HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

New California bill to prevent out of state pro players from claiming Workmans Comp

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-26-2013, 01:09 PM
  #1
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,803
vCash: 500
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.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 01:36 PM
  #2
madhi19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
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.

madhi19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 01:54 PM
  #3
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
Private Equity
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 1,936
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
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.

Major4Boarding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2013, 12:58 PM
  #4
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,803
vCash: 500
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.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2013, 07:13 PM
  #5
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,784
vCash: 500
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.


Last edited by LadyStanley: 05-03-2013 at 09:50 PM. Reason: req'd
Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 09:28 PM
  #6
Djp
Registered User
 
Djp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 6,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charon of Styx View Post
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

Djp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2013, 10:42 AM
  #7
stator
Registered User
 
stator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 1,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
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.

stator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2013, 10:46 AM
  #8
garnetpalmetto
HFBoards Sponsor
 
garnetpalmetto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 4,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charon of Styx View Post
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.

__________________
garnetpalmetto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2013, 01:53 PM
  #9
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stator View Post
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.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2013, 03:01 PM
  #10
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 54,309
vCash: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
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

__________________
not sure how--but the fish just jumped in the boat and put the hook in it's mouth
52299/14814
The twenty year rebuild is on!!! Embrace the suck
Heaven wont take me and hell is afraid I'd take 0ver
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2013, 03:29 PM
  #11
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
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)?

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2013, 01:31 AM
  #12
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 54,309
vCash: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
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

jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2013, 01:49 AM
  #13
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
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.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2013, 01:55 AM
  #14
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 31,408
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
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.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2013, 03:23 AM
  #15
pbgoalie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 410
vCash: 500
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.

pbgoalie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2013, 12:00 PM
  #16
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbgoalie View Post
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!)

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2013, 12:05 PM
  #17
garnetpalmetto
HFBoards Sponsor
 
garnetpalmetto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 4,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
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.

garnetpalmetto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2013, 01:17 PM
  #18
PRMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,669
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
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?

PRMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2013, 01:53 PM
  #19
garnetpalmetto
HFBoards Sponsor
 
garnetpalmetto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 4,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRMan View Post
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.

garnetpalmetto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 08:38 PM
  #20
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,803
vCash: 500
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).

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 09:20 PM
  #21
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,121
vCash: 500
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.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 09:38 PM
  #22
wunderpanda
Registered User
 
wunderpanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,369
vCash: 500
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.

wunderpanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 10:45 PM
  #23
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,659
vCash: 500
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.

danishh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 11:12 PM
  #24
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,803
vCash: 500
Players pay **income tax** to state. Teams pay for workman's comp.

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

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 11:57 PM
  #25
wunderpanda
Registered User
 
wunderpanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
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.

wunderpanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:42 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.