Get Our Free Newsletter

Join 10,000+ of your peers! Get our latest articles delivered to your email inbox for free

Full name:
Home | From Bob's Cluttered Desk | With Florida Non-Subscriber Proposal, Will Employers Understand the Risks?

With Florida Non-Subscriber Proposal, Will Employers Understand the Risks?

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

Last Wednesday, Florida Representative Cord Byrd released proposed legislation that, if passed, would include a provision making workers’ compensation coverage optional for businesses in the state. Already being misidentified by Florida media as an “Opt Out” proposal (please see “For the Last Flippin' Time, Texas is NOT an Opt Out State” for a more detailed explanation), it would allow Florida to become a “non-subscription” state similar to Texas.

While this bill has just been introduced, and in fact is still to be formally filed as the Legislature is not yet in session, it signals that workers’ comp will likely be a major issue for Tallahassee this year. Some have conjectured that the legislature would do what it often does here in the Sunshine State; they would ignore the issue for years until the pain became too great before acting with a stupid and poorly thought out solution. I guess I had best stop conjecturing that.

Looks like we’re moving to the poorly thought out solutions faster than I anticipated. (This proposal also has a provision to shift the cost of attorney fees directly to the injured worker. You may visit Judge David Langham’s excellent post for more about that.)

While we have no way of knowing what the end result of this proposal will look like, if the state does adopt a non-subscriber capability, will our employers truly understand the risks involved? For the small, independent business just struggling to survive on a day to day basis, my guess would be “no”.

While larger, more sophisticated employers will understand the risks associated with “going naked”, and develop alternative plans designed to mitigate that risk, many small employers in the state are likely not to grasp the consequences of dropping workers’ comp coverage. For many of those businesses, workers’ comp has become a nuisance expense; a mandated cost on their annual budget that, to them, provides no real value. Many small employers are not aware of the “grand bargain” that provides them protections from tort actions that could result from their negligence. The narrative on comp has evolved to the point where it is portrayed as protection for their employees, when in fact the system protects the boss as well. As an industry, we don’t tell both sides of the story well.

We already see the lack of appreciation for comp in the state today. The widespread abuse of the “independent contractor” by employers in Florida is largely driven by a perceived need to avoid workers’ compensation coverage for employees. I’ve had conversations with small business owners – people who are aware of the business I am in – that clearly reveal an ignorance about the law and protections afforded them by a solid workers’ compensation policy. One such owner, who runs a commercial cleaning business, called me because a new client was asking for proof of workers’ compensation coverage. His “solution” was to try to figure out a way to make all his employees corporate officers so they would somehow be exempt from comp coverage. I assured him that, not only was his plan illegal, it was ill advised from a liability perspective to boot.

I have no idea if the message actually got through.

Florida already has a limited “non-subscription” capability. With the exception of those within the construction industry, any business with less than 4 employees is not required to carry workers’ compensation insurance. I do not have statistics on how many of those businesses opt for workers’ compensation coverage, but I suspect a significant number do not. Not only is there a great lack of awareness about what workers’ comp does, for any of these employers it is difficult to find coverage. Many agents do not like dealing with companies of that size (an agent friend told me years ago he hated writing comp for any employer with less than 10 people. Calling them a “pain in the ass”, he indicated he made very little money and became their default HR person for every little issue in the process). Personal anecdotes are not my only source or observation point; this website has had over 60,000 such businesses pass through its virtual doors looking for coverage in the last 10 years or so. For them, finding coverage or even someone willing to help them has been difficult.

Making it “voluntary” will not be, in my opinion, the solution that works for everybody.

I am on record as not being a fan of non-subscription systems. It is estimated in Texas that as many as 500,000 workers are employed by companies that have no injury coverage plans in place. If injured they are potentially on their own; or headed to dependency on an overburdened SSDI system and support of the taxpayer for the remainder of their lives. It is a disastrous system for employees (and taxpayers) in that situation. We should not encourage replication here.

The bottom line is, just because workers’ comp may not be required it does not mean the liability for the on the job injury goes away. If the non-subscription option becomes a reality in Florida, the industry needs to be prepared to counter with that message. Otherwise some employers, and their workers, will get a very expensive, and perhaps unexpected, lesson in being properly prepared. 

Rate this article


About "From Bob's Cluttered Desk"

Robert Wilson is President & CEO of, and "From Bob's Cluttered Desk" comes his (often incoherent) thoughts, ramblings, observations and rants - often on workers' comp or employment issues, but occasionally not.

Bob has a couple unique personality characteristics. He firmly believes that everyone has the right to his (Bob's) opinion, and while he may not always be right, he is never in doubt. Enter at your own risk, and like all of our blog areas, we encourage you to read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page.

We're not responsible for this guy.....

Bob is an accomplished speaker for the workers' compensation industry. He is available for conferences, corporate events, children's birthday parties and Bar Mitzvahs. You may access his Speakers Brief here.

Join Bob and over 17,000 employers and professionals on his LinkedIn group - the Workers Compensation Roundtable. Join here today!

Follow Bob on Twitter at his personal account @WorkCompKing

Subscribe to comments feed Comments (1 posted)

Bart Wayne Castle 01/09/2017 15:23:36

I took a job as a risk manager in Texas with a quick service franchisee in 1992 on the heels of Texas adopting its Non-Subscription legislation. The company I worked for saved $1M in premiums the first year of its implementation.

What did we do with those savings?
1. Paid lost time wages beginning day two rather than day seven as WC in Texas paid (pays).
2. Paid 5% greater wages than Texas WC paid.
3. Provided our injured employees access to physicians and other medical professional who were not and never would have been on WC approved physicians list.
4. The pride that comes with making effective choices rather than feeling like there is no joint participation.
5. Paid on injuries appropriate to what respected medical professionals said was necessary, should be billed and would get the employee to either full recovery or MMI at rates at or above WC.

What did employees "lose"?
1. The right to guess whether they were injured, delaying report for days or weeks, often making their conditions worse.
2. The right to choose often substandard physicians or doc shop clinics (which in some cases had plaintiff attorneys as partners - no conflict of interest there).
3. The choice to work with often highly regarded medical professionals to get themselves back to work. Thus providing full wages for their families and a consistent work history.
4. The right to have their lives tied up in often pointless litigation, which seldom pays injured workers what they have been led to believe it is going to pay them (by insurance industry shills and plaintiff attorneys).

Were there abuses? Sure. However, in Texas then and Florida now, anyone who believes there aren't abuses and gross inefficiencies in the WC system likely is either very poorly informed or stands in some way to benefit by perpetuating the narrative about the pristine nature of ANY bureaucracy - especially Comp systems.

Non-Subscription provides business owners important choices that stabilize jobs for those individuals who truly want to work whether they work for entry level of higher wages. Will some abuse the system? Probably? Is Non-Subscription for every business? Absolutely not. And, the determining factor has somewhat less to do with the size of the business and more to do with the character of the business owner. There are many small business owners who have high character.

Asserting the evils of Non-Subscription is similar to asserting the evils of money. Money is amoral. People decide if is is used effectively or ineffectively and in service and partnership with others - not the money itself. Some use it well. Some use it poorly. Your argument essentially says because some use it poorly, it should not be available to any.

I hope at some point you will consider the full measure of both the pros and cons of Non-Subscription. You may choose otherwise.

Bart Castle
total: 1 | displaying: 1 - 1

Post your comment

  • Bold
  • Italic
  • Underline
  • Quote

Please enter the code you see in the image:

  • Email to a friend Email to a friend
  • Print version Print version
  • Plain text Plain text
The CompNewsNetwork is brought to you free of charge courtesy of these fine sponsors:

Powered by Vivvo CMS v4.7