Workers' comp reform deserves House vote

THE state workers' compensation reform bill, which has passed the Democratic-majority Senate on a bipartisan vote of 34-15, is being blocked in the House by the chairman of the Labor Committee, Rep. Mike Sells, D-Everett. House Speaker Frank Chopp should unstick it, so that the bill can be voted on by the House.

This is a reform for our state's industrial revival. The state's system of paying for on-the-job injuries is financially weakened, and not because of any increase in injuries. The increase is in expenses, particularly for workers declared to be disabled and pensioned off.

The state should have several billion in its medical-aid and accident accounts to pay injured workers. Together, these two accounts have fallen by 91 percent in three years. According to the state audit released in December, the accident account is insolvent and the medical account will be insolvent within five years.

Organized labor and the trial lawyers have an answer for this: Raise taxes on employers. The problem is that this is a tax on jobs, and the required increase in the tax is very large, and jobs are in short supply. A better answer is to find ways to limit lifetime pensions while still protecting workers.

What 44 other states do is to offer disabled workers lump sums. The bill now stuck in committee does this. It would save money for the accident fund because the total amount workers received would be about 80 percent of expected pension payments.

The worker could reject the cash settlement and take the pension. To have the cash offer, he would have to have an approved claim that is at least three months old. His settlement would have to be reviewed by the three-member Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals, on which organized labor chooses one member and has veto power over another.

Under the bill, the board may reject a settlement as being not in the interest of a worker or his family, even if the worker wants it.

This is the bill organized labor and the trial lawyers portray as an attack on workers. It is not. It is more protective of the workers than the law in most other states, and it protects all workers by stabilizing the state fund.

The members of the House should be allowed to vote on it.