UKTC Archive

Re: Time to think - INSURANCE

Subject: Re: Time to think - INSURANCE
From: Jim Quaife
Date: Dec 30 2003 22:45:56
Dear Bill, Ken and Mark, (note diplomatic alphabetical order!)
Seasonal working.  Theoretically of course, all arb companies would ease off
when less appropriate pruning times arrive.  Those with exemplary planning
(or simple good fortune) can concentrate felling work in that time.  The
harsh reality is that the work is done more often than not when the client
wants it.
A very good friend of mine would attempt to vary the work of his blokes with
"easy" forestry-style maintenance work - only to be met with prize-winning
moaning that "this is not want I want to do" and "this is bl***y boring" and
worse.
The other side of the coin was a few years ago now, when forestry workers
would turn their hands to a spot of "girlie" working (NOT MY WORD) and climb
trees.  The conscientious ones took the trouble to insure and found that a
three month premium was three-quaters the cost of an annual premium. The
excuse? - that the climber would get out of practice and be more likely to
have an accident when resuming climbing.  My only comment is that insurers
will always have an answer, no matter what the question!
The "claim culture" is to do with the increased readiness to claim, but the
real financial downer is that having made a claim for hitting your thumb
with a hammer, it seems to grow with all sorts of bolt-ons; trauma, loss of
earnings, loss of confidence, girls don't fancy you any more because the
only swelling you have is the thumb, rash caused by constant replacement of
sticking plasters, inability to apply the "rule of thumb", problems
hitch-hiking, and so on ......
Do insurers have a breakdown of the claims' profile? - no.  The Forsetry
Commission have all sorts of gory data about types and locations of
injuries, but it appears that nobody has done the same for Arb.  I can only
suppose that no one thought it necessary, and staff time is always at a
premium.
The idea of a no-claims discount is a little way off.  Seems like a good
idea, but the general consensus with EL is that liability is very much in
the employees' favour and that unlike car insurance, blame doesn't seem to
enter into it.  At the moment it seems that an employee can do the full
neanderthal and still successfully lean on the employer.
How "nice" the employer is is also a minor factor - " its nothing personal
gov, its just insurance - its wot we (you) pay the premiums for innit?"
"Need a claim now an' again to get yer money's worth!"
Happy New Year
Jim Q

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Carter" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.fsnet.co.uk>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: Time to think - INSURANCE


I agree Ken, but the principle of insurance is that we all pay for a small
number of large claims generated from a minority of the industry.  This
minority may well deserve the claims made against them but we all end up
paying for them under the current set up, for this reason, I support the
principle of a pre renewal or insurance assessment of a company's H&S
performance and a tailoring of the premiums to suit the risk in the same
way
a no claims bonus works with car insurance.  The bad risk companies
generating the claims would hopefully be priced out of existence.
However,
the cost of these assessments and who pays for them is a different matter.
I would resent paying a third party to come in and tell me everything was
OK.  Of course, everything may not be OK in which case it could be an
educational exercise worth paying for.  Do you think the insurers would
consider a sliding scale of shared assessment costs?  Companies with a
clean
bill of health pay nothing and ones failing the assessment pay the full
cost
with a variation of split for everyone in-between.

Mark.

----- Original Message -----
From: <Treecheck@xxxx.com>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: Time to think - INSURANCE



Bill and Jim

Maybe a bit of jumping of at another tangent but the "Claims Culture"
that
we
are supposed to live in starts with a claim by a person against a boss,
a
firm or against the insurance.

Have the insurers done an assessment of the claims culture in relation
to
the
employment culture. (I doubt it ...this is sociology not economics).  I
am
not saying that if we looked after our staff better they wouldnt claim
against
us but I sometimes get the feeling that in a few cases the employer
might
get
wot he deserved when a claim lands.

I will now did a deep trench and lay down in it


Ken


--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/







--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/







-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/