How To Make Excelsiars

The CSST, another bottomless pit

Between 1999 and 2008, the number of beneficiaries to the CSST decreased by 69%, but costs have increased by 20%. This result should not surprise anyone since the inefficiency is characteristic of a monopoly. (See document analysis MEI)
We should welcome the continuing decline in the number of beneficiaries to the CSST. That so many human dramas that have been avoided. This extraordinary performance is the result of applying the user pays principle. Companies have every incentive to give priority to issues of health and safety in their workplace because they are the only finance program costs to the CSST.

Unfortunately, companies do not benefit not fully their success, as the CSST, a governmental structure established to manage the workers compensation program, is unable to control escalating costs. It plays a role of intermediary between the beneficiaries and businesses. If program costs are exploding, business rates are increased or services to beneficiaries are cut. Sure, she incurs the wrath of each other, but no more. This poor performance stems from the fact that managers / officials of the CSST are not guided by considerations of efficiency, but by the political priorities of time.

Priority managers / officials of the CSST is therefore to enhance their political bosses, or at least not embarrass them. If sometimes the interests of beneficiaries, businesses and politicians coincide, so much the better. Otherwise, they are recipients or businesses or both who suffer.

This is another example that shows why the "Québec model" is bankrupt.

In this case, as in all cases of monopoly, the government is judge and party. It imposes standards, provides services through CSST and arbitrates disputes between the CSST, companies and beneficiaries. In this context, conflicts are always resolved against the party representing the least political clout. Unfortunately, companies draw the short straw more often than not.

The role of government is to dictate the standards and see that they are applied correctly. Playing the role of service provider, the government has a conflict of interest and is better able to arbitrate conflicts that inevitably arise between the provider and recipient. This benefit interest groups and politicians at the expense of beneficiaries and the politicians have yet committed to serve.