My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 04/27/1982
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1982
>
Agenda - Council - 04/27/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/15/2025 12:29:50 PM
Creation date
5/20/2004 10:52:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
04/27/1982
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
240
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
'1 <br /> I <br /> <br /> Ad;i, M I n.~,(~;~2~ ...... <br /> <br /> ,,,,, .., <br /> <br />Lloyd G. Schnelle <br />15153 ~ov[hen Blvd., <br />Ramsey, ~ 55303 <br /> <br />State of Minnesota <br /> <br />April 13, 1982 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Schnelle: <br /> <br />Thank you for your recent letter regarding the workers' compensation issue. <br /> <br />As you know, on March 20th the Legislature adjourned its 1982 regular session <br />by passing a workers' compensation bill. The bill mandated a 16 percent rate <br />decrease and would have saved employers about $80 million per year in premiums. <br />Unfortunately, the Governor chose to veto the bill. <br /> <br />This bill should have been signed. It was a compromise bill. It contained some <br />features which I did not personally like and it left out some things that I felt <br />should have been included. However, it did represent the best possible bill <br />given the various forces that were working within the Legislature during this <br />past session. <br /> <br />The reasons why this bill should have been enacted are numerous. The bill did <br />contain reforms based on a majority of the 44 recommendations contained in the <br />Markman Report. These reforms would have addressed abuses in the system. <br />Specific changes included the elimination of minimum and supplementary <br />benefits, strictly limited the stacking of benefits, and altered the <br />rehabilitation system to speed the return to work of injured workers. It also <br />allowed the State to offer competitive workers' compensation coverage <br />beginning in July 1983 for public employers and January 1985 for private firms. <br /> <br />Similar competitive state funds are already proving to be successful in at <br />least 12 other states, with state monopoly funds operating in six other states. <br />Ohio, for example, offers benefits as good or better than those in Minnesota, <br />although its rates are significantly lower. Already a number of Minnesota <br />counties, cities, and schools have banded together to self-insure against <br />injury claims and reportedly are saving upwards of 30-40 percent on premium <br />costs. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />COMMITTEES · Chai?'man, Rules and Administration · Vice Chairman. Elections <br />and Reapportionment <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.