likewise Workmen's Comp is an insurance deducted from the worker's pay check. Even the matching funds to be contributed by the employer really come from the worker, because if you really think that employers don't deduct these costs from amount they could pay their employers, then you are more naive than I thought. Actually in practice Workmen's Comp serves to to protect the employer from liabilities that could come back on the employer by replacing the employers responsibility to their injured employee by a pool, that pays little, that is actually funded by the employee. I know, I have been there. Neat trick huh?
Well, it's not deducted from the paycheck. And it is not matching funds. It is an insurance policy paid by the employer. And again, it is not deducted from the employees paycheck.
If you are saying since the employer has to pay workers comp he pays the employee less, that could be said to be true about any employee related expense, such as health insurance, unemployment insurance, general liability, paid vacation, paid sick days, employer contributions to a 401k, etc.
The only time someone pays their own workers comp is if they are a sub contractor - and by definition, that is not an employee.
No, it is not be being naive about workers compensation, it's you painting with an incredibly broad brush that should thereby draw about any employee related expense into the picture.
What workers comp does - it is a program that pays injured workers salaries when injured on the job. That is indeed a socialistic program, money going from the employer and being re distributed to those that are not earning wages. While not traditionally considered a "socialist" program, it matches the definition.
I'm not sure if you are up on labor issues around the early 1900's, but a few things came into play. Employer Liability was initiated at this time. Problem was it was difficult to be sucessful with in a suit, and most workers did not have the money to afford an attorney out of pocket. Employers had as you can guess as large of a legal as they needed. Workers Comp laws turned this into a no-fault situation, where employer negligence did not have to be shown for the worker to receive compensation.
It allowed the poorer worker to be on even footing when fighting the wealthy corporation.
If you need a little more proof worker's comp is a socialistic program:
Bismarck was not known as a socially-conscious ruler; the working conditions of the common man were not necessarily foremost in his mind. History teaches that the unification and growth of Germany (Prussia) and the protection of his position were his main concerns. But Bismarck’s main political rivals were Marxist with socialist agendas – a feigned concern for the plight of the common man. On the top of this agenda was the creation of a social program for the protection of workers injured on the job, a workers’ compensation program.
The “Iron Chancellor” eventually outlawed Marxist and other socialist-leaning parties, securing his rule. However, he did borrow some of their ideas to keep peace among the people. Workers’ Accident Insurance became the first compulsory workers compensation program enacted in a modern, industrialized Europe.
It was an idea Bismarck borrowed from his Marxist opposition.
I could also explain why Social Security is a socialistic program, but I am not just speaking of the retirement aspect of the program.
Child Labor Laws I'll grant you are not socialistic - but they are the government telling business what they can and cannot do. So it's government control, which is always viewed as a negative by conservatives.
So by agreeing to some of these programs, you are at a minimum agreeing that some government control over business is good. And I'd stronlgy argue a few of these programs are definitely socialistic in nature.