Too many regulations?

[Tom Dunlap]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/23/1058853133944.html

Acrobats walk a fine line on new helmet laws
By David Sapsted
London
July 24 2003

Trapeze artists, acrobats and jugglers with one of the world's most famous circuses have been told to
start wearing hard hats to comply with new European Union safety rules.

The Moscow State Circus's insurers have warned the performers that they risk losing their cover if
they are injured while not wearing the hats.

"It is bureaucracy gone mad, with a lot of help from the current compensation culture," said Paul
Archer, general manager of the circus, which is touring Britain.

"Our insurance premiums have rocketed in recent years and our insurers are always looking at ways
to limit liability. This is just another barmy step in that process."

However, the acrobats decided that they would perform without the headgear in coming shows.

"We have informed the insurers that we will wear hats when erecting the circus or during rehearsals,
but it is ridiculous to suggest that the performers actually wear them during shows," said John Haze,
a spokesman for the 86-year-old circus.

Goussein Khamdouleav, 48, who performs somersaults - without a safety net - as part of the highest
indoor tightrope act in Europe, scoffed at the idea that a safety hat would be much use to him if he
fell 15 metres to the ring below.

He once fell eight metres during a performance in Rio de Janeiro, breaking both arms and three of his
ribs.

"A hard hat wouldn't have helped me then, and it won't help me now," he said.

"Working in the circus, you get injured all the time. But you just have to get over it."

- Telegraph

 

[Acer]

Trapeze and high wire acts are probably breaking the law in the UK. The HSE would take the view that anyone working at height should be connected to a fall arrest system - or perhaps carrying out the act from a cherry picker would be OK, providing the performer had been fully trained in its use beforehand. Sort of takes the thrill out of it, doesn't it?

As for insurance, I'm surprised they can get cover at all. Trades like roofing and scaffolding are almost uninsurable. This year, arborists here have been told to expect 60% rises in public liability and tool cover, and 300% rises in employers' liability (the last one is required by law if you employ someone)..and similar increases next year and the year after.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

My biggest problem with W/C is that it is based on percent of total payroll, not on hours worked. So this is a regressive tax on the experianced worker.

If an employer pays more then he has to shell out more for his coverage, worker experiance not withstanding. A higher paid employee is more experiance, the unskilled worker is more likely to need coverage, but the employer pays more for the skilled person.

There can be a slight decrease if the company lasts a while with out any claims, but that still does not help with the pay of the longtrerm employee.

 

[TREETX]

Originally posted by RockyJSquirrel
The system is failing. This is evidenced by the fact that so many operate without insurance. Smaller companies that try to obey every requirement go broke.
Most of us are forced to 'fly under the radar' or else become huge corporations. It is very difficult to survive in between.

I am in this category. State law doesn't require WC insurance for companies w/less than 6 employees. A lot of companies purposely stay under that #. Last time I had a boss here in TX, WC was near $0.20 per payroll dollar. I have liability to cover me if I crush a house.

WC is so high because of (little kittie cats) filing claims for a hangnail or poison ivy, just taking advantage of the system. Thought for the day......there is no such thing as a free lunch.

It is so hard to survive, as a small company or a contract climber. People think you charge too much but they also don't see the costs of survival, thinking you have it made because everything is a "write-off". Do you know what a "write-off" is??...It doesn't mean free!!!! Maybe I get a handsome fee for running a crew for a day, but there is also something called a risk/reward ratio......$$$may be good now, but nobody's going to be looking out for me in winter - again, risk.

The hardest part of tree care isn't working with trees, it is working with regs and people.....

OH, I'll step off my soapbox and take a breather.

 

[NeTree]

But Nate, you're correct.

I'll charge say $1400 for a removal I figure will take one workday. Customer will say, " Gee you guys sure make alot of money!". But in the end, not really. There's payroll for a start, then wear and tear on the equipment. (Figure roughly $10,000 for a decent chipper and about $40,000 for my bucket- that have to be replaced roughly every ten years). Then fuel/oil for the saws, trucks, chippers. And then there's the liab/WC insurance, and the overhead for the office (the phones/ credit card machine, etc.). So do I make $1400 for that hypothetical removal? Nope. More like MAYBE $300 profit. And where does that go? Right back into the copmany- in newer/better equipment and growth, to better serve the customers and replace ageing equipment.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Gee I hope you got yourself on payroll Erik

Seriousely though, a lot of guys don't think that way. I've heard a number of full time owner operators who think the proffit is thier pay.

Bad buisness that.

 

[Acer]

Originally posted by Tom Dunlap
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/23/1058853133944.html

Trapeze artists, acrobats and jugglers with one of the world's most famous circuses have been told to
start wearing hard hats to comply with new European Union safety rules.

I heard on the radio last week that a trapeze artist fell to her death during a performance in Eastern England. I was saddened to hear that, but thought at the time that this sort of risk would probably be accepted by the performers as part and parcel of the job. I doubt if the health & safety bureaucrats would see it that way - this incident is more likely to be used to justify their case.

 

[mmayo]

insurance cost

WC is about 20% in CO and based on salary-Rediculous. What am I gong to do about it. Right now be a contact climber because then noone has to pay WC on me. Liability is about $$$800 a year and whoeverI work for can transfer the cost of WC into $$$ for the climber. I'm looking down the road and saying I think I'll only hire ctract climbers makes sense to me. The climbers can get paid what there worth. It's seems impossible to pay an empoyee what they deserve when the cos of empoyment is so high(insurance specifically)Think I'll start a thrad on how many of us use contact climbers!!!

 

[Treeman14]

What is this "profit" thing of which you speak. I don't think we have that around here.

WC just went from $38 to $40 per $100 here in FL. That's 40% for the numerically challenged.

 

[TREETX]

Originally posted by Treeman14
What is this "profit" thing of which you speak. I don't think we have that around here.

LMAO!!!

mmayo - There will always be the need for WC workers. I am kept out of a lot of jobs because I lack WC coverage.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Originally posted by Treeman14
What is this "profit" thing of which you speak. I don't think we have that around here.

WC just went from $38 to $40 per $100 here in FL. That's 40% for the numerically challenged.

So waht doe that make your total payroll cost, around 60%?

 

[Treeman14]

mmayo - I have to pay WC for subcontractors, too.

Rocky - WC rates are set by the insurance commissioner. All tree services pay the same rate, with adjustments made for experience and claims. The agent has no control over the rate.

JPS - 60-65% is about right

 

[rbtree]

One of the few things Washington State does right is their state run Dept of Labor and Industries... Current WC rate for tree work is around 2.80 per man hr, up or down based on claims against your account. Under $1.00 per hr for landscaping, which can be used for samll pruning jobs,etc, but not ground workers during tree operations. Since I pay a good ground man around $20 per hr and climber $20 to 35, that is a nice workable expense. And I can deduct about 15-20% of that from their pay if I wish to do so.

Also, till recently, rates were kept low,near or below $2 per hr, and some years, we even got an end of year rebate.

Regardless of company size, all employees, subs excepted, must be covered. And I don't cover myself, as I have a good insurance policy that covers me for any injury on or off the job.

 

[mmayo]

Treeman14

You havet pay WC on subcontractors- are you refering to contract climber wth there own liability insurance?
I sincerely hope this is not the case especially not in CO right now