So by reducing injuries, those employees receive higher pay (because they get their normal salary instead of the lesser workers comp pay), and they are able to work more years.
It's clever actually, taking attention from the question which was (total pay / time worked) to (pay rate * time worked). Most wouldn't notice, I'm sure, and it makes things look favourable - especially since your question was about the average worker, not the injured worker, i.e. the exceptional one.
We shouldn't stop the comparison of pay at the moment a person is injured. These are people, they don't stop existing the moment they aren't useful to a company. And an injury does effectively reduce their pay by preventing them from working, or forcing them to change careers.
This is a safety device, and no productivity improvements have been shown yet. So you wouldn't expect an outright increase in hourly wages. But an increase in working years without injury is a benefit to workers, and does increase their lifetime earnings.
So a device that reduces injuries, will enable them to work more years, and increase their lifetime earnings.
If you think the wage is fair then you will appreciate the lower fatigue and reduced risk of injuries.
The risk is already priced in the insurance so by reducing risk you effectively increase the income spent on insurance.