ACCforum: The Biggest Scam Ever Pulled Off On Workers - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

The Biggest Scam Ever Pulled Off On Workers ABUSE OF POWER AND TRUST

#1 User is offline   Wayne Coady 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 16-November 04

Posted 09 January 2005 - 03:27 PM

What are our Unions Up to, besides no good for injured workers

January 8, 2005

Attention: All Injured Workers

Here is a brief statement, which we have put together from our newly founded society of injured workers across Canada. The name will be announced in the very near future and we will be speaking on behalf of our many members. We wish to be kept up to date on all parliamentary committees and senate committees which are dealing with, labour issues, human rights issues, health issues and charter issues. Please read the following article so you will better understand our goals.
Injured Workers Are Being Sold Phony Bill of Goods.
I am of the opinion that the WCB was devised in hell when businesses came to the realisation that dealing with employees injured on the job was having a negative effect on their bottom line. Simply dismissing the injured worker, they realised, would only result in negative portrayals of business as being inhuman or, at the very least uncaring, about those workers who were really of no use to them anymore.
Business is, after all, about making profit and the possibility that it could be held liable for unsafe conditions in the working environment coupled with subsequent law suits with settlements that could reach into the millions if the employee won was not something business wanted to face.
After a great deal of thought that involved both business and its handmaiden-government, a plan was devised whereby the injured worker could be convinced that they would be “taken care of” in the event they were injured on the job. With vague wordings devised by highly paid lawyers, injured workers were told they would be in a better position if injured because an “independent “ board would be there for them to “objectively” examine their claims and determine what benefits would be fairly applied to their situation.
The only requirement on the part of the worker was that they not attempt to independently sue their employer and should accept any decisions as final from the “objective” board members who would adjudicate their claims.
This “independent and objective” organisation, known as the Workers’ Compensation Board. This government Board, is a very sophisticated agency designed in hell, to con injured workers into thinking their rights were being served while at the same time, denying claims from deserving injured workers.
Government got in the act as well by providing funding from the provincial and federal levels to set up the WCB which would be marketed to working people as a form of insurance and of course governments also receive the protection of the Act.
Any workers who remained sceptical about signing their rights away were further encouraged by their unions who had represented them since the days in the 30’s when business “used and abused” workers. The union had always stood by the worker in the past so, there were no further questions about the WCB when their union leaders jumped on board to support the WCB concept. If you’re unionised worker, who better to trust than your union, right?
Union leaders even appointed union members, such as Betty Sutherland from CUPE, and Jim Neville from the Steelworkers, to sit in the board of the WCB here in Nova Scotia. The duty of the Board of Directors is to insure that the owners of the fund interest are looked out for and we all know who owns the fund, don’t we, why of course the people who put the money in the pot and that includes unions.
The union movement through out Canada even went one step further and unionised the staff and caseworkers, here in Nova Scotia the NSGEU local 55 is the bargaining unit. Who will the Nova Scotia Federation pick to sit on this vial government Board, to replace Charlene Long from the Nova Scotia Nurses Union? I can tell you this anyone who has any heart what so ever will refuse.
So, why are their injured workers who have never been compensated for their injuries? Why have families been torn apart when this same WCB that was set up to protect injured workers denied them benefits and exacerbated their situations by making them literally jump through hoops to determine if they qualified for the benefits? These benefits they so desperately needed to keep their homes and put food in the bellies of their kids.
After years of shouting in the deaf ears of the WCB that they were slowly dying for lack of the benefits they thought they would be entitled to, some injured workers finally gave up the fight and killed themselves.
No one within the WCB seems to suffer any pangs of conscience when they ruin already shattered lives. Certainly not those, administering the WCB Act or policies. And remember those union representatives who got themselves appointed to the Board, well they get to enjoy all the little perks handed out by the very Board they sit on?
If a worker has been unable to work for years (and thus pay union dues) they certainly are not as valuable to the union as a member who can be cajoled into returning to work (and paying dues) as the worker who is forever unable to return to any work. That former union brother or sister is now expendable in the eyes of the union who, it would appear, is of no further use and not worthy of its support.
The role of the WCB is nothing more than that of a legislated mobster, used by government and the employers who own the fund, to do their dirty work and take any abuse being dumped on them (the WCB) while the employers and government continue to look like innocents.
What the business community and the government who finance the WCB are doing, is not much different than the loan shark does when employing the services offered by an enforcer to collect money owed to the loan shark. Just because it is the hired enforcer administering the abuse, does not lessen the fact that the employer should not be held accountable too.
The courts have always looked at the guy who pays someone to kill somebody else as just as guilty as the hit man. Similarly, why should business or government be kept off the hook when the WCB is only doing the nasty deeds those bodies set it (WCB) to do?
The sad and most detrimental part of this whole process, from the injured worker’s standpoint, is that union representatives sit on the Board of Directors of this government agency (Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia) and oversees the abuse being administered, unionised staff of the Board.
None of this should come as an earth shattering revelation to NSGEU President Joan Jessome, or Nova Scotia Federation of Labour President Rick Clarke and the labour movement they represent or the business community that is supported by the government in this instance.
Even the legal community is aware of the disgraceful acts perpetrated by the WCB upon the hapless injured worker. In fact, there are lawyers who represent the labour movement such as the NSGEU, and the WCB Board, who see this abuse first hand.
When one examines the Meredith Principal agreement, it mentions two groups,,, the employer and injured worker are the signing partners. Nowhere does it state the healthy and currently employed worker as being involved. Nowhere does it specify any other group should be signing partners.
It clearly and unequivocally states you must be injured before the agreement comes into effect. It further states you must be a member of the business community or (government employer) who is financing the WCB benefit plan to have a vested interest.
Injured employees have been and continue to be lied to, and have had their rights taken away by people who had no business being involved in the WCB legislation.
Unions have no right sitting on the WCB Board of Directors, because they a wearing two hats and are clearly involved in administering the abuse. Neither of these fulfil the designation under the Meredith Principal of injured worker or employer / contributor to the WCB coffers or, as some would have us all believe their euphemism, the insurance fund for injured workers.
The WCB and all that it encompasses have proven to be a duplicitous and hypocritical organisation in its dealings with injured claimants.
Its mandate was to control workers’ rights by coercing them into believing there was a “better way” while, at the same time, maintaining the bottom line for business. Injured workers be damned, the WCB has succeeded beyond its author’s expectations.
Injured worker groups have even been bought off, with the use of the taxpayers dollar by government. These groups are the Pictou Injured Workers, Cape Breton Injured Workers and the Mainland Injured Workers Association, these groups have become nothing more than sheep, herded into a box, where they are easily managed by the owners of the fund and government. So which one of these groups will offer up to represent injured workers, surely they do not think that all injured workers can be had for a dollar.
It all fairness if there can be such a word incorporated into WCB Act, all WCB Boards across Canada, it must be decertified and the labour movement should step down from sitting on the board of directors of these government agencies.
How can the union movement in Canada possibly be seen as organisations who truly are there to protect the workers, when they sit and serve on the most vial government legislated agency in the world? The Canadian Labour Congress and all of the Provincial Federations of Labour can address this problem today, all they have to do is disenfranchise the union movement from the WCB Act and start to work for the injured. It is time the unions who attach themselves to the WCB Boards realise that they are sanctioning the abuse, after all the Board of Directors is required to look out for the interest of the owners of the fund.

Wayne Coady Dartmouth Nova Scotia Canada B2V 1Z2 (902) 434-9306

Your Canadian Friend

Anyone who wishes to contact me , please email me your phone number at [email protected] and we can discuss a contact time, since we all live in different parts of this WCB World. I will get back to you I promise.....

#2 User is offline   Kiwee 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 26 January 2005 - 09:18 PM

INteresting read, more on corporation tactics to create their own rules. I wonder if ACC threatens NZ govt with moving their investments offshore... like to australia. You would think they would be unable to invest overseas but i guess when you have 6 or 8 billion the govt doesnt want to rock the boat and lose all that income...
this is the intro, more at:,470283,00.html

Why we must stay silent no longer

Noreena Hertz is one of the world's leading young thinkers, whose agenda-setting new book on corporate power is already sparking intense debate on both sides of the Atlantic. In this remarkable special essay for The Observer she argues that governments' surrender to big business is the deadliest threat facing democracy today

The globalisation debate - Observer special

Sunday April 8, 2001
The Observer

In the hullaballoo following the American presidential election, with hanging and pregnant chads, and ballot forms that needed a PhD to decipher, it was easy to forget something that was in many ways even more alarming than confusion over who won. More than 90 million Americans had not bothered to vote - that is, more than the combined population of England, Ireland and Scandinavia.

Low turnout is not just a US phenomenon. In the UK, the landslide victory for Labour in the election of 1997 was achieved on a turnout of 69 per cent - the lowest since the war. During the European elections in 1999, less than half of the electorate voted, and less than a quarter came out in the UK. In the Leeds Central by-election last year only 19 per cent of those eligible to vote did so. Predictions for the forthcoming general election are that turnout will fall to the lowest level yet.

People have lost faith in politics, because they no longer know what governments are good for. Thanks to the steady withdrawal of the state over the past 20 years from the public sphere, it is corporations, not governments, that increasingly define the public realm.

Unregulated or under-regulated by governments, corporations set the terms of engagement themselves. In the Third World we see a race to the bottom: multinationals pitting developing countries against each other to provide the most advantageous conditions for investment, with no regulation, no red tape, no unions, a blind eye turned to environmental degradation. It's good for profit, but bad for workers and local communities. As corporations go bottom fishing, host governments are left with little alternative but to accept the pickings. Globalisation may deliver liberty, but not fraternity or equality.

This is the world of the Silent Takeover, a world in which governments can no longer be relied on to protect the people's interests. Blinded by the allure of the market, they now put corporate interests first.

#3 User is offline   Kiwee 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 26 January 2005 - 09:21 PM

More on corporate evasion of responsibility at:

Evasion of Responsibilities and Dues

As various corporations improve their profits and become increasingly wealthy and powerful, the owners and leaders naturally wish to ensure ways to protect and continue the systems that have given them these possibilities. Throughout history, powerplay and politics has resulted in the elite of the time to institute policies that will allow them to benefit. Often, it won't benefit the majority and if it does, it is only because it doesn't impact the elite negatively. Trade wars, cold wars and hot wars have resulted over acquisition of wealth and resources and the maintenance of the hegemonic structures. The Cold War, for example, was partly about maintaining old centers of capital against other rising centers. World War I and II were also wars between imperial powers over wealth and resources.

Today, some multinational corporations wield considerable wealth, power and influence. Indeed, some of the larger corporations have more power and influence than many nations.


Corporations and Worker's Rights

Structural Adjustment programs of the IMF and World Bank have led to a race to the bottom, where standards of living are continuously reduced. Labor, as one example of this, gets cheaper and cheaper which benefits the multinational companies, but not the workers themselves. Various international trade agreements that large corporations are able to strongly lobby favorable conditions in, are often designed in part to make resources (including work forces) cheaper.

As some corporations and industries become increasingly globalized, they effect more and more people. Take for example the situation in Massachusetts -- they were trying to put laws in place to prevent or restrict corporations doing business with regimes that violate certain rights of people in some way -- they were pressured by a coalition of 600 major corporations in that State, saying that this is unconstitutional. The judges agreed.

#4 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 01 April 2005 - 11:10 PM

There has been a lot of hype lately by politicians looking for election platforms on the inordant increase of people reciving sickness and invalids benefits and some rather impressive figures have been quoted.

It seems to me that when someone wants to get figures to back up these claims the government agencies are very adept at obtaining and providing them even if the accuracy is questionable they are used with extordinary vigour.

The main reason quoted for these increases has been often blamed on people moving to these benifits as the criteria for unemployment benifit, dpb and other benefits are becoming more stringent.

How many of these increased recipients have either been exited, denied, or rehabilitated by ACC or are on these benefits because they are suffering from restrictions caused by illness that is injurury related such as soft tissue sprains strains or industrial related illness such as chemical sensitivity or occupational overuse syndrome and have been denied by, or given up on ACC.

How closley do these increases correlate to the exits, rehabilitations, denials, or denials of cover for non compliance of ACC's draconian practices (they themselves have qouted 80% denial rates) in their endeavoures to provide large investments to buffer the governments fiscal balance.

It is my bet that they do not want to have these figures uncovered.

I believe it is a fraud of mammoth proportions perpetrated on the sick and injured with the full complicity of the government of the day..

This has been a problem for successive administrations and what has happened is Labours attempt to solve it.

Now it has come home to roost in the social welfare sector.

They have only moved the problem to another sector that is now becomming the flavour of the day for cutbacks as now the recipients are a tax liability and attacking them from there is more palatible to the joe public who is always ready to support reducing their tax burden and are only too keen to vote for anyone that promises them more discresionary dollars to reduce their escalating credit card debts.

So now it becomes a political platform whilst the monies collected to cover these people is being siphoned off into the Treasury to pay for all the extravagant political promises they made to get into power the last time and to fund this rounds election bribes.

Meanwhile the suffering suffer on and nobody gives a stuff because the sick and injured are a minority the rest are just too dumb to know they are being ripped off all they care about is more money in their pockets untill the sad day it happens to them.

They are even to dumb to realise its happening already.
Tertiary graduates are starting life with lifetime debt . Free education is a myth. Hospitals and health are in crisis. Law and order is a shambles. Costs are escalating. Billions being wasted by incompetent public servants who employ myriadd Ex spurts to tell them how to do the jobs they are employed to do whilst the national infrastructure is falling down around our ears. And they have sold the family jewels.

This government is a fraud and none of the other contenders seem to be any better.

All contenders for the reins of power should be forced to publish exactly what they are going to do for their term three months before an election and be compelled to adhere to what they publish instead of making bullshit promises that they have no intention of keeping.

#5 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 15 June 2005 - 10:17 AM

From the "Sydney Morning Herald"
Huge scam in WorkCover certificates
By Malcolm Brown
June 15, 2005

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
A former senior WorkCover licensing officer had conspired to issue thousands of bogus competency certificates for people wanting to use explosive-powered tools and other dangerous equipment, the Independent Commission Against Corruption has heard.

The racket, where people could get competency certificates for as little as $100, had become so rampant that middlemen were compiling lists of people and sending them to a WorkCover contact, Greg Farmer, counsel assisting ICAC, said yesterday.

One middleman, Peter Fraser, found word had spread so quickly that it had "snowballed". He had handled the issuing of about 1000 bogus trade licences in three years.

The ICAC, headed by Terry Griffin, QC, is conducting an inquiry into the issuing of bogus building licences and trade certificates which are alleged to have seriously eroded building standards and endangered safety.

Mr Farmer said the worst offender within WorkCover had been Wendy Whitcher, whose partner, Grant Whaanga, had obtained "business" for her. Two other WorkCover officers involved, to a much lesser extent, had been Kylie Atkins and Julie Trindall.

AdvertisementAlexander Bishop, construction manager of a Chatswood-based bricklaying company, Gricon Constructions Pty Ltd, admitted his company had obtained bogus certificates for its employees so that jobs did not have to be delayed for want of a qualified person. He had made assessments of the company's workforce of about 25 and had made his own assessments of competency. He had not received guidelines from WorkCover.

There had been "two or three" serious accidents since the practice began in November 2001, and one man was off work because he had fallen from scaffolding, but it was "unfair" to relate this to the quality of the scaffolding.

Darren McAndrew, a former forklift driver, agreed that working through Mr Whaanga, he had obtained bogus certificates for five employees of the company he had worked for, Continental Carbon.

Mr Fraser said he had worked with another middleman, Zoran Ratkovic. Sometimes he had gone onto building sites to spread the word and had done 10 to 20 licences a month.

The hearing continues today.

#6 User is offline   freefallnz 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 29-June 04

Posted 10 October 2007 - 01:43 PM

The parallels in New Zealand grow even stronger.

Whos the latest appointment as chairman of the Board of ACC

Ross Wilson Government Toady and Unionist..

I do ask myself whether his views have changed now he's glutting himself on workers compensation levies


With the passing of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 the primary challenge is to restore the legal concept of fairness to ACC administration and adjudication.

The criteria for success should not be bottom line profitability (although efficient financial management is crucial), but the much less easily achievable objectives of injury and disease prevention and the effective rehabilitation of injured people.

Part of the social contract deal was that the Court role in adjudicating compensation entitlements would be replaced in the accident scheme by a quasi-judicial Accident Compensation Commission. That was seen as a necessary safeguard to ensure that injured people received a fair deal. The Commission role has, since 1982, been discharged by the Accident Compensation Corporation which has, at times since then, lost sight of its quasi-judicial role to ensure fairness.

Unless ACC restores public confidence in its integrity and fairness ACC will continue to be vulnerable to the ideologically driven reform agendas we saw in the 1990s.

Acc Law a Union Perspective

I'm sure there are many usefull quotes in this article for use when corresponding with ACC's new Chairman.

I can however answer 1 Statement. Date of accident 1997 - current status "awaiting part time vocational training"

Share this topic:

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users