Is the Bell Still Ringing

Is the Be= ll Still Ringing?

With the spirit of Christmas still fresh in my mind, I= find this is a difficult article to write. If you’ve ever read the story “Polar Express” to your children or grandchildren or seen the movie, you’ll understand what I say when I tell you, I still hear the bell. Therefore, it troubles me to have to broach this subject, but from wh= ere I stand, I can’t be silent while our injured brothers and sisters continue to be disadvantaged.

The definition of a work-related injury for purposes of reporting to OSHA is this: You must consider an injury or illness to be work-related if an eve= nt or exposure in the work environment either caused or contributed to the resulting condition or significantly aggravated a pre-existing injury or illness (OSHA 1904.5(a)). I find it curious that so many injuries that occur at work end up being classified by our employer as non-work-related w= hen according to OSHA’s definition they are. The workplace doesn’t = have to be the sole cause of the injury or illness, only a contributing factor. = There are nine exceptions where injuries are not considered work-related listed i= n OSHA’s 1904.5(b)(2) and they almost never apply to our jobs. The definition of what constitutes “significantly aggravated a pre-existing injury or illness” is found in OSHA 1904.5(b)(4). You can read these in their entirety at www.osha.gov or by going to= www.uawlocal974.org - Safety Chairman – Research Workplace Hazards – and either search for 1904.5(b)(4) from the search box on the OSHA home page or use the OSHA Standards search engine.

What is= the rationale behind the denial of work-relatedness for injuries suffered on the job? The= re has to be a reason. Is the company trying to hide the true number of injuri= es from OSHA? Is this another way of effectively shifting healthcare costs to workers by attempting to convince us that that our injuries are not work-related “according to OSHA”, therefore we pay co-pays and deductibles that would have to be covered by CAT if the injuries were classified work-related? Are there those who get financial rewards or promotions for “improvements” in safety statistics no matter how they are achieved? Do CPS Audit scores, STIP or SMART goal results unintentionally drive some misguided people to make decisions detrimental to workers? If so, would decisio= ns like these be in keeping with our “values”?

What be= nefit does a worker gain from being injured? We all know how injured workers are = treated and what it means to us and our families. We understand the fears of supplemental workers who will not report injuries as evidenced by the story= in President Rick Doty’s report last issue, which told of a supplemental worker who cut the cast off of his broken hand so that he could go to work = because he feared he would lose his job if he told his boss he’d broken it at work the night before.

I feel all of us owe a debt of gratitude to those lice= nsed health care providers who have these roles in our workplaces. These special people have endured many, many hours of education and training to learn how= to help or heal us when we need it the most.

Did you know that healthcare providers take oaths? Nur= ses recite the Nightingale Pledge which says, “…With loyalty will I endeavor to aid the physician, in his work, = and devote myself to the welfare of those committed to my care…” Physicians take the Hippocratic Oath which says in part, “According to the law of medicine, but to none others, I will follow the system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of = my patients and abstain from which is deleterious and mischievous.”

Having = read the oaths sworn by those entrusted with our health and well-being in the workpl= ace, I wonder why it seems that a small number of those health care providers ap= pear to have strayed from the ideals in the oaths they pledged? I understand their susceptibility to pressure from forces which have nothing to do with the ethical practice of medicine and everything to do with the corporate balance sheet.

Do they truthfully have the best interest of the injured at heart or is their allegiance first and foremost to their employer? Why or how could some healthcare providers violate the trust given to them and seemingly turn away from those who they have sworn to help. Why would someone say they didnR= 17;t know what is wrong with an injured worker and tell them that they should go= see their own doctor when the injury is work-related? Something is terribly wro= ng.

Increas= ingly it seems that statements given while being treated for work-related injuries or during accident investigations are getting twisted and end up haunting the injured worker. If you are injured, ask to review what is written in First = Aid before you leave and correct anything that is not absolutely accurate. Remember, the more you say, the better the chance for you to be blamed. Additionally, when it comes time for the crowd of management-types to perfo= rm their “investigation” and ask you questions about your work-rel= ated injury or illness, ask for a union representative to be present-otherwise y= ou run the risk of inaccurate or untrue information being attributed to you. <= o:p>

Your We= ingarten Rights allow you to request a union representative be present if you are as= ked questions that could result in disciplinary action. If you are not provided= your requested union representative and given time to speak to your representati= ve, you don’t have to answer questions.

You have additional rights under the Illinois Worker’s Compensation Act. If you’re hurt at work, you don’t have to let the company doctor t= reat you, but you do have to let them examine you. I understand that it is very convenient to have those services so readily available, but it is ultimatel= y your decision who gets to treat you.

I found this information at this website: http://www.idfpr.= com/doi/General/Worker_Comp.asp “What Does Workers' Compensation Insurance Cover? It is the employer's responsibility to pay for reasonable medical care for an employee's work-related injury or disease. The medical treatments that should be cover= ed by the employer include:

Necessary first ai= d and emergency services;
Two treating physi= cians, surgeons, or hospitals of the employee's choice;
Additional medical= care providers to whom the employee is referred by the two physicians, surgeons, or hospitals.

The employer is also required to pay for necessary physical, mental, and vocati= onal rehabilitation treatment programs that assist in the employee's recovery and return to work. The employee, however, must cooperate in reasonable treatme= nt programs”.

In closing, as one who still hears the bell, I want to believe that all health care professionals have the needs of their patients= as their top priority, and I do not intend to offend those who care for us to = the best of their ability each and every day. I’ve been married to a wonder= ful nurse for the past 28 ½ years and have a daughter that followed in her mot= her’s footsteps. I truly appreciate the love and care they show daily for those fortunate enough to receive their care and guidance. I do, however, want th= ose few individuals who may be making decisions that are not based on the best interests of the workers to understand that they have been put on notice. <= /p>

Steve Mitchell

UAW Local 974 Plantwide Safety Chairman

http://www.countryjoe.com/nightingale/pledge.htm

http://= www.facs.org/archives/hippocraticoathhighlight.html