No More Stress and Burnout under Workcover Yah or Nah

• 

  spackbace on 19/05/2023 - 19:53

  Victoria is unfortunately the most indebt state per capita despite having the highest state based taxes mostly due to

  Took our gst away from them too 😉

• 

  Synticulous on 19/05/2023 - 20:01

  Not gonna lie the worker's comp organisation brokers sitting on the other side of the room are starting to have mental breakdowns over people's mental breakdowns.

  Questions such as:

  Why do they believe they can claim two different concurrent mental issues, one for each job? Yes, I'm aware there's only one brain in question here.

  Could you answer why applying for the same job in another company might invalidate this person's mental incapacity for role claim?

  As you might tell, the role is not highly regarded by industry..

• 

  brendanm on 19/05/2023 - 20:04

  +4

  Increase premiums while reducing cover, sounds about right.

  • 

    Trying2SaveABuck on 19/05/2023 - 20:19

    this did cross my mind actually

• 

  Sawtell on 19/05/2023 - 21:38

  +4

  I think instead of removing workers protections for psychological injury they should legislate that workplaces have to be psychologically safe as well as physically.

  Then back that with prosecutions and fines for employers who don't provide that safe workplace.

  • 

    Ughhh on 20/05/2023 - 10:33

    they should legislate that workplaces have to be psychologically safe as well as physically.

    The WHS Act does cover it. The issue is that regulators ie. Safework won't know unless reported.

• 

  morse on 20/05/2023 - 03:16

  +2

  Not knowing more detail it might be reasonable re mental health. The article said:

  The government said workers suffering from burnout and stress would instead be eligible for provisional payments for 13 weeks to cover medical treatment.

  So from reading this, it’s not all mental health issues. It’s just burnout and stress. Not wanting to undermine burnout and stress, but it sounds like the changes don’t apply to say PTSD, or Depression from severe bullying and the like. It seems previously you would get time off, pay and treatment. Now it seems like you just get treatment. It’s not clear if some the payment is also to have some time off for treatment but that it’s capped at 13 weeks. The problem could be that time off is exactly what the person needs and if they are still working long hours, it’s not really addressing the problem. You’d also think there’s some expectations of the employer around how they treat the employee who is claiming workcover, like not pressuring for unpaid overtime or setting unrealistic KPIs.

  The problem with compensable schemes across the board is that often it puts the claimant in a position where they have to show how unwell they are to get the compensation, which in turn amplifies symptoms.

  Typically it goes something like this:
  - person has back pain gets some treatment and rest
  - goes back to dr, has improved but still has some pain
  - dr says well you’re probably okay to do x amount of work with x modifications.
  - Person might be fearful of going back to work so they say, actually it’s not really improved.
  - Dr says, some low level activity can help, to have longer off you’d need xyz impairment,
  - all of a sudden, pain is severe set off by whatever it is sitting, lifting, walking, persons condition gets worse.
  - very often the person isn’t making it up, the symptoms actually become real because the person avoids movement, thinks about it a lot, low mood contributes etc. if what they are really seeking is time off they’ll then subconsciously develop those impairments need to meet the threshold for it.

  Taking this back to the potential scenario in VIC, what may happen is that if there’s less cover for ‘stress and burnout’ all of a sudden there’s an increase in more severe mental health issues that are covered, and a small segment will go out of their way to prove they have them. Having said that I’d say overall it will save money and be better for people to have more of a return to work focus for things like stress, but the employer needs to be held to account too, with fines enforced if they go off plan, so it gives the person a chance to actually get better.

  Of course some schemes and insurers are downright evil and hire private detectives that essentially stalk people to try and catch them out, which also makes people worse. And some people are literally just milking the system with no intent of working even in a modified way. I’d say both are at the extreme end though and the majority want to help and want to get better.

• 

  tsunamisurfer on 20/05/2023 - 10:21

  -1

  I support removal of mental health cover.

  Work /Life is not supposed to be stress free. When there is stress you are supposed to be resilient, it's actually a homo sapien trait.

  • 

    iridiumstem on 20/05/2023 - 12:32

    +1

    I think it is like going to the gym, you gain strength by doing weights. Healthy amount is good, as it will lead to build up of muscle. Unhealthy amount is bad, because it will basically cause more damages.

    Work wouldn't be stress free, as you are being paid for a reason. Little bit of stress could be a good motivator, setting up calendars, remembering things to make sure things meet deadline etc.

    It shouldn't be overwhelmingly stressful to a point where it is unhealthy. The brain regulates the stress hormones, but it cannot continuously try regulating it 24/7. When the brain can no longer regulate the stress hormones, it causes issues with physical and mental health.