American Rhetoric 101A - 'Hey, Neighbor, Can You Spare a Work Comp Dime?'

Saturday, May 6, 2006 | 1

By Mark Tucker

Living in Los Angeles in the Fourth District puts you in Supervisor Don Knabe's jurisdiction, the bourne of a long-time "public servant". If one wishes, one can sign up for a newsletter he emits every quarter. When doing so, one receives such gems as the April 20, 2006: "Don Knabe's Spring 2006 E-Newsletter".

The sole center of focus within this issue was the Workers Compensation program, addressing a social welfare device created to remedy the deleterious effects on individuals by safety-unconscious businesses, a device, you may guess, business isn't exactly enamored of. Where, we would rightly ask, might the good Supervisor stand on this? Well, the newsletter is stuffed full of Rhetoric so that, hopefully, you don't quite understand his true position. In fact, he goes to great pains to point to everyone but himself, seeming something of an uninterested cheerleader at best. That paradox alone lets you know there's rhetoric a-plenty and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out, nor even all that deep an immersion in the too-proliferant devices associated with the Rhetorical science. What Knabe has done is as common as dirt; thus, even though the locale is L.A., everyone reading this column will encounter the exact same narrative somewhere in the welter of bizprop received in the mail whenever a subtle behavior patterning goad is desired by a "public servant".

So, let's look at a good example from quite an easy perspective (all bulleted quotes are directly from the newsletter):

* "... several state legislators [holding] a hearing on aspects of California's Workers Compensation programs, that, while billed as 'informational only', has the potential to be the first act in a year-long drama... either protecting or rolling back recent cost-saving reforms in the Workers' Compensation system."

Of course, "billed as 'informational only'" translates vividly to "I think they're lying" and the metaphorical 'drama' is meant to suggest emotional instability on the part of those fellow politicians who mightn't be entirely pleased with the years-recent gutting the Comp system has received. What might Knabe think of their reaction it?

* "In my opinion, such a rollback would have disastrous consequences for businesses, local governments and for California's taxpayers."

Note the order of importance for this gentleman: business first, government second, and the citizen, as usual, sucking hind tit. Pre-Bush, political office used to mean that one was elected to represent the people... but then, we forget: corporations are persons under law. Well, okay then, Knabe is indeed representing the people! Rhetorically, he can claim that; realistically, the story is quite more nasty.

* "When legislators came together in 2004 to reform California's dysfunctional Workers' Compensation system, they did more than throw a lifeline to thousands of businesses struggling with highest-in-the-nation Workers' Compensation costs."

Note the "dysfunctional" applied to a government program to help the non-corporate - i.e., flesh and blood - people, not chartered entities. Note also his admission that the program was disabled by legislators en masse. And they threw a "lifeline" to whom? Corporations. And these "highest-in-the-nation" costs - whom do we suppose was responsible for that? That's right: it was the insurance companies, which politicos love to propitiate and who are conveniently not directly named.

* "The reforms also brought financial relief to counties, cities and other public agencies throughout California which, like private businesses, were grappling with skyrocketing cost increases."

Of course, the reforms screwed the citizen, but, hey, he can look out for himself - this is America, the land of those free to be perpetually under the thumb of a corporatocracy.

* "The extra challenge for public agencies was reconciling these increased costs with the need to provide other critical services, such as public safety, health services..."

Much too rich for words. The allegation is that one is "protecting" public safety and health by shielding businesses against liabilities from valid negative claims arising from same. The 'frame' here, of course, is that all claimants are disgruntled cheats. Unfortunately for the rhetor, the statistics do not bear this out and, of course, Knabe and ilk don't wish to do that part of the job they were hired for: the locating of those imputed cheats and the prosecuting of them. That, they say, would be "just too expensive". Alternatively, it's better we should let business off the hook - totally, if possible - and shoot everyone else in sight while purporting to be gunning for the malfeasants, conveniently never found.

* "In less than two years, the reforms contained in Senate Bill 899 (Poochigian) have delivered on their promise to local government."

... and business.

* "For example, the County of Los Angeles had previously set aside $414 million to cover our anticipated Workers' Compensation costs for our 2004-2005 budget. Thanks to the SB 899 reforms, coupled with a new Consolidated Risk Management Program established by the County in 2001, we have been able to reduce these anticipated costs by 34 percent."

... even though taxes didn't go down a cent. Went up, in fact.

* "That translates into a savings to taxpayers of $141 million, money that will be invested back into our community in the form of new or expanded services, rather than being dedicated to the ballooning costs of Workers' Compensation."

Ahhhh, now the citizen re-enters the picture. The cutbacks put citizens at far greater risk, with much more in irremediable personal damages, left him mostly defenseless against entities with vastly more money to fight his claims, and basically guaranteed the lovely shade of blue that he would be screwed, but... a few bucks per were saved! Break out the champagne!!!

* "The long-term impacts are even more impressive. At the height of the Workers Compensation crisis, we projected that Los Angeles County would be paying more than $1.1 billion by the year 2010. Today, we are projecting our costs in 2010 to be $400 million - a $700 million savings to local taxpayers."

Actually, a savings of $0.00, as taxes decreased not a whit - as noted, they, as always, increased every year overall. Does no one ever wonder why these uber-ballyhooed miraculous "savings" never result in a decrease of overall taxes... ever? Well, mostly that's because reductions in programs like Workers Comp go, as Robert Scheer, a guy who used to monitor similar shenanigans from the L.A. Times, puts it, into ever more Feed The Rich benefits.

* "With similar results being replicated by counties, cities, school districts and other public agencies in the state, lawmakers should pat themselves on the back for a job well done."

Hmmm. With damn near all states, counties, and etc. being bankrupt or close to it, the task of working against the people through the usual bureaucratic folderol is now a "job well done". Yep, pat yerselves on your overstuffed backsides, elected boys and girls, ya done good... for business.

* "It would be a mistake for legislators to roll back the reforms passed in 2004."

If, that is, they can be made to appreciate being canceled out of the benefits of having entrenched business consortiums coughing up the usual mega-bucks for their re-election campaigns in favor of the running of newer and more subservient pawns.

* The SB 899 reforms were crafted so that injured workers are, for the first time, treated according to medical treatment guidelines. These guidelines are helping to ensure that workers get the most appropriate medical care, not simply the most expensive care, which was too common under the old system.

Well, we certainly don't want injured Joe and Jane Everyday actually getting well or receiving the kind of buttery benefits Supervisors and such have lavished upon them; that wouldn't be American. And guess who decides the category of "appropriate medical care"? That's right: not doctors, not nurses, not candy-stripers, but profits-ravening insurance companies.

* "Second, the new system also establishes incentives for getting injured workers back on the job... "

Anyone care to take a grim guess at what those "incentives" might be... without shuddering, that is? Always look to pain when The Master tells you he has an incentive for you.

* "... which means an improved economic outlook for workers who were treated under the old system as though they had no chance of ever being able to return to their job after sustaining a workplace injury."

This is interesting: the law bans a recovered injured worker from going back to his job? Really? And the good Supervisor found, within his purview, no Constitutional squabbles with that? Apparently not, as the conditions prevailed under his watch, as rhetorically admitted here.

* "Lastly, the system is still in the process of absorbing the significant changes brought about by SB 899. Although we are approaching the two-year anniversary of the reform's passage, the Workers' Compensation system hardly turns on a dime."

... except when the benefit is to business' advantage and then the reform happens yesterday.

* "Claims managers and medical professionals are still on a learning curve. The true impact of the reforms is just now being reflected in total system costs and savings."

I see. "Learning curve". So... they're stupid?

* While California might never have a perfect Workers' Compensation system... "

With gentlemen like the good Supervisor, that's a lead pipe cinch.

* "SB 899 has stopped the skyrocketing costs and put our system back on the mend."

And it sure as hell enriched public functionaries' re-election coffers, from grateful businesses, one would have to also cynically guess.

* "We need continued vigilance to prevent fraud and abuse and make sure the system is serving both businesses and the people who need it the most; the injured workers that Workers' Compensation was designed for."

Now there's a sentence to stand with the best Bush can offer. The good Supervisor's office pets must have put in overtime to come up it. Ask yourself: why on Earth would a Worker's Comp system give two fat damns about "serving business"? It's supposed to serve injured workers. This weird claim is the same as saying that RICO laws should simultaneously work as diligently as possible to shield the very conspirators they're ferreting out. Knabe admits the Comp system was created to serve injured workers... right after he just finished trumpeting the beauty of having gutted it.

* "We need ongoing studies to determine exactly how the system is changing in the post-reform environment."

Here we see the servicing of one of the most famous bureaucratic guaranteed do-nothing strategies: appoint a committee to study a problem.

* "Now is not the time, however, to go backward."

True, that was already accomplished by the "reforms" - why be redundant?

* "The reforms created two years ago are far too important for taxpayers, businesses and injured workers to be abandoned now."

Well, well, well, look at the order of magnitude now, here at the close of the massage session. The good Supervisor is hoping to Hell you swallowed this pantload, as he needs to get on your good side after administering the Ream Supreme. Not too loaded a Rhetorical device, eh? In the end, after all the obfuscation, all the good "public servant" is hoping is that you won't throw in with those importunately flanking him, looking after your own good by demanding counter-reforms.

That would be bad for business.

----------------------------

Mark S. Tucker, a critic, has written for numerous national indie and newsrack magazines and websites over the past 20 years: Sound Choice, i/e, Progression, Expose, On Reflection, Camera Obscura, OPtion, Perfect Sound Forever, and others, as well as for this forum. He was co-founding editor for E/I and can be reached at progdawg@hotmail.com. This article is originally published at opednews.com. Copyright Mark S. Tucker, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.

Republished with permission of the author and OpEdNews.com

-------------------

The views and opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily those of workcompcentral.com, its editors or management.