Tag Archives: retail workers

Retail jobs surpass manufacturing jobs in injury rate

Posted on by

What’s a more dangerous job, working in retail or working in a factory?

Most would say manufacturing, but according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, retail jobs had a higher incidence of lost time work injuries than manufacturing in 2018.

If you read this blog on a regular basis, you know about the danger of retailing jobs. The workers’ compensation blogosphere runs “the dangers of holiday jobs” posts over the holiday season on a yearly basis to talk about risks of holiday employment in retail.

While automation, think self-checkouts, has eliminated some retail jobs, the remaining retail jobs usually require at least a 50-pound lifting restriction. Online shopping and competition from Amazon, means that more retail employees perform heavier and more dangerous warehousing and delivery tasks. The increased injury rate in retail work also means that more injured employees may be placed in light or alternate duty attendant jobs like the famous Walmart greeter job.

Workers’ compensation lawyer bloggers tend to write about jobs with high injury rates. But the story of retail employment isn’t just a question of retail work becoming more dangerous, it could also be caused by manufacturing jobs becoming less dangerous.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal predicted that within a few years, the majority of manufacturing employees will have a college degree. The changing demographic of manufacturing employees is explained by increasing investment in manufacturing technology that will turn many manufacturing workers into machine operators who require specialized skills.

In theory — and practice – this investment in technology should make manufacturing jobs safer. But manufacturing jobs will still be more hazardous for the foreseeable future. Some investment in manufacturing technology involves cobbling together 2010s (and soon 2020s) software on top of machines built and designed in the 1960s. The dangers of this approach were exposed by two crashes involving the Boeing 737 Max. The 737 Max is an example of the hazards that workers’ can be faced with when companies mix 20th and 21st century technology.

New manufacturing technology may also fail to take human factors into a consideration. An expensive new piece of machinery may increase productivity, but it may still require heavy lifting from a worker to process inputs.  The new manufacturing economy probably won’t be as safe as portrayed in the pages of the Wall Street Journal and other publications targeted at wealthy professionals. Meanwhile, retail employment may be more dangerous than commonly understood.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , .

Why are mental-mental benefits generally limited to first responders?

Posted on by

Convenience store clerks are often exposed to violence. But in order for them to be compensated for work -related mental trauma, they generally need to have a physical injury.

The question of why coverage of so-called “mental-mental” injuries, or work injuries that do not involve a physical injury, is generally limited to first responders is a question that is increasingly vexing attorneys for injured workers and commentators on workers compensation — and workers.

The answer boils down to politics.

From a logical and moral point of view there is no reason why a convenience store clerk and a police officer shouldn’t be able to collect workers’ compensation for purely mental injuries from exposure to violent crime. 

Legally that moral and logical sentiment is often expressed as an argument that such distinctions violate equal protection under state and federal constitutions. Advocates for injured workers have had some success in striking down so-called workers compensation reforms on equal protection grounds.

But while equal protection arguments can be useful in restoring rights to workers compensation, they are less helpful in creating new rights such as compensation for mental injuries. When addressing whether a law is constitutional, appellate courts usually decide first on what level of scrutiny to apply. The less stringent the scrutiny, the more likely the court will find the law to be constitutional.

Health and safety laws like workers compensation are generally afforded rational basis scrutiny by appellate courts. That means courts will generally uphold the constitutionality of those laws. That deferential level of scrutiny emerged out of the New Deal era as a way to uphold the constitutionality of laws relating to social welfare. But in the modern era rational basis scrutiny is often used to argue that the protections of laws like workers compensation shouldn’t be expanded by courts in a way not intended by a legislature.

In Nebraska it was the legislature that created compensation for mental-mental injuries for first responders and expanded that protection to prison guards and Department of Health and Human Services employees in contact with high risk indviduals. So ultimately providing protection for purely mental injuries to all workers — not just first responders — will be a political issue.

 

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Nebraska, PTSD, Workers Compensation and tagged , , , , , , .