An Accidental Cancer

Some recent research has shown that there is a higher incidence of cancer amongst workers doing long-term night shifts. In a perfect illustration of the fuzzy thinking and welfarism that has caused the blow-out of ACC expenditure, it is being postulated that ACC may have to pay compensation for night-shift workers. Cue the sound of the ACC budget deficit expanding faster than an air-bag in a car wreck.

“Working night shifts long term is expected to become a basis for compensation claims to ACC now that it has been established internationally as a probable cause of cancer.

“The Government of Denmark has become the first to recognise the link between night shifts and cancer, paying compensation to 40 women who developed the disease after working night shifts in state sector jobs. But it rejected claims from those who had a family history of breast cancer.”

Excuse me for saying this, but do we have to keep citing Denmark as some sort of cutting-edge social lodestone? I mean, why Denmark? I like Danes, but I don’t want to follow them into the little socialist quagmire they have made for themselves. Come to think of it, there is no part of Europe I would like to measure New Zealand against. If I wanted a european lifestyle, I would live there, not here. Grouch, grouch.

There is a point to my grouching. The phrase “established internationally” does not normally mean a single (albeit large) study accepted only by Denmark. And Denmark is probably about the only place in the universe that would pay compensation based on a study that suggests “a probable cause of cancer”. Most normal governments would wait for something fairly definite.

Which brings me back to the wonderful world of ACC. Ten years ago, there would have been no suggestion that compensation for something as vague as this would even be considered. ACC do compensate for cancers, but only those cancers that have a well-established direct relationship with the work environment such as mesothelioma and asbestos exposure. To compensate for a vague increase in cancers for night shift is absurd. Why not compensate for cervical cancer in prostitutes? How about fruit pickers claiming for melanomas due to work-related sun exposure? Road workers claiming for lung cancers because of dusty conditions? What about shift workers claiming for strokes and heart attacks (both have higher incidences in shift workers)?

In an environment where you can successfully claim compensation for mental stress because your boss shouted at you at work, anything is possible. I suspect many will look at the above illustrations and think that they are reasonable claims for ACC, despite the fact that they are NOT accidental exposures but normal known work hazards. Workers already know the risk and are willing to take it (in the case of the road workers, there is no concrete evidence of risk, anyway). Night shift workers have known about health risks for years (including high blood pressure and heart disease). Increase in cancer incidence is just another one.

ACC was working as intended, as an accident insurance, until the last Labour government decided to extend entitlements. There are two major problems with moving away from a pure accident insurance. The first is that each extension of entitlements brings the demand for more. Exactly where does one stop? The second is that someone has to pay for it. As ACC extends its reach, it also reduces its taxpayer base, making it more and more expensive for fewer and fewer people.

So, before we applaud the idea of compensating people for non-specific “accidental” cancers, remember one thing:

All of us fit, healthy people are going to be paying for it for the rest of our lives.

Related posts: