JustAl stacked today

Nah. This one was going to be someone's new scooter and was about an hour
fresh out of the box.

Workcover....wonderful!

justAL

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 08 Oct 2006 08:12:20 GMT

Maybe, but expect to find just how much scut work there is in a
bikeshop.

Zebee

 

Not on my plate Zeb.

justAL

 

Y'know... you've had shit-awful luck ever since you got off your
CX500...

Bring back Amelia!

 

I'm pretty sure that JustAl (alias "Mr KY") does...


BTH

 

He's already their,

Al, service this old guzzi as punishment

 

testing the scooter as part of his work description too smee

 

Not a bad idea! I kinda miss my shitters.

justAL

 

WOrkcover covers loss of wages and medical expenses etc. same as TAC.
They're both accident compensation schemes so you'd expect them to offer
similar things.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

whats the difference from crashing a forklift?

 

i don't know the details, but the tac paperwork asks whether you were at
work or on you way to/from work at the time ... i think tac still picks
up most of it though.

-----sharks

 

According to the TAC blurb if you are entitled to claim under workcover
then you will claim via workcover and not the TAC. However you'll might
actually find that the TAC would probably cover any gaps in the
difference between workcover and TAC entitlements. They might even
treat it as their case and just send the bills to workcover.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

That'd be so they could determine whether they should be paying or
whether Workcover should be paying. AFAIK Workcover no longer covers
accidents occurring on the way to or from work (thanks Jeff) but they do
cover accidents occurring during the course of work.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

it doesnt anymore?

 

That actually makes sense to me Nev, workcover is supposed to cover
accidents (incedents) occuring during the course of work, nothing was ever
said about the reasons it used to cover travel to and from work (and it was
rather a sore point that it did).

I really don't see travelling to and from work as being part of the work
(unless the person is being paid to work at a remote location and has
already clocked on).

G-S

 

From an employer PoV it might not be necessary, but from an employee
PoV it was beneficial. Maybe not huge perks by itself but when combined
with a lot of the other benefits which that Government took off workers
it all added up.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

I think the thinking was that if you wernt on your way to work, you wouldnt
be on the road at that time.

I thought it was a particularly good one because if you get injured, you
atleast get time off work to recover, some boss's would just fire you.

but i supose with work choices, you are a contractor and thus workcover is
up to the employee now..

 

I've heard people say that, but it still doesn't make sense (to me) that a
system specifically desigined to cover people for accidents at work and
structured in such a way that employers are rewarded or penalized based on
their safe work performance should include random factors such as
unstructured and out of the employers control non work travel.

YMMV

G-S

 

I can see where people might be peeved losing it, no one likes loosing
anything.

FWIW the only benefit workers in our industry lost was the one under
discussion, our award was simply rolled over into an industry agreement (and
there were actually some minor improvements in conditions in the process).

Not everyone is trying to rip people off, but from a 'systems' sense, the
payment we are talking about didn't fit well into the system it was in.

G-S

 

Looking at the act in Qld , regular route to and from work covers you
and working hours , apart from that some other section provides cover