Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - WSI was only following the law

WSI was only following the law

Aug 18, 2008 - 06:40:59 CDT

By BRUCE FURNESS
Bismarck

WSI was only following law

In an Aug. 13 letter to the editor, Tom Asbridge wondered how 377 North Dakota business received over $11 million "in taypayer monies" through Workforce Safety and Insurance's HELP grant safety program, and why more information about which businesses received those dollars wasn't forthcoming following a recent North Dakota attorney general's opinion. I'd like to shed a little light on the program and why certain information was shielded when it was released.

Safety is the most important aspect of our business. If businesses can prevent injuries from occurring through the purchase of safety equipment that is specifically tailored to preventing injuries, that's a good deal for everyone. That's why the Legislature authorized WSI to develop safety programs like HELP, which stands for the Hazard Elimination Learning Program. This program ended last fall. But in nearly two years, 377 North Dakota businesses applied for and received, on a 5-to-1 matching basis, with WSI paying the lion's share, grants of up to $50,000 to purchase safety equipment for their businesses.

During the lifetime of the HELP grant program, $11.4 million in safety interventions were spent in an effort to curb injuries in our state. These are not general fund or "taypayer monies" as Mr. Asbridge alleges, as WSI receives no general fund appropriations. WSI is supported through workers' compensation premium dollars that all North Dakota businesses must pay.

Finally, when the attorney general asked WSI to release the names of the 377 businesses that received HELP grant money, he specifically excluded WSI from releasing how much money each business received. He wrote, "the grant amount does have a reasonable potential to reveal an employer's premium amount and that is prohibited under (law). If this is not the intent of the Legislature, it should consider amending the law in the next legislative session."

A similar restriction applies to claim payment information as well. So, whether it's an allocation of over $11 million in safety grants provided to businesses or an allocation of approximately $225 million in benefit payments to injured workers during this same time period, current law does not provide for releasing these amounts on an individual basis.

WSI is supportive of measures to become more transparent but until such efforts become law, we must follow the existing law. That, to quote Mr. Asbridge, is the essence of democracy.

News > Opinion

Printer friendly version WSI was only following the law

Comments

Living It wrote on Aug 25, 2008 11:36 PM:

" The true reason of the hugh surplus at wsi is because wsi has found loopholes in the system-having berg,walt,kieser,ruby an a few others passing bills against the injured helps alot an findly wsi making their own rules-come-on five job searches aday,but what came out today kind-da puts a dent in not breaking any laws,theres a lot more that needs and will come out about wsi..... "

Victor wrote on Aug 25, 2008 10:15 PM:

" It was turning around but no matter if it was turned around or turning around, the point is that while it went in the red under the control of the governor, it also turned around under the control of the governor, which takes away the argument that an agency under the control of the governors office will result in deficits again, what is your basis of fact for your earlier comment when you seemed to indicate that under Sinner and Schafer it was $242 million in the red the whole time it was under Schafers control as well. I would be interested in you reporting how much in the black it was in 1997 when the board took over? Your comment makes it seem like things weren't in the black until the board took over, which you know is not true, but rather than tell the truth and let people judge on the truth, the anti-governor control supporters spin things to how they want it. "

to Victor wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:25 PM:

" So was it turned around or was it turning around. Being under the control of the Governor's office it was an uncontrolled mess. I would be intersted in hearing your support material for your claim. "

Tech Stocks wrote on Aug 25, 2008 7:37 PM:

" To "to thoughts": the only reason WSI became solvent is because they stopped paying for injured worker claims and the NASDAQ boom. There was no magic, just thievery. "

Victor wrote on Aug 25, 2008 11:18 AM:

" To "to thoughts" when Gov Schaefer came into office there was a short fall, his administration had turned that into a positive before they structure was changed. If you want to correct someone, make sure you correct them will all the facts and the truth. The truth is that under a governor (Schaefer) WSI was turning around, so the lies about being under a governor will put it back into a deficit is just a plain lie. "

to Thoughts wrote on Aug 24, 2008 7:31 PM:

" Under SInner and Schafer there was a $240 million short fall. "

Thoughts wrote on Aug 24, 2008 4:24 PM:

" I am very disappointed in all of this WSI buisness. The coverups, mismanagement of funds, the threats to those outing the truth, not getting money to those who rightfully need it... the list is endless. This wasn't happening when it was overseen by Schafer our former govenor, Hoeven still pushes the WSI problems to the side. "

Moving on wrote on Aug 23, 2008 6:10 PM:

" Mr. Furness has a lot of work to do in the cover-up. The light is well on its way to being shed. Keep on talking and keep that spare shovel handy for all that digging ahead. That has to be tiresome. Adding insult to injury is not the answer. "

Barney wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:03 AM:

" Does WSI know what following a law means? I don't think so. "

Living It wrote on Aug 23, 2008 1:20 AM:

" I just have to say to a few of you (that when you say if telemarketing was the only job you could do you would fly on it) please go try an bs someone else-when you say it's just us whiners that don't want to be telemarkets your wrong-we were'nt asked to be telemarketers it was forced down our throats-some of us (as myself)had already won our total disability from social security so i guess your calling them milkers a whiners also-just about anyone thats been for the injured workers -reporters-tv people-out standing bloggers-have all be told to quit what your doing an find something else to write about or find a new job-wsi does'nt follow the laws and it also makes up it's own-like five job searces aday-i do'nt think this will get printed because the bt is pro wsi -in your eyes wsi can do no wrong -i'm living proof that they can,have a good day.ddr "

Compassion wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:26 PM:

" Love the compassion makes a good point. Those who talk about taking telemarketing jobs as not beneath them and IW's milking the system and how they've seen a few people cheat etc etc sound rather cold and uncaring. Is this how people with disabilities should be treated? Is this how you would want to be treated? I question those who say they would jump at a telemarketing job if that's their only choice...how do you know if you've never been there? Not everyone can do a telemarketing job. Those of you who talk about the degenerative disc disease and other issues...check out California. About a year ago, California worker's comp faced a class action age discrimination lawsuit for their 'degenerative disease' denials. Haven't followed up to see the status of the case, but maybe a few of you should dig into that. I think this sounds an awful lot like discrimination against an aging population and workforce. "

Love the compassion wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:52 PM:

" Those talking about injured workers milking the system and just trying to take advantage sure sound like a compassionate bunch. Sounds like they might be WSI workers which would explain some of the general public responses to a WSI survey recently. Many injured workers can go back to some kind of work, but to think that everyone can no matter the extent of their pain is inhumane. WSI needs to start treating injured workers with dignity and not just expect that they should be happy to try to find work as a telemarketer. At a recent workers' comp legislative review committee, George Keiser asked WSI's head of return to work Robin Halvorson to provide the committee with information about how many vocational plans WSI creates that identify telemarketer as the return to work plan and then how many of those jobs are actually available in North Dakota and how many injured workers actually get jobs and can keep them. Big surprise, Halvorson forgot to give the information to Keiser but is working on it. Telemarketing might be a possible last resort, but should not be the only job identified. The legislators are going to demand the actual numbers on what percentage of all vocational rehabilitation plans per year identify telemarketer. Compare that to the dollars WSI spends on return to work services each year and then wonder what they are doing for all that money. Helping the injured workers? Really????? "

Edward wrote on Aug 22, 2008 7:36 PM:

" To Interested: I was not attributing the high deductible program to Basin. I am aware that large deductible programs were purchased from WSI by some employeers and the deductible amount was then insured in the open market. You seem defensive about Basin. I apologize if I stepped on your toes. "

Interested wrote on Aug 22, 2008 6:54 PM:

" Edward:

You are not only may be wrong about Basin not receiving safety grant money, you are wrong. They were not on the list released to the public, therefore there is no doubt.

You think you know more about Basin's rating method than the ordinary person. How do you know Basin purchased a large deductible program ? Basin does, but they are not going to comment. If you know, then you are revealing policyholder information which is not public information. If you are still an employee, that is a breach of confidential information. If not an employee, then you are guessing.
Which is it ?

Why don't you ask Policyholder services who ever used a large ($250,00)deductible, not $250 as you state. Maybe the list will help clarify what to this point has been speculation. "

Sad to Say wrote on Aug 22, 2008 6:18 PM:

" Unfortunately, as with many other programs, it's due to the dishonesty of some that makes the administration of this type of program the nightmare it is. Let me first say I'm neither employed by WSI or a family member of an injured worker, but I've first-hand seen several supposed disabled workers "milk" the system while they are able to carry on every other daily activity other than hold a job (fish, carry heavy objects, ride ATVs, finish a basement, own and run a business, etc). I know that there are many truly disabled persons out there; however, if everyone were just honest and played by the rules, it would be easier for everyone involved. "

Back at you Guess What wrote on Aug 22, 2008 4:20 PM:

" You know, I am not going to waste my time on this blog anymore. The facts are these....Many injured workers think since they were injured at work they are owed the world there after and there is no reasoning with them. Appears you are one of them. Second, WSI is not withholding wage loss benefits that are due an injured worker within the law, but then again, many of you want it all..regardless of what the law states. Again, I am very familiar with the NDCC and I again suggest you get a copy to read so maybe you can get a grip... As for work as a telemarketer. I agree, I would do that job to bring in some income, at least I could go to bed at night and look at myself in the morning knowing I accomplished something besides whining about how WSI has been so bad and mean. As far as a doctor saying one is incapable of no work, sorry, I do not buy it, I know people who are very handicapped and they work so your comment about doctor's telling some of you that you are not capable of ANY work is bogus. In fact I question their medical ethnics overall. Spend some time doing something constructive and stop whining, you wil feel better. "

Okay Folks wrote on Aug 22, 2008 1:48 PM:

" First off I love how everytime someone makes a statement you disagree with you take a personal shot. Second I am not a legislator. Third I love how I offer to help solve a problem with the system and I get attacked, no wonder you cannot get anything done. I will be true to my word and get a bill introduced but thanks for the support. Fourth I did answer the question about do not call lists and I am not on any. Thanks for your rational comments "

Edward wrote on Aug 22, 2008 1:18 PM:

" To Inerested: As I said; I may be wrong in thinking Basin received safety program moneys. Thanks for the correction. The large deductible program was different and not a part of the safety program. Basically it allowed large employers to take a very large per claim deductibe with WSI and go to the open insurance market to purchase coverage below the deductible. This was able to be done at a lesser cost than WSI would provide coverage with a $250 deductible. I was just wondering if this program was still in place. This is the program that I thought may be in violation of the Century Code. "

Interested wrote on Aug 22, 2008 12:23 PM:

" To Edward:

Did you find Basin or any of its subsidiaries on the list of recipients released to the North Decoder website ? I did not. It would appear your guess is wrong and you have at the least implied Mr Mandigo inappropriately tried to influence an administrative decision and possibly violated the Century Code in some fashion. Before you make unfounded allegations, sometimes it is best to check your facts to avoid looking foolish. "

Tom Asbridge wrote on Aug 22, 2008 12:11 PM:

" WSI CEO Bruce Furness has now demonstrated a new talent, usually reserved to lawyers. According to Webster: OBFUSCATE: to obscure; confuse, bewilder. That is exactly what he is doing. I had expected better from him when he was appointed CEO of the troubled WSI. He has demonstrated that he is interested in only covering the tracks inside the agency.
He sites semantics; taxpayer money vs public money. He knows well that the funds involved in the grant program are public property. I never alleged that it was appropriated money. He then attempts to lead the public away from the real issue by describing the grant program. It is not relevant. What happened to the money is. Next, he hides behind a political ruling that does not reflect what the law says as Stenejhem well knows. How convenient. He then portrays the problem as legislative. Stenehjem, like Wefald, just went where the political winds sent him. Next, Furness cites the problem that Stenehjem created and voices concern over whether or not the public can decipher the amount of premium paid to WSI. Such concern is touching but not relevant.
We have a right to know how public money is spent. Furness knows that. Oh how he wishes that the agency could be more transparent. And then has the audacity to lump the grant program with the privacy rights of injured workers. Finally he quotes me and wraps himself in the flag as being committed to the essence of democracy. Obfuscation is not the essence of democracy. Standing up for the public interest is. Eventually we will know about the use or abuse of the $11.4 million in public money in spite of this obvious cover-up. The greater the resistance to full disclosure, the more suspicion as to just what this money was used for will occur. The real question is just who is going to stand up for the public interest at the Capital in Bismarck "

Safety Grants wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:16 AM:

" To Edward: Basin would've most likely been eligible for $50,000 in grant funds as they're one of the largest employers in the state. However, Mr. Mandigo would've had nothing to do with whether or not they received a grant. I doubt he would've even been aware if they applied for funds. That said, I do agree that grants in general shouldn't be used for equipment, or should very cautiously be used for that type of expenditure. I don't see much caution in how WSI does anything, quite frankly. They appear to do whatever they want. The basis for the entire program (research and learning) is flimsy at best. To be fair though, I don't think any of the WSI board members have been involved in getting safety grants for their companies. Look at it this way: they're barely in touch with anything that WSI management does, let alone micromanage a grant program. And trust me, I'm not WSI's biggest fan, so saying this is truly in the spirit of fairness. "

dude wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:34 AM:

" To the guy asking what percent of telemarketing jobs in this state.....why dont you tell us how many.....your probably one of them that voted for injured workers to be telemarketers. As far as I remember there are fifty of them though give or minus a few that closed shop over night since some of these companies are known to be scams. You did not answer that one guys question either....are you on the dont call list? "

The truth you cant handle the truth wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:23 AM:

" The so called legislator on here that is afraid to expose himself for whom he is really. You do not want to go to that site the guy suggested because of the truth of injured workers on there. Then there are facts about laws that were passed probably by you to deny sure and certain relief to injured workers. The fact is you can not handle the truth. I guess we just need to vote all those out that voted these bills in, and start over dealing with people that will listen, not life time politicians like you. "

to the legislator wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:17 AM:

" Your a waiste of my time. You have no intentions of helping injured workers, just that of protecting that of the cash overflow of WSI. Have a good day. "

Edward wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:40 AM:

" A safety program is just that, a program! It is not money to by equipment or machinery for business to reduce operating costs. I may be wrong but let me guess, Basin and each of its subsidiarys received $50,000 as Mr. Mandigo sat on the WSI board. What about the large deductible program WSI has or had? Was that in violation of the Century Code? "

to Just Have to Say wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:30 AM:

" On point one, now we are getting somewhere, I would agree that the two year limit should start when a decision is made, not on the first date of injury. Why wouldn't you attempt to work with the legislature and the evil employer groups to make this change next session. My whole point this that we spend all our time arguing over erroneous issues and never talk about the things that can be done to improve the system. In fact, I will do you one better. I will get a bill in this next session that will change the start of the two year limit to the decision date of WSI as opposed to first date of injury. All you have to do is support it.
On point two, I would be interested to know the prevalence of this; there arent that many telemarketing firms in the state, so is it one percent, ten percent or fifty percent?
On your third item, please take no offense to this, but the blog you mentioned is a waste of time for me to go on as the people commenting there are more interested in talking about their plight and how WSI pulled the wool over their eyes and have no interest in finding solutions to the problems only complaining about the problems. "

Just have to say wrote on Aug 21, 2008 11:01 PM:

" If this is question 1. Not sure what the problem issince you did not put a question mark there.
My answer is: The delays WSI does in treating serious injuries sometimes can run from three months to sometimes over fourteen months is a big factor in the two year limit on temporary benefits. You might not know this, but some injury recovery times after surgery can be as much as two to three years depending on the seriousness of the injury. Sometimes it can even be longer, maybe even a life time with no recovery. So yes the two year limit is a big issue, as workers are forced off the system before they are even fully recovered. You will see some of this taking affect here soon since the bill passed in 2005, and you will now start seeing the injured workers affected by this law.

Question 2. As for the telemarketing jobs, please explain to me why this type of employment is so insulting. ( I think this is question number 2, right???) Telemarketing is not a job for some that have been forced on it. Some injured workers have been told by treating physicians that they can not work at all due to limitations. I have even talked to injured workers who can not type, or spell very well. Yet WSI believes they are telemarketers. Most whom are forced on to this job are ones who did labor jobs, and I mean hard labor jobs. Some even ex-bikers, now do you know how ex-bikers, and construction workers talk? You dont suppose they might use four letter words on the phone, and have short tempers. Yeah they are perfect for telemarketing. Sorry but I am about out of word count. If you want to discuss this more go to http://iwofndadvocates.com blog, and comment in the open thread I will look for you there. "

to Just have to Say wrote on Aug 21, 2008 8:13 PM:

" I am not on any do not call lists and do not work at WSI. Your not answering the questions about 1171 nor told me why a job is beneath someone. "

Just have to say wrote on Aug 21, 2008 4:13 PM:

" To the expert on WSI and the laws.......I guess you know the loopholes that WSI uses too. Interesting take on the issue about you would be willing to take a job as a telemarketer. I would like to have pictures of that if you do. By the way did you sign up fot the "No Call List"? If your answer is yes, then you actually do NOT believe in telemarketing as a job. I am sure you know the issues about the WSI bills, as you probably deal with them each day at 1600 somethingsomething. "

to Guess What wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:55 PM:

" Talk to me about 1171, I know the bill well and the organizers of it. This was a return to work effort that has been successful (I'm sure you see it differently) and it caps temporary to two years, after that there are other classifications the injured worker goes into along the way and can recieve benefits for up to 7 years or go on a perminant basis. Not sure what the problem is. As for the telemarketing jobs, please explain to me why this type of employment is so insulting. If I lost my job today and a telemarketing job was what was available it would be "Hello, Mr. SoandSo can I interest you in ..." A job is a job, nothing is beneath anyone. "

Guess what wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:26 PM:

" To Hey Injured Workers Wife

Even if WSI were to pay the right amount it would still be below their maximum allowed amount. Nice try with your half information. Maybe if you are so up on the laws you can tell me who sponsored Bill No. 1171, or should I say requested the law. Then do you think that the other state programs will be seeing the effects of this law soon? Give us your input on this if you are so up on everything. Oh and by the way, I am not whining as you put it, I am stating what I see being done to injured workers. I just think that the system needs to be changed to assist injured workers in all ways, not just what WSI sees fit to do. I have my own income that helps with our needs, so really money is not the issue; it is the principle of the issue.

Although I did have to laugh at your exaggerations like using the word infinity. By the way many private insurance companies covering workers compensation claims do pay long-term disability benefits, some for the rest of the seriously injured workers life. Why dont you do some research now, and call other states workers compensations systems and ask them if they force their seriously injured workers to be telemarketers. I have done this, surprisingly enough North Dakota stands alone on that from the ones I called, and I called fifteen different states. "

leo wrote on Aug 21, 2008 1:48 PM:

" To Safety Grants

Good points. Another very important question -- were any of the $35 million funds diverted for any other purpose other than the safety grant program? Oops! "

Injured workers wife wrote on Aug 21, 2008 1:21 PM:

" As for the other blogger talking about the OIR Board, CorVel, and the Court system to deal with WSI. No need explaining it to me, I am watching all if it unfold first hand. Thanks anyway. Believe me I know how my husband is treated, It is not just hear-say, we keep records, record all conversations with WSI, and all doctors appointments. The proof is in the recordings!!!! "

Hey Injured Workers Wife wrote on Aug 21, 2008 12:44 PM:

" Yes, it is true, wage loss benefits are paid at 66 2/3 percent of the injured worker's earnings..this is LAW, however what also is LAW is that there is a maximum that can be paid so a very high wage earner will not necessarily received 66 2/3 percent of his/her earnings in wage loss benefits--by LAW there is a maximum benefit allowed. WSI is not trying to cheat the injured worker, it is LAW. I suggest you purchase a copy of the NDCC and read the section of laws regulating WSI. You see, if the claims adjuster just decided to pay the injured worker whatever they wanted, they would be breaking THE LAW so quit the whining and read the NDCC. Tell me, what private disability insurance pays 100% of lost wages and on into infinity like so many of you injured workers thinks WSI should do? Surprise!!! they cap the amount paid and the number of years a policy holder will get benefits. Please get informed with facts before making false accusations. "

to Injured workers wife wrote on Aug 21, 2008 12:16 PM:

" Okay, wow, take a deep breath and step back a second. You commented previously about how WSI was cheating you on the payment of your benefits. I replied and explained the law they were following and not cheating you. Apparently I opened Pandoras urn. I have been at this a while and heard many a plight of injured workers and I have realized two things the first being that they are in a very difficult position just like anyone dealing with a health issue and I do have compassion for them so please dont hang me out as a heartless heathen, the second is that there is always more to the story. The process is not perfect and there is nothing anyone can do to make it perfect, there is no way to make everyone happy. The information you presented are all great examples of this, all of them have two sides to the story no one more right than the other. I think that too often injured worker advocates such as yourself focus on things that dont have any effect on your cause, such as the dinner at East 40. Long is just plan mad, in both the attitude and mental state sense of the word. They were just having dinner folks nothing more, no decisions were made, and if there was conversation had it was about the governance process of the board. You all give the board and upper management entirely too much credit about decisions on injured workers. I have been to all the board meetings for a number of years and never once has a decision been made by them in regard to how claims will be handled. Focus on increasing the child care credit, the maximum benefit cap, death benefits, etc.
As for your comments on OIR, district court, & CorVel I could go on for hours on these items but will spare you because you wont agree or take the time to understand where I am coming from. "

Injured workers wife wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:18 AM:

" Yes I suppose your right, who are we to think WSI would do anything underhanded? This government branch has been following the law to the letter, nothing has ever been brought up, or questioned about their actions. They dont threaten injured workers on the phone, use degenerative disc disease as a way out of a claim, cut off benefits to the seriously injured, overturn rulings of an ALJ Judge that favored an injured worker, figure out ways to reduce benefits, ignore treating physicians recommendations, require injured workers to become telemarketers (which that is such a big industry in North Dakota), figure out ways to delay benefit reinstatement ( say like the process of OIR Board, ALJ judges, and forcing IWs to go to the state courts, and using CorVel as another system to destroy the injured workers. Yes none of this stuff happens with WSI. Oh did I mention WSI holds illegal meetings at the East 40? Maybe that didnt happen either! My mistake I guess I have not seen any of this happen living with an injured worker. I dont read any websites for information either like ndworkcomphelp.com, or http://iwofndadvocates.com/blog/ since thats all lies too. Almost everyone whom argues with injured workers families either never had an injury, or thinks they are all liars. I guess you could be right, they take medication, take the risk of having surgery to correct issues of the injury, and work at physical therapy to try to get better to return to work. Who would risk going under a knife in surgery if they were faking an injury? You people need to wake up. As many families of the seriously injured its not just the injured worker, but the wife, and children that are affected by the injury, and by WSI trying to do the damage they do. "

Safety Grants wrote on Aug 21, 2008 9:23 AM:

" To Leo: Someone from WSI or a very close supporter with an awful lot of statistics bantered over the grants program on a post elsewhere on the Trib. I can clear up one mystery on the grants program...the legislature authorized $35 million in expenditures for safety programs, iniatives, etc. I don't think that means WSI had to spend that much. They just couldn't exceed that cap per biennium. Couldn't agree with you more though on how the concept is flawed in providing equipment. You can't really argue against good intentions if that's what was behind it (prevent injuries with safer equipment). My beef is the resources being wasted gathering statistics on how effective the equipment is in preventing injuries. What is WSI possibly going to use that information for? How will they apply stats for very unique pieces of equipment that vary wildly from industry to industry? Shouldn't the manufacturers already have statistics on the improvements they've made to equipment? Don't they have rigorous manufacturing standards and safety issues to consider? Those companies are on the hook for millions in liability if they don't produce safe equipment. Sounds like a not so clever excuse to justify handing out millions to employers. Strip away the research (learning in Hazard Elimination Learning Program) and you have nothing more than a gift program. "

to Injured workers wife wrote on Aug 21, 2008 8:29 AM:

" The reason you think that WSI is cheating you is completely wrong. The LAW, not WSI, sets benefits. In North Dakota, just like almost every state in the union provides 66% of the states annual weekly wage, not 66% of the workers wage. The reason for 66% is that this money is tax free so it represents the net wages. There are no states in the union to my knowledge that pays out based on workers pre-injury wage. So WSI is not cheating you, they are only applying the law. "

leo wrote on Aug 21, 2008 7:45 AM:

" Furness said he would shed a "little" light on the program. He wasn't kidding - he offered very little. $11.4 million was spent on this program. What happened to the remainder of the $35 million designated by the legislature? The program ended last fall? Why and by who's authority? I know of no directive by the state to suspend this program. Since when is a Bobcat skid steer loader a piece of safety equipment that is specifically tailored to preventing injuries? The big companies received the lion's share of the intended funds while the smaller companies were often denied of their requests for equipment. There was no rhyme nor reason to the agency's methods of disbursing these funds. Internal shenanigans were politically motivated - it helped to be a good republican. The whole program stunk of management intervention and the original intent of purchasing equipment to reduce injuries was flawed. The human factor, which causes ninety percent of all injuries, was never addressed. So, WSI, shed a little more light on this program. "

Injured workers wife wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:15 PM:

" Here I wont be shy about it, my husband gets 2k a month in benefits. But guess what he made on an average of 4k a month before the injury. So is that 66 and 2/3 of his pay getting 500 a week? My math says no. WSI cheating workers again!!!

So there you have it from one individual on benefits. Now lets see what one individual business got in a grant!! "

To Question wrote on Aug 20, 2008 7:08 PM:

" Yes, The information should be made available.... "

Question wrote on Aug 20, 2008 2:12 PM:

" I would like to know how much injured workers recieved in benefits on an individual basis. Would you all agree to that? "

To Dakota wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:16 AM:

" You should be applauded for suggesting WSI disclose the information. Their argument makes no sense in that the range of premium will be disclosed and that is what the law protects. Here's why it makes no sense: why then, are WSI board of directors selected based on premium levels? Those premium levels are openly disclosed. Is the law being violated for each company that has someone on the board when that information is public? The intent of the law surely was to not dislose ACTUAL premium paid.

For all you businesses out there who either got small grants or no grants, wouldn't you like to know how much your competitors received? Is that fair? Government subsidy to help larger businesses compete? "

Dakota wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:37 PM:

" I wanted to clarify, preminums are based on job classification and number of incidents. Grants amounts were based on this. I believe the strongest and biggest companies benifited the most from these grants. "

Dakota wrote on Aug 19, 2008 10:08 AM:

" " As a business owner and a grant receipent, I do think the info should be released, including the dollar amount of the grant and type of equipment received, who cares if someone see's what preminum I pay, I believe this should be public information. Grant amounts were based on the amount of the preminum made.
Job fields are classified at a different rate and based off the number of reported incidents. (Construction workers verus office workers for example.) Construction is listed as the highest I believe.
Again, I believe they should release the information. " "

Lapdog wrote on Aug 18, 2008 10:25 PM:

" Everyone here knows that Furness is just a political lapdog whose only goal is to cover up all the sins that Halvorson and Bjornson have committed. Don't let his act of obliviousness fool you. He may look like everything is going over his head but he is a pro at claim deniability. Someone needs to turn the heat up on the Furness. "

East wrote on Aug 18, 2008 9:52 PM:

" Why not then just list the equipment purchased by this program without giving names of businesses. Then maybe the public might have a better understanding of what the money was used on, rather then jumping to conclusions. Just an idea.

If nothing is listed then there will always be that cloud of suspicion. Although the focus of the problems with this agency that put it in the spotlight have been all but forgotten, and that is the injured workers that have had their lives destroyed by decisions, and loopholes that WSI has used to deny the injured workers Sure and Certain Relief. My honest opinion is that the news papers, television stations, and many other news agencies here are going to back off of WSI, and also forget the injured workers. I have found a few websites that have not forgotten the injured workers. Go to Google and in search type in WSI issues, and you will see through the first ten pages numerous websites talking about the issues of WSI besides news sites. "

Just have to say wrote on Aug 18, 2008 12:36 PM:

" If anyone is doing the math on this the safety grant program has handed out on an average of $30,238.72 per grant. Thats a pretty big chunck of change no wonder people are wondering about this program. Anyone wondering if any of these businesses donated about that amount to campaign funds. Just a wondering, not pointing fingers here. "

iwofndadvocates.comblog wrote on Aug 18, 2008 11:43 AM:

" First off you said in a radio interview that you could not make any comments on a measure being proposed, and yet here you talk about it.

Secondly this is premiums that are paid in to WSI used for the safety grants. Now here is my questions of that part of the issue you state that it is not tax payers money. Is WSI a private company, or a state agency? Are the funds collected at WSI considered profits, or state money to use for the program? If your answer to the first question is a state agency, and your answer to the second question is state money to use for the program. Then yes this is taxpayers money, not a private companies.

As for the safety grant program, businesses should be responsible for the purchase of safety equipment, since when is it an outside agencies responsibility to help them support their business, and increase their profits with freeing up money they have made with the subsistence of a safety grant. I guess at least this way companies have extra money to support elected officials campaign funds. "

leo wrote on Aug 18, 2008 10:54 AM:

" It is a very convenient excuse for WSI to hide behind the law when it's to their benefit. Politicians and attorneys are pulling the strings of power at WSI, not Mr. Furness. The agency has a well documented history of twisting the law with the protection of partisan politics. Felony charges aren't made lightly. Our system of the law dictates that the Attorney General's office protect WSI rather than expose illegal or unethical activities. No other state agency has enjoyed the umbrella of unaccountability that WSI has and they have abused the system repeatedly. When a state agency refuses to openly provide information, it indicates they are trying to hide something. Why has this been their policy and why is it being tolerated by ND leadership? For good reason, their closet skeletons are many. "

NDer wrote on Aug 18, 2008 10:36 AM:

" Interesting argument by Mr. Furness. According to the conclusion in Wayne Stenehjem's A.G. opinion, "WSI violated N.D.C.C. 44-04-18 by not releasing STEP grant information within a reasonable time and the names of HELP grant recipients." If I'm tracking Mr. Furness's argument, WSI was only following the law when it was breaking the law.

I guess if you're in top management at WSI that probably makes sense. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.