In my opinion, Chicago cab drivers have been maliciously misclassified as employee's for the purposes of forcing sub standard workman's comp. insurance upon them.
If we are to accept as fact the supposition that they are employee's,
"whom" pray tell, is their employer?
And why doesn't the employer have to pay for the workman's comp. insurance?
The funding structure for this scam would suggest that the drivers
customers (or a least the first 9 each shift) are in fact his employer.
Where else in this world, and in what line of work, is such an arraignment practiced?
When one buys a hot dog from a street vender, parks his car with a valet or gets a shoe shine, does he become an employer?
If coverage has not previously been denied, why is it necessary for a
claimant to retain the services of an attorney to file a claim, ?
Requiring an unnecessary fee or taking any portion of a supplement
that is scarcely adequate to sustain a claimant during an extended
period of inactivity, is an outrage!
Not allowing successful claimants to recuperate attorneys fees for
the bogus service rendered, insures the provider an open
avenue for intentionally denying valid claims in the hope that legal
services will become a formidable deterrent to the filing process.
Furthermore requiring claimants to produce income tax returns to
qualify earnings, in an environment where any significant portion of
the participants are known to under report, or not to file tax returns at all,
is a cold calculated act of treachery designed to insure unrighteous
(or "self riotous" as the case may be) bottom line profits to the providers.
If anyone is really looking to be a champion of the downtrodden, I
suggest he start wi th those exploited drivers who must pay for
workman's comp. yet receive no benefit from it when they are injured
on the job.
Can you say, "Insult to injury"?
From: The Outside, looking in...... This is pure Chicago SNAFU.
It doesn't HAVE to be this way!
