Workcover case manager says install surveillance cameras in workplace

A workers compensation/workcover case manager posted a tip via our anonymous share a workcover tip /share your story facility. However, the “tip” proved to be one in favour of workcover  insurances and employers!!!The anonymous workcover “case manager” [uses the term claims adjuster] explains that a lot of employers would benefit from using in-house video cameras and surveillance devices to monitor employees!

Because is important to properly document, record, and use surveillance even for minor work injuries. These surveillance cameras can also deter criminal activity, the case managers states. To get more information on how to purchase and install security cameras, you may want to take a look at these home security cameras reviews to help you get started.

Workcover case manager says install surveillance cameras in workplace

According to the source, surveillance cameras should be installed “not to spy” on employees (!) but but to be able to record events when no witnesses are present. The workcover case manager explains that this is about substantiating the work cover claim and the work injury.

“Take for example a worker who reported being on the floor for 15 minutes before being able to get up and seek help after an injury, but what evidence is there to support this report with no witnesses?”

Surveillance cameras are the silent witness, the case manager says.

“Finding even one fraudulent workcover claim can save a lot of money for the employer”!

 Surveillance cameras in the workplace reduces horseplay says workcover case manager

The workcover case manager furthermore explains that if workers are aware that they are being recorder, horseplay is lessened in the workplace. S/he writes that many workers comp claims result from horseplay.

“In an example case, the injured worker lied to the doctor about for example a pallet falling, when the worker was actually injured while running and flipping into a rolling cart while co-workers stood by and laughed…”

In this example case, s/he writes, the injured worker required surgery. Since cameras caught the worker behaving inappropriately, the claim was denied. The employee deceived the boss, doctors, and the claim adjuster about how the injury occurred.

The anonymous  workcover case manager advises that an employer will find it very beneficial to have cameras installed especially when insurance premiums are also reduced.

—————–

My seriously injured thoughts:

Thank you for the story, L.J. With no offense to you personally, I wonder who is benefiting the most here? The employer or the workers compensation / workcover insurance company? I mean considering that worker fraud accounts for less than 1 to 2 percent of fraud, installing surveillance cameras would hardly “return on investment”, eh? And what about invasion of privacy? Would you like to be filmed picking your nose?

It is an entire different matter altogether if one is talking about the need for a security system (security cameras).

What are your thoughts, dearest readers?

 

7 Responses to “Workcover case manager says install surveillance cameras in workplace”

  1. One has to ask the question as to why all calls to and from Workers Compensation Case Managers are not recorded. All other calls to the insurance companies are.

    Of course, we know the answer why: the workers comp section is the perpretrator of insurance fraud. We wouldn’t want that on tape would we now?

    • In my opinion they ought to install video surveillance cameras in all workcover insurance offices! It would certainly make the Ombudsman’s life much easier to report their wrongdoings (such as hiding millions worth of unpaid accounts in cupboards). It would be very interesting to actually see and hear what those CM’s re saying (i.e. what they tell injured workers on the phone vs. what they write in their files), to hear their “meetings” and discussions on who needs to be cut off by when etc etc. Geez, most of our problems would be solved.

  2. You know what, I’ve seriously considered “live video blogging” my entire life, awake, sleep, walking, eating, shitting you name it.  Every single second published on the web, public, just so when the inevitable “video evidence” threat comes out there’s a mountain of “this is the true relatiy of my life, every single last painful second of it, not an edited, redacted version, captured and filtered with bad intent”

    But given the burden of proof is on the victim, all the insurance companies have to do is plant “seeds of doubt” and you simply lose by default, so it wouldn’t work anyway.

    The legislature is horribly broken to allow such inequality to be imposed on citizens, for the benefit of organisations tasked with acting in the interests of those exact same people.

    Ben.

  3. Whist they’re at it, they may as well microchip us (all injured workers) and have us monitored in our houses with mandatory installed video cameras. Oh, and one of those whadyacall them prisoner ankle bracelets too. F*ck  🙁

  4. It’s very similar to the TAC spending a small amount of advertising dollars, to encourage people to spend more on cars to buy airbags (which lowers injuries, but the cost of lowering the injuries was born by the public, while the premiums stay high and indexed, despite lowered claims).

    By using fear tactics to get employers to do the dirty surveilance work at their expense, workcover (and the state government) gets to declare bigger dividends.

    Regardless if the money claimed for an injured worker was because the worker was horsing around or not, I would still prefer to see the money paid from premiums go to people injured on the job rather than be declared as profits.

    Insurance should cover variance – the variance cover it’s providing is liability cover for employers so they don’t have to adopt a small risk times a big payout for an injured employee — the premiums are paid in good faith on the expectation that injured workers are reasonably cared for (and not some slimey “it’s a dollar better than the dole” definition of reasonable — actually reasonable as a reasonable person would interpret it).  When insurance companies declare profits, what they’re telling us quite explicitly is that they charged too much on the premiums for the amount of risk cover that was provided.  And not only is the state government setting the rules, but they have a financial incentive to evolve the system to even further in their favour.  This situation is just simply abysmal — especially given their penchant for excessive propeganda campaigns as branding exercises, and subtle manipulations of the public perception on victims.

    The costs of injuries in high risk jobs should be borne by high risk companies — and the cost of looking after employees injured in that job in the cost of the products produced.   There’s an argument that were this to be fully covered to australian standards, none of the companies that fell into this category could afford to continue to operate in australia, as offshore locations that do not offer workers protections are more profitable.  I would argue we shouldn’t suffer this argument, as were this the case, the companies would already be moving overseas in the search for more money, and the jobs were gone anyway.

    If we value human life, we shouldn’t allow economics to dictate our moral choices either.  If we don’t value human life, then rather than pretend we do and allow the general population to believe that “insurance looks after people” while simutaneously it secretly tortures them unashamedly, then we should simply hand victims guns and ask them to shoot themselves.  And if the general public is still happy with the risk of their sons and daughters from all walks of life being put in a postion to hold a gun to their own head, then I really just want to start a whole new race, because I don’t consider people humans if they’ll even remotely tolerate that situation.

    Ben.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. p harr (@pharr2) - January 15, 2012

    RT @WCVictimsdiary: Workcover case manager says install surveillance cameras in workplace http://t.co/cS4TDM7j

  2. WorkcoverVictim (@WCVictimsdiary) (@WCVictimsdiary) - January 15, 2012

    Workcover case manager says install surveillance cameras in workplace http://t.co/cS4TDM7j