George Corson Nov 3, 2016 a 2:58 pm PDT

The numbers may very well be accurate, but do not over-extrapolate the very limited data. I am pretty sure that most of these inspections were conducted based upon either anonymous tips or reasonable suspicion of non-insurance. A WC claim where insurance information is missing could result in an inspection, but so could a complaint for overtime pay. Either might justify a records inspection, including WC coverage, but they are hardly random. Such "reasonable belief" inspections would make the 40% non-insurance rate seem more in context. I don't think ANYBODY would say that 35-40% of all CA Employers are uninsured for WC.

Conducting fewer inspections will certainly result in fewer fines, but conducting 10x more inspections will not necessarily result in 10x more fines. The TRUE non-insurance rate may be closer to 3-5%, but you would need a much larger sample which reflected the much higher number of compliant employers. You would also have to statistically appreciate that Walmart has thousands of CA employees, while "Bob's Plumbing" or "Rita's Housecleaning" may have one apiece. Otherwise, you could justify that 300,000 CA workers don't have WC coverage at work by incorrectly extrapolating the percentage of uninsured companies to the percentage of CA workers.

When Employers occasionally tell me that they cannot not afford WC coverage, I share that a business w/o WC coverage is not a viable business. If they can afford to hire a WC Defense Attorney, they can afford WC Insurance. If not, they should have never opened the doors, because they are only one WC claim away from ruining at least 2 lives.