What do we think of ACC fining Affco millions for shooting

[ManDownUnder]

It's clearly AFFCO's fault for:
1) Employing someone with issues
2) Allowing their production facility to be within ballistic range of an open space
3) Not providing bullet proof defences in the event of such a situation

What were they thinking?

[JimO]

Although jimjim did not read my post properly and I cannot be bothered taking the time to explain it to him. Makes me wonder about the point of this thread really, as if he can't get an important point I raised on my post. How can jimjim get it right for this thread in general and if hes expecting to get the facts just from the media, he just might be expecting too much.

But hey, makes a nice change from "mod bashing". As you were people, but I think you might be basing your opinions from something not based on a factual account (I have come to expect this from these sorts of programs, guess it all boils down to ratings, even if the truth get ommitted), but more along the lines that will get an emotional response from its viewers. Which to a large extent, is pretty much whats happening on this thread.

i read it and understood it fine, what i dont understand is why Affco having their own workplace insurance has anything to do with some dicktard gangmember getting shot by another dictard gangmember whilst consuming illegal consumables in a carpark.....i bet they supply a smoko room for breaks if he was in there having a cup of earl gray he would still be working today

[Brian d marge]

Jeez if you fullas know so much about how it all should work then why don't you go and work for ACC.

Ooops, wrong thread.

I dont , but close family member , is medical specialist for the unions , spending her time in court trying to stop ACC shitting on the not so fortunate ,,

Stephen

Ps here in Japan I have medical insurance , works a treat .

[peasea]

i read it and understood it fine, what i dont understand is why Affco having their own workplace insurance has anything to do with some dicktard gangmember getting shot by another dictard gangmember whilst consuming illegal consumables in a carpark.....i bet they supply a smoko room for breaks if he was in there having a cup of earl gray he would still be working today

My thoughts entirely.
If he hadn't been a gang member and was just an average Joe who went out for some fresh air and got shot because of mistaken identity or whatever it would be a different matter.

[peasea]

Maybe you don't know what your on about.

Or perhaps you don't know what I'm on about. I have no intention of getting offside with you here, I was poking the Borax at gang members generally with that comment, not belittling anything you had to say. I don't think ACC, AFFCO or anyone else should shell out one penny for the dork. Let him get shot, he chose that lifestyle.

[Grahameeboy]

All I can say is "Smoking Kills".......nah need to say more

I think that ACC is better despite the obvious system flaw which prejudices those born with a disability.

It does seem unfair that a drunk gets 1st class medical cover yet disability issues are a struggle.

Quick example.

ACC - Teacher Aide - All Day
Disablity - Teacher Aide - Half a day.

Even in IL4's case he got things that I have had to fight for or pay myself. He got a mobility vehicle and I had to pay $25,000 to get one.

Now I am not saying IL4 was not an accident (and that he does not deserve compenstion from ACC), cause it was, however, a person with a disability did not in any way contribute to their disability yet they or parents have a harder job.

The reason, and a simple example, ACC provides a mobility vehicle for the injured person whether they drive it or not and Disability only pays for a mobility vehicle if the disabled person can drive it. Even in NZ 4 is still 2 young to drive and when old enough Nats still can not drive.

But despite all this, if there was no ACC this Country would have a financial issue and the implications would be more costly in general.

[idb]

I don't think it matters whether he's a gang member or not, whether he smokes dope or not...I just can't see how anybody could say that the employer is in any way culpable here.

[Clockwork]

Well I've been convinced to change my opinion by these arguments. If it comes down to a simple thing such as "employee liability" for accidents on personal time and "employer liablity" during working hours AND AFFCO then decide to save a few bucks by choosing to cover "employer liability" themselves rather than pay the levey......

I guess all you really need to establish is, which account would ACC pay the compo from if AFFCO hadn't been allowed to opt out? If it's be the Employer Account, simply beacuse it happened on employer premises or during the hous of employment, then tough titty AFFCO, pay up!!

[idb]

Well I've been convinced to change my opinion by these arguments. If it comes down to a simple thing such as "employee liability" for accidents on personal time and "employer liablity" during working hours AND AFFCO then decide to save a few bucks by choosing to cover "employer liability" themselves rather than pay the levey......

I guess all you really need to establish is, which account would ACC pay the compo from if AFFCO hadn't been allowed to opt out? If it's be the Employer Account, simply beacuse it happened on employer premises or during the hous of employment, then tough titty AFFCO, pay up!!

What does it matter whether AFFCO opted out or not...are you proposing to punish them for some perceived mean-spiritedness?
What if the reason they wanted to opt out is because they have commendably put so much time, money and effort into making the work environment safe for it's valued employees that the accident rate is now so low that it makes more financial sense to cover any incidents themselves?

[Scouse]

What a complete crock of shit, guy has a break to smoke a joint when he should be working, sitting in car in carpark with other retard gets shot by opposition gang member. Acc fine company because it was work related

Serves them right for being dumb and hireing gang members

[Clockwork]

Its a simple liabilty equation; if they aggreed to accept liability during hours of employment (assuming thats the basis upon which ACC choses which account is payable) it's too bad, they should have been aware of the risk when they opted out.

Look, the employee got no say at all in how his workplace cover was provided, if AFFCO hadn't been allowed to opt out, ACC whould have covered him and no one would have given it a moments thought. AFFCO try to save themselves a few bucks and suddenly the employee has no cover!! OR we, the rest of us employee levy payers, have to subsidise AFFCO's liability.... how is that fair on the employee or us?

[marty]

I'm finding it difficult to understand that anyone could consider AFFCO guilty of anything whatsoever with regards to the incident in question.

If ACC policy indicates otherwise it's simply another example of a cherry picking tax. We'll just tax those who can afford it, regardless of fairness or fact.

did you read the article at all? here's a piece of it in case it was too hard for you:

“It is clear that Affco accepted the claim as a work claim in 2003 and it is now trying to unload it onto the ACC Earners Account which all New Zealand workers directly fund from their pay packets for non-work accidents.

“The injury occurred in Affco’s carpark during a meal break and it falls square within the definition of “work related personal injury” in section 28 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001.

“Affco have now made the carpark more secure and safer as it could have done prior to the accident.” “The company accepted responsibility under the ACC accredited employer arrangements which give employers the right to accept direct liability for accident costs in return for discounts.”

so affco admits liabilty 3 years ago, and now wants to change its plea? if he crashed his car in the company carpark and hurt himself or someone else, would the 'it's not a workplace injury' argument still hold?

one of the guys at my work fell asleep on the way home and crashed - my employer (also an ACC opt-out) paid for everything.

[idb]

did you read the article at all? here's a piece of it in case it was too hard for you:


“The injury occurred in Affco’s carpark during a meal break and it falls square within the definition of “work related personal injury” in section 28 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001.
“Affco have now made the carpark more secure and safer as it could have done prior to the accident.” “The company accepted responsibility under the ACC accredited employer arrangements which give employers the right to accept direct liability for accident costs in return for discounts.”

so affco admits liabilty 3 years ago, and now wants to change its plea?

The company accepted responsibility....for accident costs...
An accident under the legislation as I understand it is something that could be prevented with proper management.
The question is...does this qualify as an accident?

How far do they have to go?
If they lock all of the employees in during work hours, set up a 3 metre high chainlink fence with guard towers and keep all staff inside and away from windows ... but then someone lobs a grenade over the fence are they still liable?

[marty]

25. Accident

(1)Accident means any of the following kinds of occurrences:

[(a)a specific event or a series of events, other than a gradual process, that—

(i)involves the application of a force (including gravity), or resistance, external to the human body; or

(ii)involves the sudden movement of the body to avoid a force (including gravity), or resistance, external to the body; or

(iii)involves a twisting movement of the body:]

and this:

place of employment means any premises or place—

(a)occupied for the purposes of employment; or

(b)to which a person has access because of his or her employment;

[Clockwork]

The company accepted responsibility....for accident costs...
An accident under the legislation as I understand it is something that could be prevented with proper management.
The question is...does this qualify as an accident?

How far do they have to go?
If they lock all of the employees in during work hours, set up a 3 metre high chainlink fence with guard towers and keep all staff inside and away from windows ... but then someone lobs a grenade over the fence are they still liable?

Your entitled to ACC cover for any injury... including victim of criminal acts, for instance, getting run over by a drunk driver or even an act of terrorism, and if you're at work when the terrorist stikes, I guess the compo would come from the employer account..... unless of course they'd opted out.