Absolutely! Workers Comp covers any employee being employed and hurt while performing their job under the employers control. In this case they are well inside the scope of their job duties and even if they weren't they are still covered. Just how Workers Comp works.
just playing devils advocate, if you are somewhere where you arent supposed to be, why should you still be covered?
once again, im betting that this is the reason why they didnt act. i certainly hope its not bc they were dicks
0
Quote Originally Posted by ABooksNightmare:
Absolutely! Workers Comp covers any employee being employed and hurt while performing their job under the employers control. In this case they are well inside the scope of their job duties and even if they weren't they are still covered. Just how Workers Comp works.
just playing devils advocate, if you are somewhere where you arent supposed to be, why should you still be covered?
...and that Compassionate Conservative / Free Market / Consequences beat goes on
Maybe read the whole thread there steve, this has been argued at length earlier
i must have been reading the 2 other threads that were started later on the firefighters, you certainly must have thought those later 2 threads, especially the last one, is much more important than this thread.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Dude_Abides:
...and that Compassionate Conservative / Free Market / Consequences beat goes on
Maybe read the whole thread there steve, this has been argued at length earlier
i must have been reading the 2 other threads that were started later on the firefighters, you certainly must have thought those later 2 threads, especially the last one, is much more important than this thread.
so you pay 75 bucks and it stops the false alarm calls by outsiders? i dont see the correlation. i'm sorry, i guess i'm so liberal that i think all people should be protected from fires, even the outsiders. "stay gold, Ponyboy, stay gold", i know youre going to argue and argue, but even you know deep down in that blackened soul'less heart that this whole watching a man's house burn to the ground was inhuman and disgusting, there were alternatives before and after that fire started, it's a shame that the bottom line trumps compassion in rural tennessee.
ive asked you 2x already, and 2x you have been too afraid to answer. ill ask one more time
yes or no,
if a municipality charges taxes to its residents to fund services, do you think ppl living outside the municipality should get access to those services for free?
0
Quote Originally Posted by bsforsale:
so you pay 75 bucks and it stops the false alarm calls by outsiders? i dont see the correlation. i'm sorry, i guess i'm so liberal that i think all people should be protected from fires, even the outsiders. "stay gold, Ponyboy, stay gold", i know youre going to argue and argue, but even you know deep down in that blackened soul'less heart that this whole watching a man's house burn to the ground was inhuman and disgusting, there were alternatives before and after that fire started, it's a shame that the bottom line trumps compassion in rural tennessee.
ive asked you 2x already, and 2x you have been too afraid to answer. ill ask one more time
yes or no,
if a municipality charges taxes to its residents to fund services, do you think ppl living outside the municipality should get access to those services for free?
west coast? small percentage? dude, i'm so cool, i don't eat meat!
anyway, canada, as lefty as you seem now is turning right, your prime minister's party supports lower taxes, smaller government, more decentralization of federal government powers to the provinces and a tougher stand on "law and order" issues. It is also opposed to the legalization of WEED and has had a free vote on whether the house wanted to reopen the issue of gay marriage, which was defeated. His party favors more spending on the military too. when will Fox News Canada go on the air?
Harper has been in power for years in Canada...Fox News Canada is actually starting soon. The country is going slightly more conservative, the folks don't take everything so seriously there. Nowhere in the world to people take their politics so seriously.
I'll bet dollars to donuts that if any firefighter in Canada would have refused to put out a fire, for any reason, they would be ridiculed and bashed so badly they would want to quit before they got fired
0
Quote Originally Posted by bsforsale:
west coast? small percentage? dude, i'm so cool, i don't eat meat!
anyway, canada, as lefty as you seem now is turning right, your prime minister's party supports lower taxes, smaller government, more decentralization of federal government powers to the provinces and a tougher stand on "law and order" issues. It is also opposed to the legalization of WEED and has had a free vote on whether the house wanted to reopen the issue of gay marriage, which was defeated. His party favors more spending on the military too. when will Fox News Canada go on the air?
Harper has been in power for years in Canada...Fox News Canada is actually starting soon. The country is going slightly more conservative, the folks don't take everything so seriously there. Nowhere in the world to people take their politics so seriously.
I'll bet dollars to donuts that if any firefighter in Canada would have refused to put out a fire, for any reason, they would be ridiculed and bashed so badly they would want to quit before they got fired
Harper has been in power for years in Canada...Fox News Canada is actually starting soon. The country is going slightly more conservative, the folks don't take everything so seriously there. Nowhere in the world to people take their politics so seriously.
I'll bet dollars to donuts that if any firefighter in Canada would have refused to put out a fire, for any reason, they would be ridiculed and bashed so badly they would want to quit before they got fired
Harper has been in power for years in Canada...Fox News Canada is actually starting soon. The country is going slightly more conservative, the folks don't take everything so seriously there. Nowhere in the world to people take their politics so seriously.
I'll bet dollars to donuts that if any firefighter in Canada would have refused to put out a fire, for any reason, they would be ridiculed and bashed so badly they would want to quit before they got fired
ive asked you 2x already, and 2x you have been too afraid to answer. ill ask one more time
yes or no,
if a municipality charges taxes to its residents to fund services, do you think ppl living outside the municipality should get access to those services for free?
Seperate argument there stevarino. What's got most people's knickers in a twist is that people who didn't prepay - free-loading scum - should not expect the gov. to help them out, because that's unfair to the people who did pay the fee. This is about someone's house that got burned down, with animals in it, is it not?
0
Quote Originally Posted by steveshane67:
ive asked you 2x already, and 2x you have been too afraid to answer. ill ask one more time
yes or no,
if a municipality charges taxes to its residents to fund services, do you think ppl living outside the municipality should get access to those services for free?
Seperate argument there stevarino. What's got most people's knickers in a twist is that people who didn't prepay - free-loading scum - should not expect the gov. to help them out, because that's unfair to the people who did pay the fee. This is about someone's house that got burned down, with animals in it, is it not?
Despite Tuesday's protest, LeRue said volunteer firefighters are on hand and there is no danger to people or property.
He said the provincial Department of Labour is investigating the situation and has sent inspectors to interview the firefighters who are refusing to respond to calls.
Despite Tuesday's protest, LeRue said volunteer firefighters are on hand and there is no danger to people or property.
He said the provincial Department of Labour is investigating the situation and has sent inspectors to interview the firefighters who are refusing to respond to calls.
i saw this on another message board and thought it was very appropriate
"only in america do you not pay your bills and have ppl defend you"
True. Trouble is you probably agree with this 100%. Regardless of whether someone's house is on fire, or they broke their leg and need medical assistance.
No fee, no service.
0
Quote Originally Posted by steveshane67:
i saw this on another message board and thought it was very appropriate
"only in america do you not pay your bills and have ppl defend you"
True. Trouble is you probably agree with this 100%. Regardless of whether someone's house is on fire, or they broke their leg and need medical assistance.
Despite Tuesday's protest, LeRue said volunteer firefighters are on hand and there is no danger to people or property.
He said the provincial Department of Labour is investigating the situation and has sent inspectors to interview the firefighters who are refusing to respond to calls.
you must have missed this part
"Boyle, a firefighter with 30 years' experience, said often there are as
few as two people arriving at a scene, which means they have to wait
until a second or third truck arrives or are forced to enter a burning
building if they know someone is inside."
you made a claim about canadian firefighters would be too ashamed to not respond. these guys certainly did not respond in a timely fashion.
besides, its not like google is full of canadian fire fighters refusing to fight fire examples, this was the best i saw.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Dude_Abides:
You forgot to read the whole article...
Despite Tuesday's protest, LeRue said volunteer firefighters are on hand and there is no danger to people or property.
He said the provincial Department of Labour is investigating the situation and has sent inspectors to interview the firefighters who are refusing to respond to calls.
you must have missed this part
"Boyle, a firefighter with 30 years' experience, said often there are as
few as two people arriving at a scene, which means they have to wait
until a second or third truck arrives or are forced to enter a burning
building if they know someone is inside."
you made a claim about canadian firefighters would be too ashamed to not respond. these guys certainly did not respond in a timely fashion.
besides, its not like google is full of canadian fire fighters refusing to fight fire examples, this was the best i saw.
First paragraph..."off duty" officer. If he wasn't working than it doesn't apply for Workers Comp.
i knew you were going to say that, thats why i included the link about the woman driving. i would actually say her example is much more comparable to the firefighters than the police officer, but the PO is a govt employee like fire fighters.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ABooksNightmare:
First paragraph..."off duty" officer. If he wasn't working than it doesn't apply for Workers Comp.
i knew you were going to say that, thats why i included the link about the woman driving. i would actually say her example is much more comparable to the firefighters than the police officer, but the PO is a govt employee like fire fighters.
as i said early, in general, the firefighters should have put the fire out.
but there are probably more to it than just a black or white issue of whether or not they felt like turning the hose on. (sarcasm)
to me, its one in the same, the homeowner chose not to pay for the service so he should feel entitled to the service.
i dont pay a parking permit, i certainly dont feel entitled to a street parking spot. how is this any different?
Umm...let me see.
ONE IS A PARKING PERMIT, AND THE OTHER ONE IS A MATTER OF LIFE OR DEATH and/or PROPERTY DAMAGE WHERE SOMEONE COULD HACE DONE SOMETHING ABOUT THE SITUATION, AND DEALT WITH IT LATER
Yeah, I don't see the difference. Have to keep those arguaments consistant
0
Quote Originally Posted by steveshane67:
as i said early, in general, the firefighters should have put the fire out.
but there are probably more to it than just a black or white issue of whether or not they felt like turning the hose on. (sarcasm)
to me, its one in the same, the homeowner chose not to pay for the service so he should feel entitled to the service.
i dont pay a parking permit, i certainly dont feel entitled to a street parking spot. how is this any different?
Umm...let me see.
ONE IS A PARKING PERMIT, AND THE OTHER ONE IS A MATTER OF LIFE OR DEATH and/or PROPERTY DAMAGE WHERE SOMEONE COULD HACE DONE SOMETHING ABOUT THE SITUATION, AND DEALT WITH IT LATER
Yeah, I don't see the difference. Have to keep those arguaments consistant
"Boyle, a firefighter with 30 years' experience, said often there are as few as two people arriving at a scene, which means they have to wait until a second or third truck arrives or are forced to enter a burning building if they know someone is inside."
you made a claim about canadian firefighters would be too ashamed to not respond. these guys certainly did not respond in a timely fashion.
besides, its not like google is full of canadian fire fighters refusing to fight fire examples, this was the best i saw.
0
Quote Originally Posted by steveshane67:
you must have missed this part
"Boyle, a firefighter with 30 years' experience, said often there are as few as two people arriving at a scene, which means they have to wait until a second or third truck arrives or are forced to enter a burning building if they know someone is inside."
you made a claim about canadian firefighters would be too ashamed to not respond. these guys certainly did not respond in a timely fashion.
besides, its not like google is full of canadian fire fighters refusing to fight fire examples, this was the best i saw.
True. Trouble is you probably agree with this 100%. Regardless of whether someone's house is on fire, or they broke their leg and need medical assistance.
No fee, no service.
the trouble is you probably dont see the tremendous negative message that not agreeing with that 100% has.
if a house is going to be saved by the firefighters regardless if ppl pay the fee, then what is the point of paying the fee in the first place?
and why bring non elective medical stuff into the discussion, its mandated by the law, but ill go out on a limb and say you see no downside to the mandate. if you dont, you should talk to someone who has worked in an ER before and ask them about the ppl that come in there every other day "needing" treatment.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Dude_Abides:
True. Trouble is you probably agree with this 100%. Regardless of whether someone's house is on fire, or they broke their leg and need medical assistance.
No fee, no service.
the trouble is you probably dont see the tremendous negative message that not agreeing with that 100% has.
if a house is going to be saved by the firefighters regardless if ppl pay the fee, then what is the point of paying the fee in the first place?
and why bring non elective medical stuff into the discussion, its mandated by the law, but ill go out on a limb and say you see no downside to the mandate. if you dont, you should talk to someone who has worked in an ER before and ask them about the ppl that come in there every other day "needing" treatment.
i knew you were going to say that, thats why i included the link about the woman driving. i would actually say her example is much more comparable to the firefighters than the police officer, but the PO is a govt employee like fire fighters.
In this case WC is going to argue that the employee was just headed home to, well, her home and not back to a place of business which also happens to be her home. There is a fine line there for sure and that is why it is being appealed.
Once the facts are sorted out it will have to be determined that the employee was under the employers control while on her way home. For most of us we work at a location that is not our home. Driving to and from work is not compesible, unless under the employers control, and therefore is not renumeration from WC point of view. However, in this case the lady's defense will clearly argue that she was returning back to the place of business, which just happened to e here home, but was under the employers control and therefore can not be denied benefits. She will most likely win this case, but had it been you or we would not because your normal commute to and from work is not compensible unless the employer has directed you for work purposes.
Both examples are no where near the story here.
COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
0
Quote Originally Posted by steveshane67:
i knew you were going to say that, thats why i included the link about the woman driving. i would actually say her example is much more comparable to the firefighters than the police officer, but the PO is a govt employee like fire fighters.
In this case WC is going to argue that the employee was just headed home to, well, her home and not back to a place of business which also happens to be her home. There is a fine line there for sure and that is why it is being appealed.
Once the facts are sorted out it will have to be determined that the employee was under the employers control while on her way home. For most of us we work at a location that is not our home. Driving to and from work is not compesible, unless under the employers control, and therefore is not renumeration from WC point of view. However, in this case the lady's defense will clearly argue that she was returning back to the place of business, which just happened to e here home, but was under the employers control and therefore can not be denied benefits. She will most likely win this case, but had it been you or we would not because your normal commute to and from work is not compensible unless the employer has directed you for work purposes.
ONE IS A PARKING PERMIT, AND THE OTHER ONE IS A MATTER OF LIFE OR DEATH and/or PROPERTY DAMAGE WHERE SOMEONE COULD HACE DONE SOMETHING ABOUT THE SITUATION, AND DEALT WITH IT LATER
Yeah, I don't see the difference. Have to keep those arguaments consistant
you do realize the tenn firefighters made sure that no one was inside the home before letting it burn, right? so its not a matter of life or death.
and unlike your leftist brethren, i strive to keep my arguments consistent.
do you think the homeowner deserves any blame in this situation at all? you keep blaming the firefighters for doing nothing. if the homeowner had been responsible, this situation would never had happened.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Dude_Abides:
Umm...let me see.
ONE IS A PARKING PERMIT, AND THE OTHER ONE IS A MATTER OF LIFE OR DEATH and/or PROPERTY DAMAGE WHERE SOMEONE COULD HACE DONE SOMETHING ABOUT THE SITUATION, AND DEALT WITH IT LATER
Yeah, I don't see the difference. Have to keep those arguaments consistant
you do realize the tenn firefighters made sure that no one was inside the home before letting it burn, right? so its not a matter of life or death.
and unlike your leftist brethren, i strive to keep my arguments consistent.
do you think the homeowner deserves any blame in this situation at all? you keep blaming the firefighters for doing nothing. if the homeowner had been responsible, this situation would never had happened.
Why not help put the fire out and then take the guy to court for the costs of having to pay personnel and any other costs to put the fire out?
Isn't that more logical?
This really is a dumb statement. So lets see everybody dont pay the fee, then the city will provide the services and then take the property owners to court to get 75 bucks from. Boy that will really be a huge savings on the city, paying lawyers and court fees to get 75 bucks.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ABooksNightmare:
Why not help put the fire out and then take the guy to court for the costs of having to pay personnel and any other costs to put the fire out?
Isn't that more logical?
This really is a dumb statement. So lets see everybody dont pay the fee, then the city will provide the services and then take the property owners to court to get 75 bucks from. Boy that will really be a huge savings on the city, paying lawyers and court fees to get 75 bucks.
you do realize the tenn firefighters made sure that no one was inside the home before letting it burn, right? so its not a matter of life or death.
and unlike your leftist brethren, i strive to keep my arguments consistent.
do you think the homeowner deserves any blame in this situation at all? you keep blaming the firefighters for doing nothing. if the homeowner had been responsible, this situation would never had happened.
My politics are all over the map on different issues; but I am reminded of these quotes
"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey
"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi
If following an argument to the nth degree to keep it consistant, with absolutely no regard for compassion or common sense and decency, is of the utmost important to the right. Then piss on the right
0
Quote Originally Posted by steveshane67:
you do realize the tenn firefighters made sure that no one was inside the home before letting it burn, right? so its not a matter of life or death.
and unlike your leftist brethren, i strive to keep my arguments consistent.
do you think the homeowner deserves any blame in this situation at all? you keep blaming the firefighters for doing nothing. if the homeowner had been responsible, this situation would never had happened.
My politics are all over the map on different issues; but I am reminded of these quotes
"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey
"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi
If following an argument to the nth degree to keep it consistant, with absolutely no regard for compassion or common sense and decency, is of the utmost important to the right. Then piss on the right
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
