There’s quite a high-stakes battle brewing in Olympia. The outcome will affect much of the work yet to be done in the Legislature’s special session.

The fight is over something you may have never heard of. It’s about the state’s workers’ compensation insurance system and it’s called “compromise and release.” The “compromise” is that permanently injured workers agree to take a settlement offer worth much less than what they would have received from a disability pension. The “release” is that they are permanently removed from the system and can’t renegotiate, no matter how inappropriate the settlement turns out to be.

The Spokesman-Review’s editorial board likes the idea and recently took me to task for causing “mischief” in the Legislature on it. Fair enough, that’s their prerogative. My responsibility is to look out for the best interest of my community and neighbors. Those folks decide whether I’m doing it well enough or not.

Having spent many years finishing concrete in and around Spokane, I know firsthand the seriousness of workplace injuries and illnesses and how hard it can be to get your life back on track afterward. This is all about how we treat folks who have been permanently disabled from a workplace injury or contracted a lasting, gravely serious occupational disease.

To me, “compromise and release” sacrifices permanently hurt and sick people for the dubious claim of big savings. Truth is, any “savings” come from lowering those folks’ disability benefits. It fundamentally changes our current wage-replacement pension system to one that values insurance premium rates over promises made in a 100-year-old bargain. We’re celebrating the centennial of that bargain where the 1911 state Legislature made the “Grand Compromise,” which created workers’ comp.

That compromise said that in exchange for “sure and certain relief” from workplace injuries and illnesses, workers would not sue their employer for damages. I think “compromise and release” breaks the promise of “sure and certain relief.”

It’s important to know how our system is unique and why business and workers, together, built what we now have. When you hear proponents say “we need to be more like other states,” just remember, there’s a good reason we’re not. You might tell them to be careful what they ask for.

Washington is the only state where workers pay part of the insurance cost, currently 28 percent.  In every other state it’s all paid for by the employer. We have a unique insurance plan where both parties pay premiums. Ours is a financially sound system. Yet even while Risk and Insurance magazine ranks Washington in the top five in the country, there is constant pressure to completely unravel it. “Compromise and release” is just the latest such effort.

Proponents claim that we have one of the costliest systems in the country; not true. Every year the state of Oregon does a study to see if their workers’ comp rates are competitive; apparently they fight about it too.  The well-regarded, nonpartisan Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services’ survey puts Washington right in the middle for costs when you combine the contributions of both employees and employers.  When you subtract the workers’ portion and just look at employers’ contribution, which is the best apples-to-apples comparison, only 14 states have lower premiums.

Because of our one-of-a-kind cost-share system, we are in the top 10 states for benefits for permanently disabled workers – as we should be. To recap: comparatively low employer costs, one of the most efficient systems in the country and great benefits for injured workers. I don’t see any issues that “compromise and release” fixes. It’s a solution in search of a problem.

Workers’ comp is, and will remain, a politically charged issue. In 100 years the Legislature will likely still be arguing about it. I do not support “compromise and release,” because any savings to the system come directly from reduced benefits to the injured worker. A case has not been made to make these unprecedented changes.

This year the state has been forced to cut or eliminate services to children, our elders, public education, pensioners, the mentally ill, the disabled and health care. This frayed social safety net would further suffer from the downstream cost-shifting of “compromise and release.” During these trying times, how does cutting benefits to permanently injured workers make any sense?

“Compromise and release” is a false and empty promise. We have to do better than that for our workers and our economy.