News News Archive Email A Friend May 3, 2024 To Clarify What “File” Means With Workers’ Compensation Claims. The Connecticut Supreme Court Does It. April 25, 2024 California Department of Industrial Relations and Cal/OSHA Will Honor Workers’ Memorial Day at Four Events in California on April 28th-29th 2024. Cal/OSHA Joining Partners in Arcadia, Richmond, San Diego and San Francisco. April 23, 2024 California Division of Workers' Compensation Launches Online Portal for Submission of QME Medical-Legal Reports April 22, 2024 California Division of Workers’ Compensation Posts Updated Time of Hire Notice
| | Employers Nearly Sandbagged by WC Budget Bill By Robert Warne - February 11, 2003With the slip of a pen, Section 62.5 (b) of the Labor Code was almost edited to read, “one hundred percent of program costs shall be supported by employer assessments.”
The proposed legislation would have shifted the complete burden of financing the state’s workers’ compensation system onto the backs of employers. Overnight employers would have gone from footing 20 percent of the Workers’ Compensation Administrative Revolving Fund through assessments, to coughing up the whole chunk of change.
Such legislation must have been irresistible to certain budget crunchers, because by freeing up the general fund’s 80 percent responsibility, the state would have saved an estimated $24 million this year.
The idea for this legislation trickled down from Gov. Gray Davis’ mid 2002-2003 spending cut proposal. And on Jan. 27, the Senate Rules Committee made the governor’s wish come true in the form of SB 10X. But one week later, on Feb.3, without debate, the workers’ compensation urgency focus of the bill was scrapped to make way for classroom reduction legislation.
Companies can now breath a sigh of relief knowing that they have temporarily dodged a combined total of $100 million in added costs this year. And now that the governor has shown his hand, employers can let the lobbyist loose to head such a measure off at the pass when the issue comes up once again in Davis’ 2003-2004 budget proposal. |