Work Comp Bill

The Statesman reports that Sen. Curt McKenzie, R-Nampa has sponsored a bill that would pay police officers injured on the job 100% of their salaries while they recover. Apparently the impetus was Idaho State Trooper Chris Glenn who was shot in the neck and is now paralyzed. I sympathize with Trooper Glenn, but this bill is not a good idea.

The bill would assess $3 on criminal convictions and use that fund to make up the difference between what worker's compensation now pays and the full salary. The fund would be administered by the Idaho Industrial Commission's Crime Victims Compensation program.

Work comp pays various levels of income replacement benefits, but an injured police officer would probably get 2/3s of the full time salary, up to a capped amount ($525.60/week, depending on your income; see Table of Wage Loss Benefits here). Both work comp and Crime Victims benefits are not taxable. If the officer gets 100% of salary on these benefits, it will be untaxed and therefore actually a raise. Earning more on disability than full time is a disincentive to return to work; a bad idea.

One has to wonder why officers are so deserving. Any number of workers get hurt while trying to help the public. It's not clear why the rationale for the officers won't apply to lots of other workers.**

The Commission's Crime Victims program doesn't administer anything similar to this, and doesn't have the personnel or expertise to do it. It would require at least one new employee, which is counter to Gov Otter's philosophy.

What is "line of duty?" Getting shot, sure, but what about the guy who gets carpal tunnel from driving so much? How about the records clerk who blows a disk lifting a box of records?

If the program requires the Indus Commission to make up the difference between work comp benefits and full pay, it puts the Commission at odds with insurance companies. The Commission is supposed to be more or less neutral and impartial as between injured workers, insurance companies and employers. There is often disagreement about the level of income benefit the worker should be paid (there are 5 levels). It is in the insurance company's interest to choose the lowest level it can justify. If the Commission had to pay the difference, it would want the Ins. Co. to pay the highest level justifiable. Since the Commission regulates insurers, and can punish them, it is a clear conflict of interest.

For these reasons the bill is a bad idea.

**This is not the slippery slope/camel's nose in the tent argument. That argument is a fallacy. Saying that one step, giving benefits to cops, will lead to benefits to firefighters, then teachers, etc., is just false. One does not necessarily follow the other. If you hear someone making the slippery slope argument it is usually an attempt to distract from any real rationale.