Why do the boards of the authorities responsible for occupational health and safety change the name of their entities on a regular basis? 

An example is the Victorian Accident and Compensation Commission, established under a 1985 Act, it later became the WorkCare Authority, then the WorkCover Authority, and last year was renamed WorkSafe Victoria (4 names in a little over 20 years).  As far as RTWMatters can see each change was determined by the board based on ideas from other parts of the world e.g. the term 'WorkSafe' originates in Canada.   

All the Australian & New Zealand authorities seem to suffer this identity transmogrification in fashion like waves that overwhelm them (no doubt in the name of improved policy) without any discussion with their stakeholders.

RTWMatters gets the importance of safety, we understand the value of protection, but to make fundamental changes like these without reference to stakeholders is curious. It's as if the Captain of an ocean liner repeatedly altered course arbitrarily, without consultation or reference to the needs and destination of his passengers - doing so is wise in an emergency, but otherwise it is questionable.

What do the people involved hands on with return to work think? Was there a conversation?  Was there laughter? Agreement? Partnership?

And what's in a word?

Words matters a great deal.  The name of something conditions the attitudes, aspirations and perspectives associated with it. In the case of occupational wellbeing where there are at least four divergent views on every issue - employee, employer, treater, insurer (not to mention commentators) - the choice of words used to orientate people to cooperation, to positive outcomes in thinking and practice in relation to every incident, matters a great deal.

It is my opinion that the word 'compensation' should be removed from general dictionary of occupational wellbeing, including from the thought processes and relationships that engage with workplace injury and illness. Erase it.

The word that should be used is ''rehabilitation'.

This is not to suggest that injured or ill employees should in any way enjoy less financial support, or other than the best available services to enable them to achieve an early return to wellbeing and activity.

I suggest this change because the word 'compensation' by definition means to 'counterbalance, make up for, make amends'. It is a backwards looking word that has connotations of fault and blame.  It does not fit in a 'no fault' system

'Compensation' might be appropriate if the remuneration and support flowing from the various legislative schemes and systems did in fact 'make up for' the impact of a work injury or illness.  In truth, in everything from financial to health contexts, the evidence is that outcome for many injured and ill workers is less positive than if their health condition had not arisen.  And in some instances they have a worse health outcome than if they were not supported by a system at all. 'Compensation' in the true sense is rarely, if ever, achieved for compensable cases.

The use of the word 'compensation' appears detrimental to the very people who are meant to be served by it. 

'Workers' Compensation' is a negative term.  It conditions blame, encourages a victim mentality, seeks retribution, and fosters a passive approach to treatment and recovery i.e. someone else is responsible for my health condition, and someone else is responsible for my recovery. There is clear evidence in the research that 'blame' both delays and limits the quality of health outcomes.

The fact that many authorities have moved away from the word 'compensation' first to 'care', then to 'cover', now to 'safe', indicates a thought process not unlike the one in this article, but this was not a thought process that engaged or involved the hands on stakeholders.  The lack of relationship with stakeholders at this fundamental level fosters self interest. One result is that everyone involved becomes focussed on 'compensation'.

The administration of legislation would benefit from being less authoritarian.  And the return to work field needs a less divisive term to define what it is we are all concerned with.

'Workers' Rehabilitation' is a positive forward looking term that is defined by its core professionals as including the health and vocational aspects of recovery.  The objective of rehabilitation is for people to return to as close as possible to, or better,  than their prior capacity. 

'Rehabilitation' provides a definition of the path to recovery, it acknowledges the various contexts of the return to work process - medical, physical, psychological, social, vocational.  It is a term whose meaning recognises and honours the original experience, while focusing clearly on a positive future created via empowerment (read taking responsibility), partnership, goodwill, and communication.

Should the change be made from a focus on 'compensation' to 'rehabilitation'? 

What do you think?