I have appeared on several national “Bloggers Panels” in the last couple years with fellow blogger David Depaolo. I first met David over a decade ago as a friendly competitor, but in recent years, through our blogging activity, have come to know him better and think of him today as simply a friend. We have a number of interesting things in common.

One of those things would be a commensurate sense of humor. We have often joked about the old Saturday Night Live skit featuring Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin which was a spoof on the 1970's 60 Minutes “Point, Counter Point” segment. Aykroyd would always respond to Curtin's character by starting out with “Jane, you ignorant slut…” He would proceed with a caustic response and then inevitably summarize by ending with “Who did you sleep with to get this job, anyway?” Depaolo and I have joked of doing that to each other or our unsuspecting moderator, Mark Walls, at some point in one of these bloggers panels.

But after a post he made today regarding Return to Work and workers' comp, I must, alas, use that line on him. Depaolo writes that “Return to Work has no place in workers’ compensation”, and that the industry has always been called “workers' compensation”, and not “workers' return to work”. He argues that RTW is a distraction to workers' comp, and that “All of the conversation in work comp about RTW is Bovine Excrement.” He summarizes that workers' compensation is and always has been about “compensation” – providing medical treatment and paying people money.

David, you ignorant slut.

While you are correct that the origins of workers' compensation was never about returning to work, to insist on that path today is woefully misguided. Workers' compensation was conceived at a time when self reliance and independence were common and expected. Dependence on others was not desired, nor was it socially acceptable. For many years people injured on the job often went back to work, and they took their permanent impairments with them. They healed to whatever extent possible and found a way, to whatever extent they could, continue supporting their families and maintain some contributory levels in society.

There was no SSDI. There was no “Disability Mindset”. There was no entitlement mentality. There was no broad social acceptance, even encouragement, to immediately surrender oneself to the enslavement of disability dependence.  Times have changed, David. Our thinking needs to change as well.

There was a time in this nation when slavery was the norm. White men owned black men, women and children. They were property, and not even legally recognized as human in their day. Fortunately for all of us, better minds recognized that this was not an acceptable practice, and fought for a change in what was, until that point for many, the socially acceptable norm. They did not continue to accept what no longer worked, or what was not morally right.

We should be no different.

You are right on many points. You made the comment that “RTW requires two elements that do not necessarily and in fact typically don’t align: a worker who WANTS to and CAN go back to work AND an employer who WANTS that worker back”. That is often correct, and it is one critical point that we must change.  You do not like the phrase “workers' compensation”, because it “directs attention to money”. We are in total agreement on that point.  

I have been advocating for almost a year the complete realignment of workers' compensation, starting with a name change to that of “Workers' Recovery”. Expectations for all involved need to change, and that must be ingrained into our industry. Rather than declare an emphasis on recovery to be “not our responsibility”, we must embrace it as a necessary change reflecting the society in which we now live. Current trends are not sustainable. We can embrace appropriate changes, or suffer the consequences of the now failing policies of the past.

I choose to change. And I suspect you do to.

In your post you invited the flaming from what you knew would be an unpopular opinion. The truth, of course, is that you are not an ignorant slut. And you have furthered a dialogue that we need to engage in. Thanks for giving us that opportunity.

I love ya, David, but who did you sleep with to get this job, anyway?