If the personal injuries system remains as it is, employers and the insurance industry will want a cut in the costs awarded, writes Eamon Devoy.
Public opinion in general, and the media in particular, seems to have decided that the angels are on the side of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board in the current controversy about the right of people to be legally represented when they make insurance claims.
The wider debate has been dominated so far by the huge vested interests represented by the Irish Insurance Federation (IIF) and IBEC, on the one hand, and by the Bar Council and the Law Society on the other.
Meanwhile, vulnerable individuals who suffer serious injury and rely on the system for help are forgotten.
It may not be popular to say, but the new system puts such people in the workplace at a very serious disadvantage.
Although the PIAB system was only set up last year, I already have direct experience of its defects servicing members of my union who are processing claims.
The Technical Engineering and Electrical Union (TEEU) represents almost 40,000 workers, many of them in manufacturing and construction, where, unfortunately, workplace safety remains a huge problem.
On average, three members die at work every year and many more suffer serious injuries.
Under the old system someone injured could usually obtain initial legal advice through their union. If they were deemed to have a reasonable case, the union would help them initiate a claim and the costs would be met in due course as part of the overall settlement. Now claimants must pay all their own legal costs if they choose to retain a solicitor.
The only alternative is to adopt a "Do It Yourself" approach and prepare the claim themselves.
Even if they are in a union its officers will not have the technical knowledge and expertise to prepare documents that could ultimately be used as evidence in the courts if either side appeals a PIAB decision.
Workers must also obtain their own medical report and then submit it with a claim and a €50 registration fee to the PIAB.
The only assistance available from the PIAB is a €150 grant to help meet the costs of the medical report. After deducting the €50 registration fee, and the €40 to €45 fee that usually has to be paid to obtain a GP's referral to a specialist, this leaves about €60 to pay for a medical report that, from my experience, usually costs between €250 and €450.
Defenders of the new system will point out that the PIAB can allow for an independent medical examination to take place by a member of the board's own medical panel. However, this examination is paid for by the employer, who will also receive a copy of the report.
Again, speaking from experience, I have found that the independence of doctors whose services are paid for by employers varies enormously. Most workers simply refuse to accept such doctors are objective.
The fact that a medical report may legitimately establish that a worker does not have a claim only aggravates the atmosphere of suspicion and sense of injustice that already pervades the whole issue of "company doctors" in Irish industry.
The TEEU is currently in discussions with the faculty of occupational medicine at the Royal College of Physicians on appropriate guidelines for practitioners to address this issue.
That it is being left to concerned health professionals and other interested parties, such as ourselves, to sort out this problem reinforces our belief that the PIAB is a purely cost-driven initiative.
Another argument used to promote the PIAB system is that it is quicker than the courts. This is no consolation to employees who lose a claim because of inadequate expert support. Speedier hearings could be achieved equally well by having a court dedicated to hearing claims.
From the TEEU's experience, the reduction in the time limits for making claims, from three years to two, could also have serious consequences. Often the full extent of an injury takes time to unfold. We had one member recently who learned he would have to lose his foot in the third year after the accident. Under the PIAB system, the case would have been settled before the full impact of his injuries was clear.
No one disputes the need to eliminate unnecessary costs from the insurance system. But the primary purpose of insurance is to protect the personal welfare and safety of employees. The commercial interests of the company should come second.
It seems to me that these priorities have been reversed.
The best way to promote both objectives is to reduce the number of accidents in the workplace.
The most startling defect in the whole PIAB system is that there is no provision making employers eliminate workplace hazards, or unsafe practices, uncovered by the investigation of claims.
More than anything else, this convinces me that the primary purpose of the system is to reduce insurance costs by making it harder for employees to bring claims. Slacker attitudes by employers to health and safety will follow.
If the system remains as it is, the one certainty is that IBEC and the IIF will be back seeking to reduce the costs awarded in the Book of Quantum and the race to the bottom will accelerate even further.
Eamon Devoy is assistant general secretary of the Technical Engineering and Electrical Union