22 Responses to “Worker injured in company housing: Does he get comp?”

1. John Says:
   February 19th, 2010 at 3:22 pm

   Appalling decision. It had absolutely nothing to do with performing duties for the company. Of course, why stop there? The claimant should bring a civil suit and criminal suit against the employer, too. Put those terrible employers behind bars where they belong!!!!

   Tort reform now.

2. Bob O. Hales Says:
   February 23rd, 2010 at 9:54 am

   In my opinion if the emp;oyee was on duty he should be compensated under Workers Comp; however if he was not on duty for the employer he should not be intitled to Workers Comp benifits.

3. Joe Says:
   February 23rd, 2010 at 10:08 am

   Poor decision….

4. Dave Says:
   February 23rd, 2010 at 10:29 am

   The employee should be compensated if he was on the clock. if not then he hurt himself on his own time. If these people are living there all the time when should they pay attention to what they are doing?

5. Kathy Rapp Says:
   February 23rd, 2010 at 10:45 am

   How does a migrant worker who can’t afford to rent seasonal housing afford two appeals? Answer - he doesn’t, some attorney took the case to make bank. That attorney doesn’t care about the worker, only the money. The employer/insurer is probably out a small fortune in attorney’s fees fighting something the law says shouldn’t happen. What happened to good old fashion renting a room in someones house? Who can’t afford that? Something is wrong with the country we live in!

6. Dani B Says:
   February 23rd, 2010 at 10:57 am

   I thought the point of “Worker’s Compensation” was due to WORK?! I don’t agree that just because you are on company premises that you should be entitled to WC. That’s a liability claim to me. And HOW do you get that he HAD to stay there. If my employees aren’t able to afford their own housing, that’s somehow my responsibility? Granted, I don’t understand temporary seasonal work like this, but still…if they weren’t working, that’s not WC.

7. Dave R Says:
   February 23rd, 2010 at 12:16 pm

   This is yet another example of how the law is “stretched” to accomodate some kind of statement that lawyers/judges want to make. This is unbelievable. Man-up, the vast majority of the “citizens” of the US can’t really afford their accomodation so why should this be an advantage to migrant workers. Before anyone calls me a racist, I am also an Immigrant to the US.

8. Linda Says:
   February 23rd, 2010 at 12:20 pm

   Good answer Kathy.
   The amount of money it would have cost to go to the doctor and get a cast, then go back to the doctor to take off the cast was not worth all the time and money it took to appeal twice. Shame on the worker and shame on the lawyer I totally disagree with the SC Supreme Court ruling.

9. Kathleen R. Says:
   February 23rd, 2010 at 12:42 pm

   I live in a city with a lot of migrant work. It’s a complex situation and relationship between the employer and the migrant workers. I’m sure the final appellate court was just trying to be fair, given the complexity of the migrant work situation. One major employer was pressured into providing housing for workers (and I think rightfully so) because of community complaints about homeless migrant workers sleeping under overpasses, etc. Migrant workers are essential to the employer and the agricultural economy because it’s back-breaking work for a low wage that no one else wants to do.

10. Buck McKibben Says:
    February 23rd, 2010 at 9:56 pm

    The Court was right, and I continue to be amazed by people who villify both them and the injured workers out of ignorance of the circumstances. While I’m certainly not in favor of making employers responsible for everything that happens to workers, the fact is that many workers, like those on Alaska’s North Slope, live where they do for the convenience of the employer, or because of necessity. That and many other factors combine to make the employer-provided housing a part of the workplace, owned and maintained (or not) by the employer as an aid to making a profit. I agree the migrant worker’s inability to pay for housing isn’t the employer’s responsibility, but I also know that employers usually provide housing only when it’s more cost-effective than transporting workers. Most employers understand there is a trade-off between liability for injuries such as this one and the benefits returned by having their workforce essentially on-site. The decision was not a simple case of the Court beating up on the employer, it was the outcome of a measured decision by the employer who traded the benefits of housing it’s employees against the risk of such an injury and the outcomes it produced. Bet the employer continues to house it’s employees in the same place, and it would be interesting to see whether they remedied the water on the walking surface that initiated this problem.

11. Scott S Says:
    February 24th, 2010 at 9:31 am

    There is no such thing as fair in this country if you are a migrant worker, illegal alien, or some other minority looking to make a buck. There is no justice in this country for employeers that hire migrant workers. The judges in our court system in this country should be elected not appointed. Then their decisions might reflect common sense decisions that the majority of citizens demand. This decision is very wrong. Who pointed a gun at this worker and made him work for an employeer that paid such a low wage he couldn’t afford decent housing? I have seen illegals and migrant workers rent an apartment and sublet it to twenty of their buddies or relatives to save money so they could bring the rest of their families to this country “Illegally”. Besides it deosn’t say if he was the one who was washing the laundry in the sink that was left running. I’ll bet so. My employeer pay such a small wage I can only afford a $40,000 home for my wife and three children. Should I get work comp if I hurt myself on my own property cause I’m forced to live in this shack???

12. Rhonda Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 7:32 am

    Very poor decision by the court.

13. Mike Harold Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 9:48 am

    While I disagree with the final ruling I do understand that the case was complicated in several ways. I am not up to date with the use of migrant workers but it appears that all of us need to apply more focus in that direction. It is likely smarter to start paying an acceptable wage so locals will be attracted to the job and accomodations such as housing are not needed.
    To say that workers compensation should be responsible is wrong. The building owner’s liability insurance should have been the source of compensation.

14. Jamie R Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Then they wonder why everyone wants to live in America and our insurance costs are outragous!!!! It’s not anyone’s issue that this person didn’t earn enough money to make it on his own. I agree with above comment about judges being elected and not appointed, some of the judges need mental examinations, very poor choices they make cost all of us in the end. McDonalds for instant, hot coffee, millions, WTF!!!!!
    If this person can’t make enough here in America, GO BACK TO YOUR OWN COUNTRY!!!! Could this person even speak English? Our country needs a major overhaul, starting from the top all the way down.

15. Buck McKibben Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    Again, the Old McDonalds gambit…if you knew the facts, the background of the case, and if more people were informed about something more than the gross details, perhaps we wouldn’t see such continuous frustration over something so simple. Read up on it…..

16. Kathleen R. Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    I agree with Buck. If you don’t know much about why migrant workers continue to work in the conditions that they do and why farmers hire them and provide housing, educate yourself about it. I know from my local community where migrant workers are essential to the agricultural economy, that it is a very complex situation. I’m sure that’s what the court was looking at in its decision.

17. Linda Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    Buck, thank you for the urging us to “read up on it…”. I, for one, retract my first comment on this incident after reading the case report. no.1 Migrant worker is not the same as illegal alien. This man was here legally. no.2 He WAS required to live there and this happened on his first day and they fired him on the spot leaving him homeless. Shame on the Employer!

18. Cherie Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    I don’t think Wokers Comp should have paid out unless he was working at the time of the accident, but having seen the conditions of some of the migrant workers camps I believe someone should have inspected the living conditions and if it was deplorable, as some are, it should have been a civil court battle. There is no way most migrant workers could live outside of the employers living quarters due to the lousey pay. And Jamie R, no one wants the jobs they do. We can’t get locals to come gut fish for 12 hours of min pay 7 day a week during season.

19. Buck McKibben Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    Thanks to Linda and Kathleen for demonstrating the intelligence to educate themselves on the issue and the fortitude to admit jumping to conclusions isn’t the best approach. We all, as a community of professionals, need to exercise some rigor in evaluating these reports…there’s often more to the story than what we’re initially given.

20. Jamie R Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    OK, sorry for blowin’ up! Above said he wasn’t required to live there and I didn’t know he was legal to be in the country. That does change the way you look at it and the way you think about it. Maybe the government needs to enforce more on employers of migrant workers. Do they fall under minimum wage? Still doesn’t change the way I think about the judicial system!

21. Allison Says:
    March 12th, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    Just to shed a little light on the “migrant worker”, yes they work hard, yes some work in unfavorable conditions, but not all are treated unfairly. A friend of mine owns a produce farm, he hires workers from Puerto Rico, they come out in the spring, are housed in a very nice house, fed and go home in the fall. A dispute between a father and son insued, the father embarassed, left and went back to Puerto Rico, my friend distraught over the fact this man who worked for him for over 20 years, flew to Puerto Rico to get him to come back. What he found was the man lived like a king in a mansion overlooking the ocean, better then most of us, all from the “low pay” he received doing that work that “no one else” wants to do, yet there are about 6 teenagers waiting and willing to do that seasonal work, so they can make some money to save up for a car, pay for their gas, car insurance etc. So I dont feel all so bad for those migrant workers, yet I realize at the same time shouldnt generalize them all into this same category as my friends workers. They happen to be the fortunate few.

22. Mongo1967 Says:
    March 23rd, 2010 at 8:32 am

    This country is getting rediculous with lawsuits [Workers' Comp or otherwise.]
    The employer was providing something as a courtesy for workers. The workers CHOSE to live there because it was a provioded space. No one forced them to live there. The ONLY thing this case is going to do is discourage the employers from providing places for them to live in the future.
    I can guarentee you that if this were my farm, the first thing I’d do as soon as the decision was reversed was close the housing down and post No Tresspassing signs. If they moved back in…I’d take the house down to the ground.
    I believe in protecting workers when they are acting on behalf of the company, but NOT when they are off-duty.
    We had one worker hurt himself when he was playing softball for the company’s team. YES, he received workers’ comp, as he should have because he was acting on behalf of the company.
    We’ve also had one worker who hurt himself at home falling off a ladder and claimed that it was due to a fall in the parking lot. Had it not been for the security cameras, we would not have seen him painfully getting out of his car and limping toward the front doors.
    He did lay down in the parking lot when a car approached, and the driver [also a worker] noted that he just saw the guy on the ground when he pulled in during the accident investigation.
    Obviously he didn’t get workers’ comp…but he was going to fight it up until we pointed out the video recording of the actions he performed.
    Some people try to work the system which is why the companies of today have to make sure they cover all aspects of the investigation process; which also adds costs to the company’s overhead.