They say that the only constant in life is change. That is attributed to Heraclitus. In the twenty-first century, we have seen a great deal of change. There is both evolution and revolution in the world of workers' compensation: regulatorily, statutorily, adjudicatory, and more. The interrelationship of employment, which is the very fabric of workers' compensation, has changed. How we work (employee, contractor, gigger) is evolving. Where we work (telecommuting, video trials, etc.) is evolving. Paradigms are changing, innovations are persistent, and it can be a challenge to keep up.
Within that context, people come and go. This community was here long before any of us, and it will persist long after we are gone. We have a great challenge perceived today regarding how to attract exceptional young people to workers' compensation. I hear that lamented persistently. We are each marching to the end of some road, and the future of workers' compensation will depend on those coming behind us. Or, perhaps depend upon our willingness to mentor them, encourage them, and inspire them: Perhaps the future is our responsibility?
Today, I take the video stage at the annual Comp Laude Gala and Awards, a virtual outing this year. And, there we will both honor and learn. In July 2016, workers' compensation lost a leader in David DePaolo, see We've Lost a Leader (July 2016). For years now, I have lamented the absence of his voice from the national stage. He was an advocate, critic, motivator, and more. He encouraged and inspired conversation about this community, injured workers, and employers. It is fair to say he found workers' compensation interesting and compelling. Some conferences still honor him with an empty chair on their blogger panels. That is both a sad reminder and a celebratory nod to his impact.
Many times, in the months following his passing, I heard people question "What would David say" in the course of our discussions of the processes and challenges of workers' compensation. David was known for having a perspective on most topics and being willing to unabashedly share his thoughts. He was a tough critic and an honest observer. He spoke his mind, often with a laser focus that was disarming. Don't get me wrong, he was no more perfect than any of us. But, he did bring a perspective and flair to the community. He has been sorely missed.
Today at the Comp Laude, we will try to channel his thought process as we discuss the hard topics of our present. We will both question What Would David Say, and strive to provide some insight as to how he would perhaps have viewed big-picture challenges like the "Gig Economy," the "Grand Bargain," and "Due Process."
I have some thoughts on each of these. The topics have evolved in the five years since David passed, but the challenges they present are not all that novel to this decade. While the world has evolved, and the pandemic has brought challenge and frustration, the real underlying issues have perhaps not changed all that much. David was a pragmatist. If I only "had a nickel for every time" he said to me "yeah, but is that really different or just a new view on an old problem?"
I think David would see the evolving "Gig Economy" and its challenges as little different than the broader discussions we have had for years regarding misclassification. The import is not really different. In either, we have a population of workers that are not being covered by the workers' compensation system and its protections. We have the potential for industry injuries to become the responsibility of others, be that the worker, society, etc., rather than the responsibility of the industry. We have the potential for misunderstanding by workers. We have the potential for competitive challenges for employers because they use or eschew the gig model. What Would David Say?
I think David would feel pragmatic about "Due Process" in the current world. He was all about technology and leveraging it. He really believed in the democratization of information. He made a career out of the Internet and the revolution that brought to education, news, and more. I imagine he would have favored the video hearings and telemedicine opportunities that have exploded onto the pandemic scene. But, I can hear him stressing the syllables of "opportunity," pronounced "not mandate." I suspect he would have been the first to point out that not all workers have either hardware or reliable connections. He would have been the first to criticize forcing the video alternative without consideration of the potential for alternatives, without accommodation for the technologically challenged. What Would David Say?
I think David was critical of federalization. He was a pragmatist and saw benefits in the existence of state programs that bring a variety of specific approaches to the challenges of regions and economies. He did see strength and value in adequate benefits though. He found various fluctuations and disparities in benefits and procedures to be challenging, vexing, and often difficult to justify. He periodically noted the incongruity in the breadth and depth of benefit across various systems. We discussed often whether this "Grand Bargain" of quid pro quo should be judged as a system (macro) or in each case (micro). This is much like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (of course, David knows the answer to that one, but the rest of us will have to wait a bit). The "Grand Bargain" in 2021, What Would David Say?
Today, I join an interesting panel including Hon. Robert Rassp (CA) and attorneys Jennifer Jordan Roth and Alan Gurvey. It also includes famous risk manager and workers' compensation leader Bill Zachry, and community commentator and leader Bob Wilson. Our moderator will be Yvonne Guibert. I anticipate an animated conversation about the hot challenges of the third decade of the twenty-first century. I look forward to the conversation in the company of these community leaders. In the process, I will be remembering David, his perspective, and his commitment to workers' compensation. And, in contemplating "What Would David Say?" I will make it a point to have fun. David always found a way to have fun, crack a joke, and lighten a mood. He would stick to his argument assiduously but with that friendly smile on his face. He always attacked the idea, but never the speaker expressing it.
Today will be interesting, informative, and fun; looking forward to the perspectives of an outstanding panel. I hope you will tune in. If you have not registered and want to attend this presentation, let me know.
And, best of luck to all the finalists for the Comp Laude awards. I am particularly crossing my fingers for my own nominees (wouldn't you?), but every nominee should feel honored. Every nominator should be thanked for their effort to recognize others. And, the Comp Laude team should be recognized for changing the conversation about workers' compensation. Thank You! That, I am sure is What David Would Say.
