The administration doesn't like litigation

Last October, in total privacy and at the initiative of the national health insurance fund, the "social partners" were agreed on a reform of the mode of calculation of contributions for work accidents and occupational diseases. But this agreement may have inverse consequences to those being sought.

Work accidents and occupational diseases are a major topic for businesses and their employees, as well as for the finances of social security and public health policies initiated by the State. Reform this area must therefore give rise to a broad process of consultation between the various stakeholders. Companies feel today have sufficient associated to the debate Has the consultation been conducted in a satisfactory manner on issues of such a reform, in lists out the dozen or so specialized that captured the subject It is permissible to doubt.

As required by this agreement Until today of today, the French system on work accidents and occupational diseases is based on two main principles: premiums are paid only by the companies, who repay social security, the euro, the amount of the funds disbursed, whether it is daily allowances, medical expenses, hospital or disability pensions expenditure. The annual amount of contributions amounted to 10 billion per year. This system, which is for the undertakings with more than 200 employees, the advantage to not cost a euro to this branch of the insurance and especially empowering businesses and encourage prevention and labour safety improvement investments.

Under the agreement developed by the social partners, the calculation of the contributions will no longer function of the actual cost of the accident or disease but will be fixed lump sum manner according to branch of activity of the company and the type of accident or illness. In other words, firms will be applying a tariff "medium", valid for the whole of their sector of activity, whatever their history in the matter, regardless of the efforts that it could take to reduce the frequency and severity of accidents at work or occupational diseases.

At a time where it was constantly that "empower" economic and financial actors, substituting therefore a system where companies fully assume the cost of claims that trigger in their offices or workshops, an almost flat average cost system. But the "package" and the "average" are the two breasts of the contrition. I will take only one example of the futility of this reform: according to the current version of the agreement, the average of a serious accident cost (resulting in a rate of more than 40 disability) was estimated, an "average" to 356.403 euros by social security. In reality, the real cost of an accident the very serious work can reach 2 to 3 million euros. Sorry to write it like this, but this new system will therefore that promote enterprises where work accidents and occupational diseases are the most serious detriment of all others...

Why therefore social security felt good to lead the social partners in this reform Mainly because she wants to put an end to the litigation. Litigation! The word is dropped. The administration doesn't like litigation. Because accident of work and occupational diseases, it is that companies dispute the decisions of the social security (these attacks have no effect, it should be recalled the benefits paid to employees) and receive reductions in their contributions. These challenges amounts to approximately EUR 300 million each year, or 3 of the total volume of contributions. The challenge is neither more nor less than the control by business use which is made of their contribution, normal use in democracy. Except that all the social security funds are not formed in the adversarial, "disrupts" their daily routine. Hence the idea of replacing the imputation to the euro - the euro by a package system, which de facto removes any possibility of verification and so adversarial.

We must stop this reform. For obvious reasons: social security is not the statistical tool necessary to establish these famous "averages". We cannot afford the luxury, in the current situation, to put in place a system which could lead, in the term, an increase of claims. In fact, discourage companies who have implemented real policies for the prevention of accidents and occupational diseases by depriving them of the opportunity to see their contributions reduced, it is take the risk that the number of accidents (and therefore the amount of contributions...) increase.

Precisely the companies, giving a "premium" to the less virtuous by the package system, discourage those who consented to heavy investments in safety, it is not "technical" decisions, they are decisions on economic, social and political responsibility. Is it, or not, reduce the number of work accidents and the incidence of occupational diseases in our country This issue is too serious for the response is left to only "technicians" of the assessment.