Costs of Work Injuries

By Patrick Watson

Most people injured in the workplace are in their productive years. Often they are the newly educated; they may have young families; they may be providers for older families. They are professionals, bread-winners, contributors... they are Canada’s work force. They head off to their offices, to the fields, the mines, the oceans, the factories and the forests every day. Every day, many of them lose physical abilities. And some lose their lives. The causes are often related to their work.

The cost of injuries acquired in the workplace in this country is staggering. Labour Canada, in 1994, estimated the total costs of industrial accidents at approximately $14-billion -- and climbing. In 1995, WCB costs alone were $5-billion nationally. This represents medical expenses, pensions and funeral costs. This does not begin to touch the indirect costs related to injured workers, their families, employers and communities.

We know that the vast majority of workers who lose their jobs on account of a permanent disability will never work again; only 6.5 per cent of workers with disabilities receive workplace accommodation -- the kind of physical and technological support needed for them to re-enter the workplace. The labour force participation of people with disabilities hovers somewhere under a dismal three per cent.

Clearly, the opportunity for workers with disabilities re-enter or participate in the work force and take up roles as contributing members of the community is profoundly affected by the overall level of support in Canada: the legislation and structure which we have -- or too often don’t have -- to serve those injured in the workplace.

With this in mind, I approached Glen Wright, the newly appointed chair of the Workers’ Compensation Board of Ontario. The Canadian Abilities Foundation is extremely concerned about the ongoing injustice which injured workers endure in this country. Ontario, having the largest population, seemed to us the most logical point at which to begin.

The WCB in Ontario has a sordid history, and a worse reputation. So, when the chair of this institution agreed to a no-holds-barred interview, I was surprised. When he agreed with my suggestion that WCB should sponsor this opportunity to create a dialogue between himself, injured workers and those concerned about injured workers, I was taken aback further.

The objectives of the massive restructuring which Glen Wright is trying to put into place are impressive. But, we hear some aspects of this initiative are already falling into question. Who was consulted about the process? How were decisions arrived at? Where was the rank-and-file?

Important questions. It may, however, really be true that this huge bureaucracy is trying, through massive restructuring, to meet the needs of the thousands upon thousands of people it was originally established to serve. Certainly, the WCB working paper is brimming with high ideals (a snapshot of the document is available on page 20). The real question here is, can Glen Wright pull it off?

Can he set up, as planned, a service delivery system based on a portfolio model, which will see employers and injured workers from each major industry served by a sector of the WCB having real competence in that area? A system where the mining sector will be served by an industry manager with knowledge in mining... and so on throughout each of the industrial sectors?

Can he set up a system in which it will be acceptable for each injured worker to be provided with a specialized nurse practitioner to act as a kind of medical advocate? To borrow from WCB’s position paper, "This [early and safe return to work] can only be achieved when injured workers receive the right care at the right time. For too long, the Board has simply paid the medical bills and done little to ensure injured workers get timely, appropriate medical treatment to ensure more rapid medical recovery and early return to work."

The first WCB-type programs were established in Canada in 1915. I doubt that Glen Wright (or, for that matter, anyone else) could take the omissions and errors of the last 82 years and somehow make everything all right. But, his candour in our interview was impressive, and his vision of the way things should be deserves attention and scrutiny.

Glen Wright told me, as you’ll read in the interview, that he is open to input from the rank-and-file. So, this is your invitation to respond directly. Maybe your input -- and Glen Wright’s open ear -- could be the right mix to fix one of the worst bureaucracies that this country has ever had the poor fortune to harbour.