That would more logically be handled by unemployment.
- Unemployment is a no-fault general fund for a regular result of an economy. Workman's comp is (as in its name) is compensatory. They're giving workman's comp because otherwise you might be able to sue for damages due to an unsafe workplace.
  
  I'm saying if you can't work it makes more sense for that to be centralized into one thing instead of two. The reason for why matters far less than the reason for that one can't work.
  They’re giving workman’s comp because otherwise you might be able to sue for damages due to an unsafe workplace.
  No, you can still sue even if you take workman's comp. Workman's comp exists because regular insurance decided that it doesn't cover you at work just like they decided they didn't cover preexisting conditions, injuries due to accidents, or any other stupid thing they came up.
  
  That's generally not true. Only in very few instances can you sue your employer after taking workman's comp.
  https://www.hhrlaw.com/blog/2024/february/does-accepting-workers-comp-mean-i-cant-file-a-l/
  And there's a good reason to make the business foot the bill in some form: because it motivates them to not have an unsafe workplace. Whether that's due to increase premiums, direct suits, or governmental punishment, unsafe businesses should pay for their failures rather than being subsidized by the general public.
  
  They certainly do need to foot the bill for unsafe workplaces, but that does not need to be tied directly to injuries. They should be paying for the unsafe workplace even if no one is injured, and even more if someone is injured.
  
  They should be paying for the unsafe workplace even if no one is injured, and even more if someone is injured.
  You just described the purpose of both OSHA and workman's comp.
  
  Yes, I know. I am saying they should be one thing instead of two things.

69 comments