by DannyHaszard 210 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Bloody Hell......I hate to think how much you lawyers charge per hour....It was huge big time for me one day back when.
And now I read these incredible erudite opinions that you give for nothing.
I'm not having a go at anyone....It's great pro bono. Keep it up. I love it.
Eduardo wrote:
Skeeter, just as an aside can you please tell us whether you are female or male. You have female icon on your profile but your early posts suggest male? Am I confused or are you?
I am not confused on my identity, and do not need to flount how my girlfriend gave me oral sex before the LSAT. Strange post, Eduardo. Too much information,
Anyway, 1) the Judge did not "dismiss the Society's determination that these were religious volunteers" since there is nothing in the news article that said that the Society made such a determination and there wouldn't be since 1) the Society doesn't determine the status of the workers in WC situation and 2) such a determination is meaningless as all that is relevant is whether work was being performed at the time of the injury.
I do not have a copy of the court documents. If you do, please send them to me.
People posted NY law that said that certain church officials were not covered by wc claims. It seems reasonable to me that the judge would have had to determine if these folks were covered or not covered under the law. It would be very helpful to speak with Bethelites to find out if the Society regularly told them that they were not covered by workman's comp. My hunch is that the Society has sent JW Bethel workers home with a feelign that they had no wc claim....speculation of course.
And again Skeeter, the lawyer, the $400/week award is for a limited time only, not "for life" as you say.
I do not know the specifics on NY law, but by "for life" depends on whether the injury is permanent or temporary. People can take a lump sum award that would cover estimated damages for life. In that case, they do not get for life.
Eduardo, try to have a nice weekend. Smile for a bit, before you blow a gasket.
Skeeter1
Skeeter1...You don't "flount" about oral sex. You "flaunt" about it. But why anyone should "flount" or ""flaunt" about such a thing is beyond me. We really don't need to know about it.
Sorry, I did not spell check and typed fast. My mistake.
I did not "brag" about oral sex. Eduardo did. See his post under "law school."
Skeeter
Perhaps we all need some more information regarding Workers Compensation insurance. I'll post things as I find them.
From the Insurance Information Institute:
http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/workerscomp/
New York State’s workers compensation claims costs are the second highest in the nation but benefits are among the lowest. The NCCI requested a 16.1 percent rate increase in July but received a 5 percent raise. Employers say they can’t afford the high premiums but the legislature and labor leaders rejected a reform proposal put forward in 2004. In response to a possible loss of manufacturing jobs in the western part of the state, the Governor offered his plan again in December but did not summon the legislature into special session to consider it. The plan would have cut costs while raising benefits but critics said the plan offered too little. Benefits have not increased since 1992. One driver of costs in the construction industry is a labor law that other states removed form their books years ago which leads to lawsuits against contractors. The law makes contractors liable for work-site injuries whether or not the worker’s own negligence caused or contributed to an injury. The only defense in such cases is that the worker refused to use safety equipment or follow safety procedures. New York is widely considered to have one of the safest construction industries in the country, a fact that some attribute to this law.
Costs to Employers: Costs to employers include premiums, payments made under deductibles, and the benefits and administrative costs incurred by employers that self-insure or fund their own benefit program. In the mid-1950s, private sector employers paid an average 0.5 percent of payroll for workers compensation. By 1970 this figure was 1 percent. Employer costs escalated steeply in the 1980s and early 1990s and then declined, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Workers compensation costs as a percentage of payroll in 2001 fell to 1.9 percent from 2.0 percent in 2000 and then started to rise again, accounting for 2.2 percent of payroll in 2003. However, there is a wide variation in costs among states and industries so that the highest rated (riskiest) groups could pay several hundred times that of the lowest (safest) as a percentage of payroll.
Workers compensation premiums dropped considerably from 1994 to 1999, declining every year during that period by an average of more than 5 percent. The favorable workers compensation insurance environment during that time drew more insurers into the marketplace, pushing rates down. The discounting of premiums, in part as a result of high investment income at that time, together with intense competition, reduced premiums by 38.8 percent over the six-year period. Also contributing to the decline in premiums in the 1990s was growth in self-insurance and large deductible programs and, in some states, alternatives to workers compensation such as combined health and disability policies. Premiums are now rising again but for insurers the growing cost of claims is offsetting this increase.
Eduardo:
You state:
"This situation is extremely unlikely to bein any way related to 'downsizing' at Bethel."
I DISAGREE.
Brooklyn has been "downsizing" for several years now due to a whole host of reasons.
Now, the question is whether this recent significant "downsizing" of staff is "in any way related" to Brenda Upton's claim for Workers Compensation coverage and benefits?
On one hand, you have Brooklyn making the first significant staff reduction since 1915. On the other hand, you have the FIRST TIME a Bethelite has taken a claim for Workers Compensation coverage and benefits to the NY WC Board (as far as we know).
Hmmmm. Coincidence or related?
I believe I will go with "related".
In all likelihood, Legal has been dreading the inevitability of a "pursued" WC claim by a Bethelite for years. Legal pretty much knew they would lose before a WCL Judge - given the right fact situation.
Although I know no more than what appears in the news article, it seems that this Judge is saying that some Bethelites are eligible for WC coverage at least some of the time, if not that many Bethelites are eligible for WC coverage much of the time.
Eduardo, I believe you overlook the overall impact that this (unmodified) ruling would have on the relationship between the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" and the heretofore totally subservient "worker bees", if such relationship must change to conform with WC requirements.
I will leave open to discussion here how such a RELATIONSHIP CHANGE would affect not only Bethelites, but how such would likely filter down to other levels of the BORG.
I acknowledge that this Judge's ruling breaks new ground, and threatens many religious orgs in addition to the WatchTower, thus there is a good possibility that he will be reversed by either the Board or in the courts. However, you must also admit that the time may be right for this expansion of WC.
In any case, this will take time, and I don't believe Brooklyn is taking any chances on this one - thus the staff reduction. I think they realize that even a favorable appellate decision will leave open the possibility for some Bethelites to be covered under some circumstances - thus still the entry of WC into "the relationship".
Time will tell.
This site has pdf files of the necessary forms to become self-insured in NY state: http://www.wcb.state.ny.us/content/main/SiLr/selfins_forms.jsp
From the same site here is information for self-insured workers' compensation including some premium information http://www.wcb.state.ny.us/content/main/SiLr/selfins_wc.htm#individual
An employer who wishes to self insure for workers' compensation can do so in one of two ways: (1) by becoming an individual self-insurer or (2) by becoming a member of a self insured group. Political subdivisions must also provide workers' compensation coverage to their employees, and they may elect to self-insure those benefits.
An employer who wishes to self-insure on an individual basis for workers' compensation must submit the following as part of the application process:
If the applicant is deemed a good candidate for self-insurance, based upon all the information submitted, a conditional approval will be issued. Final approval will become effective when all documentation, as well as an adequate security deposit, have been received.
The amount of the initial security deposit will be based upon the current payroll report of the applicant broken down by classification code, and rates developed by the Compensation Insurance Rating Board (CIRB). The current minimum security deposit is determined as described in Rule 316.1, usually $624,000. Every year that the employer remains self-insured, the security deposit is reviewed for adequacy, based upon the payroll codes, CIRB rates, and the employer's reported incurred losses. If necessary, the employer must adjust the security deposit to adequate levels as determined by the Board. Failure to maintain security deposits in the amount determined by the Board may result in termination of the employer's self-insured status.
While actively self-insured, employers must submit the following information to the Office of Self Insurance on an annual basis:
The Self Insurance Office will utilize this information to determine adequate security amounts for each self-insurer. Self-insurers must also report who their licensed third party administrator is if claims are not self-administered. Failure to meet any of the reporting requirements may result in termination of the employer's status as a self-insurer.
A self-insurer who has discontinued business in New York State, or has arranged for the payment of compensation by alternate methods (State Fund or carrier coverage), may terminate their status as a self-insurer at any time. The Board will maintain a security deposit for the discontinued self-insurer until all claims have been finally adjudicated and fully paid, and all expenses and assessments have been paid.
Joining a group is an alternative to carrier or State Fund coverage for employers who may not be able to self-insure on an individual basis. To qualify as a group self-insurer and to maintain authorization to operate as a group self-insurer, the group must: (1) include two or more employers that perform related activities in a given industry and that have been in business for a period of time which is acceptable to the Chair; (2) have and maintain an aggregate net worth of members which is at least one million dollars; and (3) have and maintain a combined annual payroll of group members which, when multiplied by the current rates promulgated by the New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board (CIRB), is at least $500,000.
Any group of employers seeking initial authorization to operate as a group self-insurer must submit the following as part of the application process:
If the applicant is deemed a good candidate for group self-insurance, based upon all the information submitted, a conditional approval will be issued. Final approval will become effective when all documentation, as well as an adequate security deposit, have been received.
The amount of the initial security deposit will be based upon the current payroll report of the group members broken down by classification code, and rates developed by the Compensation Insurance Rating Board (CIRB). Group self-insurers are required to establish and maintain trust assets in an amount that exceeds trust liabilities, as those terms are defined in Section 317.2 of the Rules and Regulations. Group self-insurers who fail to comply with this capitalization standard shall be deemed "under-funded" and shall immediately provide the chair with an acceptable plan of action as may be appropriate in order to make up the deficiency in a timely manner. Such under-funded groups may also be subject to any or all of the provisions set forth in Section 317.9 of the Rules and Regulations.
In the event of the insolvency of a group self-insurer, participating members would be held jointly and severally liable for the unpaid obligations of the group incurred during the time of the employers' participation. For this reason, employers interested in participating in a group should review all relevant documentation of the group self insurer, including, but not limited to: the group's independently audited financial statement; the trust document and by-laws; and the group's methodology for developing contribution levels.
Group self-insurers are required to notify the Board, on properly executed prescribed forms, any time employers join or leave the group self insurance program. In addition, group self-insurers must submit the following information to the Office of Self Insurance on an annual basis:
The Self Insurance Office will utilize this information to determine that the Group Self Insurer is adequately funded. Group self-insurers must also report who their licensed third party administrator is if claims are not self-administered. Failure to meet any of the reporting requirements may result in termination of the group's status as a self-insurer.
So, um, Oroborus...how many Work Comp cases have you tried under NYC law that involved a claim of exemption on the part of the defendant based on religious order status of the injured party?
Just curious. I'd just like to know whether you are talking out of your ass again. It seems your "perspective" on legal issues involving the Watchtower Society comes down on the side of the Watchtower Society's desired perspective (legal unassailability) about ... let's see ... 100% of the time. Not only that, you go further and demean those who differ with you.
Well, guess what Eduardo? You don't know what the hell you are talking about this time. Your own words prove it.
Anyway, 1) the Judge did not "dismiss the Society's determination that these were religious volunteers" since there is nothing in the news article that said that the Society made such a determination and there wouldn't be since 1) the Society doesn't determine the status of the workers in WC situation and 2) such a determination is meaningless as all that is relevant is whether work was being performed at the time of the injury.
While it is true that the article doesn't mention it, does that fact mean that the Judge did not dismiss the Society's determination that these were religious volunteers, or, more correctly from a technical perspective (which you no doubt prefer) that the judge did not dismiss a "plea" that the injured party was a "member of a religious order injured in the act of fulfilling duties appertaining thereto"?
No. It does not. However, you proceed from this fabricated assumption of what the Judge did not do to a purely conjecture assumption about why he did not do what is claimed.
Let's take your "since" clauses one at a time, looking for basis critically. Again, it is technically true that the Society doesn't finally determine the status of the worker at the time of the injury, however the Society did plead THEIR determination, just as the claimant pleaded THEIR contrary determination. The Judge heard both. It is certain what the Society pled, because that is the only grounds under which they would even press the issue, much less appeal it—agreed? It is likewise certain what the claimant pled, for the same reason.
Therefore, despite the article omitting the salient detail, it is not only POSSIBLE to correctly infer the pleadings of both the claimant and defendant, it is patently obvious what their claims were. The fact that the Judge decided in favor of the claimant REQUIRED that he DISMISS the plea of the defendant, the nature of which plea is an obvious consequence of the fact that they launched a defense AT ALL and plan to appeal the decision.
As I knew from a cursory reading, your "since" clauses are logically flawed and don't hold up to the barest scrutiny.
Once again, you demean someone and pick someone's post apart because they don't post in the detail you would prefer. You are talking out of your ass if all you have to back your rejection of these posts is the article and your complete lack of experience with New York City WC Judges and Boards. Now, a couple of questions:
(1) Is it more difficult to get the ruling of a Judge overturned than it is to win the judgement in the first place? I don't care about your imaginative musings of more factors that are not in evidence at this point, just a yes or no will suffice.
(2) Is the decision reached a decision made lightly by a Judge when a religious group is involved? And why do you say so?
Your joke "Old Sole" wasn't terribly clever the first time. You weaken yourself in the eyes of many by bottom-feeding like that. Maybe once your ethics match your "Esquire" you will have earned respect.
See, Eduardo, I'm a nobody. As far as I know, the only expectations others have from me are those equivalent to every other poster here. You would deign to put down a nobody with a play on their screen name? I could do the same (e.g. "Or-oh-bore-us") but I don't. I could put down the depth of respect you utterly fail to bring to your profession with "My Cousin Vinny" references (although that might be giving you too much credit), but I don't.
That would be ad hominem attack, the only thing I have done along those lines is link to your Web page (which, in my opinion, did all the demeaning needed on its own). You advertise your Web page on your profile, so apparently you don't mind. In which case, it wasn't ad hominem or any other kind of attack, on you or your character. It wasn't a slight, you publicly thanked me for linking to it and for drawing attention to your page that discussed "Ouroborus."
But you resort to direct attack of the person in every post where you offer (unsolicited) legal analysis of a specific case. Why do you find that necessary? To weaken the perception of others regarding the strength of the poster's counter argument by weakening the perception of the poster as a person.
Why would you do that, if your argument stands on its own merit? You wouldn't. Therefore, you reveal your weak argument by your need to step on someone else to elevate it. Poor debate and terribly poor form. Derision only plays well to a certain sort of audience. Maybe you can step it up a bit in the future, eh? You seem to have a fine mind, but I don't think you want this organization to FALL. You want it to CHANGE. Your goal is not my goal, and I will not be joining you on your fantasical romp of propping up their every legal ploy.
They are dying, as an organization. They are killing themselves. I want to help the process. There are no "good old days" to speak of about this organization, its days have always been spent in expectation of good days that never came. You have halcyon memories of yore that I don't share. There are too many who do not share your memories. There are too many who see, in this organization, the pink foaming mouth, the crazed eyes evidencing a brain craving water, the head shaking side to side with bits of the previous kill flinging with each shake, the maniacal jumping, the search for a next victim.
We know this organization is rabid and must be put down. We know it can't be cured, once it gets to this point. We know we can only protect those we love by doing what needs to be done. You are trying to cure it. Our aims will never be yours. You can ridicule our efforts all you like, we know what needs to be done.
Now, if you're done standing off to the side jeering us, we have work to do.
AuldSoul
Very interesting post, West. And I hope you're right. When this thread started, I thought that FINALLY, the Society's Achilles' Heel has been exposed and they are as good as ruined. (Well, hurt real bad, anyway.) But after reading Eduardo's take on it, I have my doubts. It only makes sense: The Society has had a lot of experience in the court room and they know their way around. They're the wiliest cat in the jungle and they know better than to make a stupid mistake that could cost them untold millions. So I'm beginning to think that maybe we've made too much out of this and it's not that big of a deal. I sure hope you're right, West----------------------------your beverage of choice will be on me.
As you say, time will tell.
David
Ditto, Auldsoul--------------------------Good post. I hope you're right.
David
