HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   New California bill to prevent out of state pro players from claiming Workmans Comp (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1360781)

LadyStanley 02-26-2013 12:09 PM

New California bill to prevent out of state pro players from claiming Workmans Comp
 
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/25/521...#mi_rss=Sports

Quote:

Players for professional sports teams based outside California would be barred from filing compensation claims for job-related injuries under proposed legislation supported by owners of football, baseball, basketball, hockey and soccer franchises.

A bill unveiled Monday by Assembly Insurance Committee Chairman Henry Perea would ban retired athletes from seeking workers' compensation benefits from California courts after they've played relatively few games in California stadiums and arenas during their careers.

The proposal, AB 1309, is expected to be one of the most hotly debated issues of the legislative session, with team owners lining up against the players' unions and their labor allies.

The bill, said Perea, is expected to be a "starting point" for a lively legislative debate over whether claims from out-of-state retired players represent abuse of the California workers' compensation system and wind up hitting all California employers with higher premiums and surcharges that pay for outstanding claims left by failed insurance companies.
Sounds fair to me. It's one thing for players for California teams to submit claims. Whole 'nother thing for players from teams out of the state to file.

madhi19 02-26-2013 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 60506801)
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/25/521...#mi_rss=Sports



Sounds fair to me. It's one thing for players for California teams to submit claims. Whole 'nother thing for players from teams out of the state to file.

The thing is "relatively few games" can mean anything.

Major4Boarding 02-26-2013 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 60506801)
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/25/521...#mi_rss=Sports



Sounds fair to me. It's one thing for players for California teams to submit claims. Whole 'nother thing for players from teams out of the state to file.

I agree that it seems fair, on the surface. And the quote from Berthelsen is valid as well though.

Wondering if an argument can be made, however, that if out-of-state players are still paying into duty day taxes (i.e. Jock Tax) that they should still be entitled to a compensation claim. Should it get to a claim I mean.

Definately agree it will be interesting how this plays out.

LadyStanley 05-03-2013 11:58 AM

http://www.mercurynews.com/earthquak...ete?source=rss

Update: bill passes Assembly.

Quote:

State law also has broad limits on filing workers' compensation claims, based on when a player knew of the injury and whether they were properly notified of their compensation rights when they retired.

Under Perea's bill, workers' compensation claims would have to be filed within a year of an athlete's final game or of a physician diagnosing the condition, whichever is later. Players retiring from out-of-state teams would still be allowed to file claims if they spent 80 percent of their career with a California team.

The legislation passed the Assembly 57-1 on Thursday, with Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, D-West Covina, voting against.
...
A coalition of labor groups opposing the bill, including the California Labor Coalition and the Labor Federation, said it would set a dangerous precedent for limiting access to workers' compensation benefits.
Bill heads to Senate.

Confucius 05-03-2013 06:13 PM

I was not aware proud athletes could collect workers comp. I guess they can collect unemployment insurance as well when the season ends. That has always been one of the main drawbacks for working a seasonal job.

Djp 05-04-2013 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charon of Styx (Post 65209235)
I was not aware proud athletes could collect workers comp. I guess they can collect unemployment insurance as well when the season ends. That has always been one of the main drawbacks for working a seasonal job.


Yes they can. Athletes pay state taxes in the state they play their games. They are also gverned by state occupational health and safety fgce/OSHA. So in the states they are covered by workmans compensation laws. From state to state workmans compensation and state workplace safety vary.

Then the issue will be the players having to pay state taxes when playing there.

All sports have to satisfy workplaces safety laws and regulations and it's part of the CBA

stator 05-06-2013 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 60506801)
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/25/521...#mi_rss=Sports



Sounds fair to me. It's one thing for players for California teams to submit claims. Whole 'nother thing for players from teams out of the state to file.

How about the perspective of paying state taxes? All pro players pay CA state income taxes when they play in CA. One way of looking at it is that if CA does not want to give these laborers CA injury benefits, then CA should not charge them income tax.

I am undecided on this bill at this point, but I see that argument above, plus our idiots in Sacramento.

garnetpalmetto 05-06-2013 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charon of Styx (Post 65209235)
I was not aware proud athletes could collect workers comp. I guess they can collect unemployment insurance as well when the season ends. That has always been one of the main drawbacks for working a seasonal job.

It depends on the state. Here in NC for instance, athletes can, but they're capped at whatever the maximum comp rate is (as 2/3rds of their salaries is almost assuredly over the max comp rate). Prior to my current job I worked as a workers' comp paralegal at a firm that handled workers' comp claims for a few major league and minor league football, hockey, and soccer players.

LadyStanley 05-06-2013 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stator (Post 65419101)
How about the perspective of paying state taxes? All pro players pay CA state income taxes when they play in CA. One way of looking at it is that if CA does not want to give these laborers CA injury benefits, then CA should not charge them income tax.

I am undecided on this bill at this point, but I see that argument above, plus our idiots in Sacramento.

Income tax is NOT workman's comp (source funds).

Workman's comp is something employers pay (into state fund).


I'm not aware if visiting teams pay into the Workman's Comp fund when they play the 3+ games/season. (I'd think they don't)

This bill will not prevent player X who played for Anaheim (say from trade deadline to end of season) from putting a claim in after he retires. It's for the players of visiting teams who play 3+ (visiting Eastern Conference teams) to 6+ (Western Conf) a year in state.

jumptheshark 05-06-2013 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 60506801)
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/25/521...#mi_rss=Sports



Sounds fair to me. It's one thing for players for California teams to submit claims. Whole 'nother thing for players from teams out of the state to file.

I am out of date with work comp rules

but I know a few provinces and states have laws in place to prevent workers from making claims to injuries that occur out of the territory

LadyStanley 05-06-2013 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jumptheshark (Post 65434275)
I am out of date with work comp rules

but I know a few provinces and states have laws in place to prevent workers from making claims to injuries that occur out of the territory


But if the injuries are a result of the culmination of an entire hockey career, rather than a single incident, then what?

If a player only played for a single team, that's easy.

But if a journeyman (literally), and played for five teams in four states and one province, then what? Should he not be eligible in all five locations (proportionally to # of games played)?

jumptheshark 05-07-2013 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 65435689)
But if the injuries are a result of the culmination of an entire hockey career, rather than a single incident, then what?

If a player only played for a single team, that's easy.

But if a journeyman (literally), and played for five teams in four states and one province, then what? Should he not be eligible in all five locations (proportionally to # of games played)?

Isnt California one of the states the followed Pennsylvania a few years ago and started taxing opposition players who played games in their state?

I know a few states do--not sure if California is one of them

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr.../sp-jock-tax12

I will try to find the original article that refers to the one province and dozen states who do tax. That article implies california is one of the states.

If a person pays tax in a state then he should be entitled to the benefits

LadyStanley 05-07-2013 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jumptheshark (Post 65488961)
Isnt California one of the states the followed Pennsylvania a few years ago and started taxing opposition players who played games in their state?

I know a few states do--not sure if California is one of them

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr.../sp-jock-tax12

I will try to find the original article that refers to the one province and dozen states who do tax. That article implies california is one of the states.

If a person pays tax in a state then he should be entitled to the benefits

California does collect ***income tax*** from visiting players.

But Workman's Comp is paid out of a fund that ***employers*** contribute to. AFAIK, non-California hockey teams do NOT contribute to that fund.

Fugu 05-07-2013 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jumptheshark (Post 65488961)
Isnt California one of the states the followed Pennsylvania a few years ago and started taxing opposition players who played games in their state?

I know a few states do--not sure if California is one of them

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr.../sp-jock-tax12

I will try to find the original article that refers to the one province and dozen states who do tax. That article implies california is one of the states.

If a person pays tax in a state then he should be entitled to the benefits



http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...an-cometh.html

Quote:

Of course, players are subject to withholding tax like the rest of us but an NHL player's paystub does not include just one line for tax withheld. In fact, players are responsible for paying tax in every state (and some cities) in which they play and earn above a certain income threshold. It is not uncommon for a player to file a dozen or more tax returns a year.

One player whose file I was working on recently and is currently with the St. Louis Blues had to file all the following returns in 2006: United States and Canadian Federal, States of Arizona, North Carolina, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, California, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Pennsylvania and the City of St. Louis.
Tennessee added a jock tax a few years ago as well.

pbgoalie 05-07-2013 02:23 AM

So, in typical California fashion, they will tax the players for
the portion of their earnings from the state, but don't
want any of the responsibilities for the risk taken by those
taxpayers.

Collect no tax from visiting players, and I have no problem with this.
I live in California BTW.

LadyStanley 05-07-2013 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbgoalie (Post 65491151)
So, in typical California fashion, they will tax the players for
the portion of their earnings from the state, but don't
want any of the responsibilities for the risk taken by those
taxpayers.

Collect no tax from visiting players, and I have no problem with this.
I live in California BTW.

Do you not understand that WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION is paid from employer contributions (into a fund) NOT INCOME TAX?

Income tax goes into the general fund (covers schools, infrastructure, fire fighting for wild fires, etc.). Those funds are not used for Workman's compensation.


(Heck, by condominium association has to have WC insurance in case our gardener hurts himself!)

garnetpalmetto 05-07-2013 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 65502291)
Do you not understand that WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION is paid from employer contributions (into a fund) NOT INCOME TAX?

Income tax goes into the general fund (covers schools, infrastructure, fire fighting for wild fires, etc.). Those funds are not used for Workman's compensation.


(Heck, by condominium association has to have WC insurance in case our gardener hurts himself!)

And for that matter, nothing's stopping a player from filing for WC within the state of the team they play for. IE, if a Carolina player gets hurt while playing against the Los Angeles Kings, he could still file for workers' comp benefits in NC as he was functioning within the course and scope of his employment with the Hurricanes.

PRMan 05-07-2013 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 65502291)
Do you not understand that WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION is paid from employer contributions (into a fund) NOT INCOME TAX?

Income tax goes into the general fund (covers schools, infrastructure, fire fighting for wild fires, etc.). Those funds are not used for Workman's compensation.


(Heck, by condominium association has to have WC insurance in case our gardener hurts himself!)

It's still taxation without representation if you ask me. If they take some of their money, they shouldn't be allowed to withhold benefits.

And if it went to the Supreme Court I would expect them to agree, and I'd be surprised if they cared what they said each fund was "for".


And the 80% rule really bothers me. What if a player plays equally for 5 teams and each state had this rule (or even 2 teams). Then they're not allowed to file for WC?

garnetpalmetto 05-07-2013 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRMan (Post 65506325)
It's still taxation without representation if you ask me. If they take some of their money, they shouldn't be allowed to withhold benefits.

And if it went to the Supreme Court I would expect them to agree, and I'd be surprised if they cared what they said each fund was "for".


And the 80% rule really bothers me. What if a player plays equally for 5 teams and each state had this rule (or even 2 teams). Then they're not allowed to file for WC?

What part of this do you not understand? There's no, none, zero, zip, zilch, nada connection between income taxes and workers' comp. Teams (not players) purchase workers' comp insurance (or self-insure using a third-party administrator). It's no different than their health insurance, for instance.

LadyStanley 09-06-2013 07:38 PM

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...-pro-athletes/

State senate passes bill. Goes back to Assembly for "final action" (and if approved, would then head to governor to sign).

Ernie 09-06-2013 08:20 PM

Seems like a reasonable bill, but at the same time, how much money does this actually save the state?

I'd think the legislature would have more important things to do than worry about making a specific law to handle a handful of claims every year.

wunderpanda 09-06-2013 08:38 PM

So what happens if a visiting player is injured in California? Can the player file the claim in his home city when the injury didnt occur there? I agree with others in this thread about the double standard of taxing these same players while simultaneously denying workers comp. If the employers are paying in to the comp fund (and not taxpayers) then Cali doesn't actually lose anything and is basically stealing from the team/employer. (and stealing from those visiting players who don't get any other benefits for the taxes collected)

Just seems like a player could get denied from comp entirely if he is hurt in Cali and not covered at home because the injury happened in Cali. Curious how the various leagues and unions will deal with this.

danishh 09-06-2013 09:45 PM

I agree. California is being inconsistent here. On one hand they're suggesting that they cant be held responsible for the costs of the workers comp claims by out-of-state athletes (the cost of processing... the employer pays the actual claims), but on the other hand, they are one of the states that charges a large 'athlete tax' on visiting players.

I can easily see why some would be very upset about this change. A more 'correct' solution would be to go after the employers (nfl, nhl teams, etc) to pay into workers comp to cover the increased cost.

LadyStanley 09-06-2013 10:12 PM

Players pay **income tax** to state. Teams pay for workman's comp.

Different pots of $$. And not all are equal.

wunderpanda 09-06-2013 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 70867139)
Players pay **income tax** to state. Teams pay for workman's comp.

Different pots of $$. And not all are equal.

Will the teams be exempt from paying in to workers comp in Cali tho.

Will players injured while visiting Cali be eligible to collect in home state of their team.

Those are the issues I'm seeing with this.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:14 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.