plenty which is another unfairness. Why should one person pay more than the next for ACC???

Because if they have an accident and are off work, the weekly ERC compensation they receive will be proportionately greater than the next person.

Earn $1000 per week pay 05% of $1000 per week , recevie ERC of 80% of $1000 per week

Earn $2000 per week pay 05% of $2000 per week , recevie ERC of 80% of $2000 per week

The more you earn, the more you pay, but the more you get. Seems fair enough to me.

[Clockwork]

Let's not also forget that if your're an employer in a high risk industry in many cases you're making your profit at your employees risk not your own!

[Conquiztador]

Hi Silage.....I agree...we are in this together.

I'd be happy to share my submission......I think I'd be comfortable to make it public(why not?)....but I might shoot a copy to you and a few others in PM FIRST once I'm finished. Having some folks look it over first will probably find some opportunities to edit/improve.

Thanks for the encouragement on Biketoberfest......lots of points for improvement have already come up and will be covered(along with others I'm sure) next Tuesday!

Cheers,
Chris

Fuck, your ass must be sore from sitting on that fence.