Workplace violence
In response to recent egregious examples of workplace violence, a renewed discussion has arisen among Human Resource, Personnel and AA/EEO executives about how they ought to be dealing with disguntled or disaffected employees in the workplace.
David Abel and Jack Nicas for the Boston Globe reported:
A truck driver caught stealing beer from the distributor where he worked killed eight co-workers before turning a gun on himself yesterday morning after company officials told him to resign or face being fired, employees and authorities said.
The man, identified as Omar Thornton by police, went on the deadly rampage at Hartford Distributors, where he had worked for two years. He also wounded two people.
In less than a day, two somewhat competing narratives, drawn from news accounts and Internet postings, have emerged to shape interpretations of this tragedy:
1. Thornton was a disgruntled psychopath who reacted violently after losing his job for good cause.
The scenario of a disgruntled, rank-and-file worker suddenly “going postal” after losing a job due to alleged misconduct has become strongly identified with concerns about workplace violence. News reports about the Connecticut killings frequently referred to past workplace killings that, at least on the surface, appeared to be similar.
Fears of dismissed employees reacting violently have fueled attention to the question of how to terminate people in a way that minimizes these risks. They have led to practices that, in my judgment, can increase the risk of angry and perhaps violent responses, such as “exit parades” whereby workers are escorted out of the premises by security personnel, sometimes in view of their co-workers.
2. Thornton was a victim of racial discrimination whose concerns were ignored by his employer.
According to the Globe:
Thornton, 34, who was black, had complained of racial harassment and said he found a picture of a noose and a racial epithet written on a bathroom wall, the mother of his girlfriend told the Associated Press.
But union officials said Thornton never filed a complaint of racism.
Some are seizing upon this piece of the story to paint another interpretation of events: Thornton was a victim of a hostile workplace that ignored concerns about racial harassment, and he finally snapped after he lost his job.
It is difficult to know whether the “disgruntled psychopath” or the “victim pushed over the edge” story is more accurate than the other. It’s also possible that elements of both are true. In any event, we should be cautious about lumping stories of workplace violence and aggression into easy categories because there is usually alot of blame to go around.
OHSHA reported that after they updated 2005/2006 data, the total number of fatal work injuries in 2005 was revised to 5,734, an increase of 32 fatalities from the preliminary count of 5,702 reported in August 2006.
In addition, the updates led to changes in the classification of worker, job, and case circumstances for some fatalities. Among the changes resulting from the updates were the following:
Fatal work injuries to men increased by 28 to a revised total of 5,328 workplace fatalities. Fatalities to women in the workplace were revised up to 406, but this total still represents a series low for women workers.
Fatalities to workers aged 55 years and older were revised up 12 from 1,499 to 1,511.
The number of fatalities to foreign-born workers was revised up 22 to 1,035.
The revised number of fatal occupational injuries incurred by Hispanic or Latino workers increased by 6 to 923, though the fatality rate for Hispanic or Latino workers remained unchanged.
Fatalities related to transportation activities increased by 13 (from 2,480 to 2,493) in the revised data, most of which were attributable to highway incidents (9 of the 13 cases). Fatalities involving truck drivers increased by 5 (from 831 to 836).
The largest increases in new cases by State were in California, which rose from 453 to 465, and in Louisiana, which reported an increase from 106 to 111 cases.
Fatal workplace injuries attributable to hurricanes were revised up 3 to a final count of 32 fatal work injuries. These statistics do not look at causation, however. And most NYS agencies are reactive as opposed to proactive.
Therefore, proactive prevention policies with teeth include a viable, effective and prompt means of redressing grievances against managers by rank and file. Not the system currently in place in New York State for example, where co-opted Personnel administrators doing the bidding of their handlers, deliberately drag their feet on processing grievances, which segues into another pernicious problem that is often under reported.
Little has been said about unfair labor-management practices by employers and even corrupt labor unions whom are supposed to protect rank and file members from improper practices that unfairly impact them from retaliation, overwork, underpay or poor working conditions.
So, if a grievance is not "settled," and does manage to rise to a tier 3 grievance, the union often neglects to "pick it up." That is neither fair nor judicious but, unfortunately, the rule and not the exception with how corrupt union officials quell dissent among rank and file.
It is easy to cast a "fired" worker as a malcontent, bad worker, thief, racist, and ne're-do-well after they have been killed by the police, taken their own lives, or have been tried, convicted and imprisoned.
And admittedly their violent behavior is not socially acceptable because innocent people, many of whom are from the rank and file, often get killed as a direct consequent of these extreme, last resort, attempts to resolve grievances.
Working for the State of New York off and on for the last 10 years, I can say emphatically that cronyism and favoritism rule. The Inspector General whose office, ostensibly has oversight, is itself is highly politicized and, as such, compromised. NYS OIG comes out a few times during the year with a well publicized case of a grade 9 stealing "time." Once is a blue moon, they will famously announce a high ranking state official usually at the end of their career, who has been "referred" to their respective agency for one impropriety or the other.
But you rarely see high ranking administrators in the middle or beginning of their careers taken to task for their illegal excesses on a routine basis. I personally know several who work other jobs while on state time. One is the same administrator who would conspire to hinder me from obtaining a transfer because I am not in the loop with these inept, corrupt, bungling and politically connected managerial/confidential employees.
Another major problem is Civil Service who promulgates rules governing merit system examinations. In New York State after grade 29, most if not all M/C positions are filled non-competitively, which means those vacancies are filled at the discretion of upper management. There are no "tests," and a wholly subjective evaluation of "education and experience."
So, you have many instances where notoriously unqualified managers lacking advanced educational credentials, demonstrable competencies, skill sets and, more importantly, temperments are being pressed into service in highly sensitive, critical roles in these agencies.
The end result is the Peter Principle ("in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence") gone wild. There is absolutely no accountability because these incompetents portentuously masquerading as senior and executive managers are more concerned with covering their fat asses, than getting off of them to actually walk out into the offices, visit the programs, and talk to rank and file, instead of conspiring with middle-management to oppress them.
Back when we still had large institutional campuses, these managers could expect to become victims of workplace violence. They would often come out after a hard day spouting racist or other insulting comments, nitpicking and harassing, and generally oppressing subordinates to find their cars "keyed," tires slashed, or windshields broken.
The possibility of knowing that damage to their property or even assault to their person could result from their unrestrained conduct often served as an effective barrier against heavyhanded, unchecked managerial policies that in several, recent highly publicized cases resulted in people getting shot and killed.
Although I am not a pacifist, I would never advocate violence against anyone except in the event where one's life, the lives of one's family, or larger society is at imminent risk of harm.
However, I do feel that not everyone has the same internal controls enabling them to deal with frustration by venal, arrogant, incompetant and, often, racist managers.
The managers in question are invariably unresponsive. When confronted by their own lack of responsiveness, often stonewall, circle wagons, and when his or her refusal to redress an issue is referred to oversight, or executive management as a last gap measure, outright dissemble, or close ranks.
It is this type of flagrant injustice, fostered by politics, stupidity, cronyism and favoritism, which fuels workplace violence, not the converse where a disguntled worker is dismissively characterised as a malcontent, bad worker, thief, racist, and ne're-do-well.
Maybe if workers return to these old effective institutional labor-management practices, executive management, oversight agencies, and the unions would get out of bed long enough to address these persistent issues bringing integrity and, even more importantly, accountability back into the merit system as a consequence.
David Abel and Jack Nicas for the Boston Globe reported:
A truck driver caught stealing beer from the distributor where he worked killed eight co-workers before turning a gun on himself yesterday morning after company officials told him to resign or face being fired, employees and authorities said.
The man, identified as Omar Thornton by police, went on the deadly rampage at Hartford Distributors, where he had worked for two years. He also wounded two people.
In less than a day, two somewhat competing narratives, drawn from news accounts and Internet postings, have emerged to shape interpretations of this tragedy:
1. Thornton was a disgruntled psychopath who reacted violently after losing his job for good cause.
The scenario of a disgruntled, rank-and-file worker suddenly “going postal” after losing a job due to alleged misconduct has become strongly identified with concerns about workplace violence. News reports about the Connecticut killings frequently referred to past workplace killings that, at least on the surface, appeared to be similar.
Fears of dismissed employees reacting violently have fueled attention to the question of how to terminate people in a way that minimizes these risks. They have led to practices that, in my judgment, can increase the risk of angry and perhaps violent responses, such as “exit parades” whereby workers are escorted out of the premises by security personnel, sometimes in view of their co-workers.
2. Thornton was a victim of racial discrimination whose concerns were ignored by his employer.
According to the Globe:
Thornton, 34, who was black, had complained of racial harassment and said he found a picture of a noose and a racial epithet written on a bathroom wall, the mother of his girlfriend told the Associated Press.
But union officials said Thornton never filed a complaint of racism.
Some are seizing upon this piece of the story to paint another interpretation of events: Thornton was a victim of a hostile workplace that ignored concerns about racial harassment, and he finally snapped after he lost his job.
It is difficult to know whether the “disgruntled psychopath” or the “victim pushed over the edge” story is more accurate than the other. It’s also possible that elements of both are true. In any event, we should be cautious about lumping stories of workplace violence and aggression into easy categories because there is usually alot of blame to go around.
OHSHA reported that after they updated 2005/2006 data, the total number of fatal work injuries in 2005 was revised to 5,734, an increase of 32 fatalities from the preliminary count of 5,702 reported in August 2006.
In addition, the updates led to changes in the classification of worker, job, and case circumstances for some fatalities. Among the changes resulting from the updates were the following:
Fatal work injuries to men increased by 28 to a revised total of 5,328 workplace fatalities. Fatalities to women in the workplace were revised up to 406, but this total still represents a series low for women workers.
Fatalities to workers aged 55 years and older were revised up 12 from 1,499 to 1,511.
The number of fatalities to foreign-born workers was revised up 22 to 1,035.
The revised number of fatal occupational injuries incurred by Hispanic or Latino workers increased by 6 to 923, though the fatality rate for Hispanic or Latino workers remained unchanged.
Fatalities related to transportation activities increased by 13 (from 2,480 to 2,493) in the revised data, most of which were attributable to highway incidents (9 of the 13 cases). Fatalities involving truck drivers increased by 5 (from 831 to 836).
The largest increases in new cases by State were in California, which rose from 453 to 465, and in Louisiana, which reported an increase from 106 to 111 cases.
Fatal workplace injuries attributable to hurricanes were revised up 3 to a final count of 32 fatal work injuries. These statistics do not look at causation, however. And most NYS agencies are reactive as opposed to proactive.
Therefore, proactive prevention policies with teeth include a viable, effective and prompt means of redressing grievances against managers by rank and file. Not the system currently in place in New York State for example, where co-opted Personnel administrators doing the bidding of their handlers, deliberately drag their feet on processing grievances, which segues into another pernicious problem that is often under reported.
Little has been said about unfair labor-management practices by employers and even corrupt labor unions whom are supposed to protect rank and file members from improper practices that unfairly impact them from retaliation, overwork, underpay or poor working conditions.
So, if a grievance is not "settled," and does manage to rise to a tier 3 grievance, the union often neglects to "pick it up." That is neither fair nor judicious but, unfortunately, the rule and not the exception with how corrupt union officials quell dissent among rank and file.
It is easy to cast a "fired" worker as a malcontent, bad worker, thief, racist, and ne're-do-well after they have been killed by the police, taken their own lives, or have been tried, convicted and imprisoned.
And admittedly their violent behavior is not socially acceptable because innocent people, many of whom are from the rank and file, often get killed as a direct consequent of these extreme, last resort, attempts to resolve grievances.
Working for the State of New York off and on for the last 10 years, I can say emphatically that cronyism and favoritism rule. The Inspector General whose office, ostensibly has oversight, is itself is highly politicized and, as such, compromised. NYS OIG comes out a few times during the year with a well publicized case of a grade 9 stealing "time." Once is a blue moon, they will famously announce a high ranking state official usually at the end of their career, who has been "referred" to their respective agency for one impropriety or the other.
But you rarely see high ranking administrators in the middle or beginning of their careers taken to task for their illegal excesses on a routine basis. I personally know several who work other jobs while on state time. One is the same administrator who would conspire to hinder me from obtaining a transfer because I am not in the loop with these inept, corrupt, bungling and politically connected managerial/confidential employees.
Another major problem is Civil Service who promulgates rules governing merit system examinations. In New York State after grade 29, most if not all M/C positions are filled non-competitively, which means those vacancies are filled at the discretion of upper management. There are no "tests," and a wholly subjective evaluation of "education and experience."
So, you have many instances where notoriously unqualified managers lacking advanced educational credentials, demonstrable competencies, skill sets and, more importantly, temperments are being pressed into service in highly sensitive, critical roles in these agencies.
The end result is the Peter Principle ("in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence") gone wild. There is absolutely no accountability because these incompetents portentuously masquerading as senior and executive managers are more concerned with covering their fat asses, than getting off of them to actually walk out into the offices, visit the programs, and talk to rank and file, instead of conspiring with middle-management to oppress them.
Back when we still had large institutional campuses, these managers could expect to become victims of workplace violence. They would often come out after a hard day spouting racist or other insulting comments, nitpicking and harassing, and generally oppressing subordinates to find their cars "keyed," tires slashed, or windshields broken.
The possibility of knowing that damage to their property or even assault to their person could result from their unrestrained conduct often served as an effective barrier against heavyhanded, unchecked managerial policies that in several, recent highly publicized cases resulted in people getting shot and killed.
Although I am not a pacifist, I would never advocate violence against anyone except in the event where one's life, the lives of one's family, or larger society is at imminent risk of harm.
However, I do feel that not everyone has the same internal controls enabling them to deal with frustration by venal, arrogant, incompetant and, often, racist managers.
The managers in question are invariably unresponsive. When confronted by their own lack of responsiveness, often stonewall, circle wagons, and when his or her refusal to redress an issue is referred to oversight, or executive management as a last gap measure, outright dissemble, or close ranks.
It is this type of flagrant injustice, fostered by politics, stupidity, cronyism and favoritism, which fuels workplace violence, not the converse where a disguntled worker is dismissively characterised as a malcontent, bad worker, thief, racist, and ne're-do-well.
Maybe if workers return to these old effective institutional labor-management practices, executive management, oversight agencies, and the unions would get out of bed long enough to address these persistent issues bringing integrity and, even more importantly, accountability back into the merit system as a consequence.
Comments
Post a Comment