Louisiana: The State We're In; 769

The funding for the production of Louisiana the state wherein is provided in part by the Ziggler foundation of Jennings and Gulf states utilities helping Louisiana bridge the gap to our energy future. In 1983 the legislature approved a bill to overhaul the state's worker's compensation system. Business leaders celebrated saying the changes would put an end to a system that gave too much to injured workers. But labor leaders disagreed and this year they say they'll convince the legislature it made a mistake. That. Good evening I'm Beth Cortney and this is Friday's

edition of Louisiana the state we're in after completing work today on several key issues many lawmakers return home for the weekend. So I'm wondering if this might not be one of the last times they see home for a while. Governor Edwards apparently is sticking to his guns he's threatening to keep lawmakers in Baton Rouge for a special session. If they do not approve a pay raise plan for teachers and public employees by July 9th We'll have reaction tonight from several legislators on this latest turn of events. As for the governor himself he's off for Las Vegas this weekend but he may have made his biggest gamble before he left. All in all it was a busy week at the state capitol with lawmakers tackling such issues as multi banking campaign spending reforms agency shop and workman's compensation. This week the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee approved a bill that would spread many of the revisions made last year in Louisiana as workers compensation law. Business leaders are bitterly opposed to making any changes. Most notably the bill approved this week would abolish the state's year old office of workers compensation. How would that affect businessmen. How would it affect working people. Tonight we'll

try and come up with some answers. Joining us in our studio are Gordon Flory secretary treasurer of the Louisiana if a bill CIO and John Whitfield former director of the state office of workers compensation. Beth another hotly debated labor management issue came up before lawmakers today and when the fireworks were over Labor had won another significant victory. The house labor and Industrial Relations Committee approved a bill that would allow so-called agency shops now under the proposed law nonunion workers would be required to pay union dues when covered by labor management contracts. Labor calls it the fair share plan but its critics which include business and industry leaders as well as some nonunion working people say the bill in effect repeals right to work. Do you know maybe in six in times you know wearing smiles but the you know I know is one of violence last year the union decided to go on strike at my job says Louisiana has a right to work law. I'm going to war my passengers and myself

was met by a mob. One individual decided to break and shatter my back windshield with a golf club narrowly missing the skull of one of my passengers. He was arrested and also charged with carrying a concealed weapon. And no he wasn't wearing a suit and tie that morning. When you leave from work today think about a man on the hood of your car with a picket sign that has nails projecting out from it as he threatens to break out your front windshield but he decides to let you off the hook today as he breaks a sign over the top of your car. This is a union I know. How dare anyone Tass not pass but to force individual steps by this organized organization. One penny. There is nothing in that bill that requires any such thing. It is absolutely permissive in nature.

All that bill does is to authorize. The employer and the employee representative did negotiate. Now when it was all said and done the committee voted 9 to 7 to approve the agency shop bill. It now goes to the House floor for its final legislative test before heading home for the week in a majority of members of the Senate thwarted an attempt to give state insurance commissioner Sherman Benard control over the insurance rating commission. Senator Allen Bari of Lafayette had proposed a bill to shift the rating commission from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Insurance. However the center later voted for an amended by Senator Ben Bagot of New Orleans that would make the rating commission virtually a ton of us after the amendment was passed Senator Baria returned his bill to the calendar. In the past the insurance commissioner and the rating Commission have been at odds over who should have the ultimate authority to set insurance rates in the state. Critics of the bill say if it had passed commissioner Bernard could have set himself up as the

insurance czar of Louisiana. Today Governor Edwin Edwards chief floor leader Representative Raymond board of marks Phil said a plan to give teachers and public school employees a pay raise may be unveiled next week. In all likelihood Laborde hinted the new plan will call for pay raises in the neighborhood of 7 percent. It's believed that Governor Edwards revised plan calls for an 86 million dollar increase in the corporate franchise tax. Twenty million dollars in increased fees for some state services and twenty two million dollars in cuts from the administration's education program. The package all in all would raise about one hundred twenty eight million dollars. The big question now can Edwards get it approved. And for that matter can you get any plan approved. Today we talk to some legislators and got their reaction. Do you think the legislature is that that will happen will go home without a plan unless he comes up with something it has been several proposals. I haven't seen one followed you know to the fullest extent at this time so I can't see

where nothing different will happen between now and July. How do you feel at this point whether any of the many plans that have been floating around that you could support. Well sort of there are some plans floating around any one particular would have some problems with. They say they were German in July. Appropriations Committee along with the legislative body and the man with the government is going to have to rearrange your

priorities but the money is there. Today at the Capitol reaction was also mixed to a plan approved yesterday by Congress that would withhold a portion of federal highway money from those states that refuse to raise the legal drinking age to 21. Louisiana's legal age is 18 this week. The Louisiana House effectively killed a bill that would have raised the state's drinking age. Representative Margaret Lowenthal of Lake Charles tried to make it 21 but the bill was amended in committee to 19. Then when it hit the House floor the bill was tabled altogether. Now in light of congress's action lawmakers admit they may have to rethink the matter. Under the proposed law Louisiana could lose 5 percent of its federal highway money in 1987 and 10 percent in 1988. It's estimated that 5000 teenagers are killed each year in alcohol related accidents. The concern about teenage drinkers is something relatively new at the legislature. It's a different story however when it comes to business labor issues. This week a Senate committee approved a bill that would overhaul the state's worker's compensation system. The measure is backed by labor and as

is almost always the case that the legislature business is on the other side. Last year business leaders want a hard fought battle to get its own changes in the system approved. They say the new bill backed by labor would undo everything they worked for. Labor leaders say in the interest of injured workers who have lost needed benefits the law must be changed. When the legislature approved a revision of the worker's compensation law business leaders celebrated for five years they had backed changes in the system they claimed gave too much to injured workers and did not give those employees enough incentive to return to the job industry called the changes major reform of the worker's compensation system. Labor did not label the Bill of 1983 as reform. We labeled it as a bill which totally took away benefits from injured workers and workers killed on the job. This week a Senate committee approved a bill that would undo nearly all the changes in the worker's compensation law that business supported. The proposal would among other

things eliminate the state's 11 month old office of worker's compensation. Business leaders say allowing an administrator to review claims before they go to court has put an end to many costly settlements. It would also repeal a requirement that workers injured on the job seeking rehabilitation. The provision is designed to get an employee back on the job as soon as possible and it would remove many of the requirements for those eligible for benefits. Louisiana AFL CIO President Victor Busey says in the interest of the worker the 1983 workers compensation law must come off the books. It's simply removed most of the benefits reduced. Many of the benefits lemonade in a number of the benefits it's extremely difficult for workers to get a fair judgment out of the administrator. If he follows the intent of the law the workers are going to get almost nothing for those interest

case after case after case has been proven. Well the only people who don't like the new worker's compensation seem to. Some of the officials the workers the benefits are considered a safety program in their rehabilitation. Never had even one of those workers who had been injured in the first nine months. They obviously were pleased because there were only 78 who disagreed with the recommendation. Less than just over 1 percent percent were happy because they just don't like it. They don't even give you an example of a case where the administrator made a ruling and completely ignored the ruling and the man is now in court at tremendous expense to get just the meager benefits that the administrator had given to the benefits of far less. And yet they say this

is to eliminate people going to court but in order to get benefits he still got to go to court in spite of the administration. When we appeal to the administrator to enforce it yet he has authority to enforce the decision against the worker but not against him. And probably in the neighborhood of a hundred million dollars to people in the state. Ministration to the court. It's just a majority of the legislature. No doubt in my mind the majority of the members are

serious complaints from their constituency about the way they're being treated which compensation 85 percent of the rich are not represented. I don't understand their opposition. With us in the studio this evening to discuss this complicated and controversial issue are two gentlemen with a great deal of knowledge about workers compensation but vastly different perspectives. Mr. Gordon Flory secretary treasurer of the Louisiana AF of L CIO and John Whitfield the former director of the office of workers compensation. Well Mr. Wickfield this office has had a short lifespan thus far and it looks like it might be in serious trouble in this session of the legislature. You've been quoted as saying it was a miracle that it worked at all when when you took office because you were given such a short time

span to make it work. Are you convinced that it's a necessity that this office is one that should be condemned. Yes I certainly does. I think it would be unfair to Louisiana. To wit there 10 months of experience to eliminate the office up until the office was created in 1983 special session. No one absolutely no one knew or had a handle on what the real cost of workers compensation was in Louisiana. The obvious should be continued death for no other reason than to accumulate the data and to accumulate the cost so that we in Louisiana can understand and see where we need work. Well Mr. Florey it was during all this debate on this issue and it's been around a long time and I know you've debated it a long time. There has been some sort of agreement that there are problems in this area. But you think of what this solution is worse than the problem that existed before.

Well of course there has always been a problem with industrial action and Andres das that sort of thing and the amount of benefits paid since 1914 when the law was actually passed on this date. But you don't throw the baby out with the dishwater that the wash water and I take the position that what happened to David Crane and the Republicans that in 1983 was take a hundred and fifty million dollars in benefits away from the injured worker rather than really a direct attention to the real source of the problem which I suggest is the insurance rates on the profits held by the insurance companies. Until such time as I want to do that I don't think you ought to take any of the benefits away from the injured worker. But there are problems. No question but what there is problems in any program you look at in a state there are problems but they're not problems that can't be solved by reasonable people who fail look at the source of the problem. But what happened last year what they refused to

look at the source of the problem because the insurance industry joined its Thomas organization and mobilize their forces and took all you have about SEO and they were successful. Well you had some help from the Louisiana trial lawyers and as I stand there on one of the ideas I Mr. Wickfield that is is to take a lot of this out out of the courts and that's what was running up cause that was one of the main reasons for our farm. Let me give you a couple of examples of the type of the GB uses that was being practiced. A state worker called me after weights at the office that were dug up. Though a college in New Orleans he had slept at work and kind of hurt his back so he went to another boutique surgeon in New Orleans. The doctor examined him and gave him a prescription for a muscle relaxant and said he should be alright. They went to pay the bill and the young lady told him it would be 30 dollars. He said well I did this at work so his workers comp the young lady said Oh well that'll be one hundred fifty

dollars. And when he was asking mine she said Oh well the doctor has to write a written report. Now that's the kind of abuse that was going on from the medical community the other kinds of abuses that were going on is that no one was there to look out for the injured worker really if he was not getting the right kind of treatment from his employer carrier. The only recourse he had was to a lawyer. And right off the top the lawyer is going take 20 percent of the first $10000 of any that money that the employee gets. My objective in being involved in it was to have an organization an office that could help that injured worker get the benefits that was truly doing without having to pay an attorney. Sometimes as much as two thirds or rather a third of what the employee received we've heard of employee abuses you're telling us that there are employer problems too and you found that on both. I did and I won't deny that. I think that there are abuses from

certain insurance carriers. I think there were abuses from certain employers and as well as there were abuses from the medical community. I appeared before a convention of chiropractors right after I set the office up and one of the first questions after I explained what we were done accomplish was from from the audience will Mr. Woodville Whose side are you on. And I said I'm on the sign to write whatever is right and just for all parties concerned. That's the only side that I'm on. Well Mr. Floria af of LC I really didn't want this to succeed from the start as you didn't like the idea did anyone ever get this office a chance to work. Well of course there is a philosophical difference as far as the commission is concerned. And it's based on experiences in other states as we have witnessed as to how they affect the benefits received by the injured employee. I'm not opposed to change as such but I could give you some examples as to why the office of the commissioner has not what we have a case right at the moment

where a man hurt his back and the employee a commission recommended a stratum of the employee accepted that settlement and the employer didn't even answer they respond. The law says if you don't reject it then your soon to have accepted it will be then or where he was and you refused to pay the man. So the lawyer goes to the man has to get a lawyer he goes to the Commission to ask for significant for the right to sue. The man said You can't get a right to sue certificate because there was no rejection of the man's left and IMO he can't get his benefits and is going to have to be a law suit in the court's going to have to make a judgement in that regard. There's no way that a commission. Again do the work that the judges have done in this state historically what the employees didn't like about the system was they didn't want the man going before a judge who was elected deciding on the amount of benefits that they were entitled to and that was a real issue. They were trying to take it away from the elected representatives in this state.

What about the issue that Mr Whitfield brought up earlier about automatically that figure went up when they said your back was in your hands the odds work was constant when it goes up because. You believe that I would I would certainly believe Mr. Whitfield if he said that I know in cases that in a state where a hospital costs medical costs a physician charges. Have been inflated merely because they found out that it's a workman's compensation compensation case there's no question about that. Medical costs are one of the major cost and what any injury for as that goes and until we can get a handle on the medical cost. You know there are dishonest people in every profession and I think that's dishonest and the doctors don't like to file reports. And when they do fall it may charge excessively for. Well if this office is dismantled then Mr. Whitfield we're going to go back to what design concern will be going back to the Dark Ages.

I think that we have made tremendous progress in this state. Now there are some changes in the law that I would certainly sustain as I mentioned in my testimony before the Senate committee the other day. I firmly believe this personally that if a person loses a part of their body he should be compensated I don't care if it's 1 percent 2 percent or whatever it is. And I would certainly support a change like that. My main concern is that we not go backwards let's go forward. I'd like to see what I would like to see happen is I'd like to see a representative a labor of management of the medical profession of the legal profession sit down on a study committee and come up with the very best way to handle some of the problems that we have. Well you found that people weren't very cooperative with you setting up the office what hope what do you have a conference of people sitting down together on you know in Department of Labor he said wasn't very quiet. Well that's that's true and I have to call a spade a spade. However I believe because I have a lot of respect. Victor

Busey and Carl and and of course the dumb that's with me today. Gordon I have tremendous respect respect for these gentlemen and I think they have the interest of the workers in this state at heart. I really do. The only time that I get upset is when somebody says well I'm representing business. When I took that job I didn't represent anyone I represented the law. And what I tried to accomplish was to carry out the provisions of that in a fair and equitable manner. But to give you an example of why it should not go back to the district courts I have a decision in my fall right now because the employee that I have now at my company was a member of the police jury. The judge threw out the law completely ignored the schedule benefit and awarded the man thirty five thousand dollars for a 10 percent disability to which the man is still doing the same job that he had at more money. And so the judge made four glaring errors in the law. Why. Because a man happen to be a member of the police jury and his office

is down the hall from the judge. Now that is again the type of abuse that was going on in the state that we tried to eliminate and change and mystified I suppose you're here to say you don't want to be this is to continue but you don't want worker's benefits to be caught on no way vast could we have a condone abuses to any system. The case that most would feel justified to harden on him that they will appeal that to a higher court and there is no question in my mind but what the court would reverse that decision. But let me just say to you I have a case at the moment where a man is a young 30 year old and a 20 percent disability of his leg to cough and back the doctor says he's released you'd better go back to what the problem is you can never be a cop in again because you can't climb scaffolding and that sort of thing. And as a man it's got to change isn't top of fashion. The only compensation he got was the time that he was off from work. Now that the doctors released him he gets absolutely nothing out of the old all that man would have got $30000.

Well gentlemen this is an issue that certainly touches the lives of many people in the state of Louisiana and I'm sure it's one we'll be discussing for many years to come. I thank you both for being with us and I thank you for joining us on the easy end of the state we're in we'll see you again next week. I'm Beth Courtney Good evening. Funding for the production of Louisiana the state where it is provided in part by the

Ziggler foundation the Gulf state utility helping the wheezy on a bridge the gap to our energy.