Bullied targets speak out at Jan. 17, 2012 testimony before the Washington State Senate committee regarding SB 5789, a modified version of the Healthy Workplace Bill.

Bullied targets: Martha (speaking on behalf of over 100 state workers), Thomas, Elaina, “I’m Done!” Richard, Christine, Linda, Mario & Deb

Gary Namie from the Workplace Bullying Institute

Union supporters: Seamus from the Washington Public Employees Association, Sean from the Western Pulp & Paper Workers, Rebecca from the WA State Labor Council, & Melissa from the Washington State Nurses Association.

Thank you all. Join us in the campaign to enact the law.

Jan. 17, 2012 testimony before the Washington State Senate committee regarding SB 5789, a modified version of the Healthy Workplace Bill.

Tim O’Connell from the Association of Washington Business (state Chamber of Commerce), Gary Smith from the Independent Business Association, & Marie Clarke from the Attorney General’s office all oppose the anti-bullying bill.

Listen for the deliberate factual errors committed by corporate employment attorney (and union buster according to his online accomplishments) McConnell about the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Smith and Clark simply distort the bill and ignore the fact that misconduct without severe health impact will not be actionable.

Assistant AG Clark makes the remarkable assumption that State agencies will be abusive and not be able to prevent being abusive, and therefore, will be held legally liable. They just can’t help themselves. Hmmm. So much for faith in senior administrators of state agencies. These three testifiers all shared a dismissive and arrogant disregard for the plight of traumatized workers subjected to abusive work environments, preferring to argue that current legal “protections” are adequate.

Senator Conway and Senator Kline counter, correctly, that current remedies are inadequate.

Join us in the campaign to enact the law.

Workplace bullying is the deliberate, health-endangering mistreatment of an employee by a supervisor or co-workers. It may come in the form of the yelling and screaming boss who regularly inflicts high-decibel tirades upon a subordinate. It may come in the form of workers who deliberately sabotage the reputation of a co-worker by spreading lies and rumors about his or her performance and character.

Workplace bullying exacts a heavy price in employee productivity, morale and dignity. Research indicates that at least 60 percent of America’s workers will face such behavior during their working lives and that supervisors are the likely aggressors. Some will experience health impairments such as clinical depression, high blood pressure and even symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Organizations where workplace bullying is common are likely to experience lower productivity and morale, higher absenteeism and turnover rates and greater risk of employee retaliation and violence. These may translate into higher costs for health care, employee benefits and workers’ compensation insurance.

Although workplace bullying falls into a gray area in terms of liability, I have drafted legislation that allows civil claims for those who can prove they were subjected to malicious, health-impairing bullying at work. In 2011, the New York Law Journal opined that it’s only a matter of time before such protections exist; some insurance companies are including workplace bullying in liability insurance policies.

In addition, labor unions are starting to raise concerns about it. In 2009, Massachusetts public sector unions representing some 21,000 state workers negotiated a “mutual respect” contract provision that covers bullying behaviors. The provision allows a worker to file a grievance over an alleged violation.

Too many employers dismiss concerns about workplace bullying. According to a 2007 national survey by the Workplace Bullying Institute and Zogby pollsters, 62 percent of employers either ignored complaints of bullying or worsened the situations.

Nevertheless, employers that want to minimize the likelihood of bullying can take these three concrete steps:

1. Send a message that bullying is unacceptable. The message must come from the top. Specific measures include drafting and implementing policies related to workplace bullying, offering in-house educational programs and presentations, and using effective “360-degree feedback” systems to evaluate supervisors.

2. Empower HR to handle bullying situations fairly and forthrightly. One of the most common remarks from targets of bullying is how the human resources department is “useless” in handling complaints about bullying and, in some cases, turned out to be complicit with the bullies. Effective preventive and responsive measures by HR are key components of any anti-bullying initiative.

3. Remove destructive bullies. Even if an incorrigibly abusive individual happens to be key in attracting business, increased productivity through better morale and less time lost to the gossip mill may make this a sound decision from a purely cost-benefit standpoint.

David Yamada is a professor of law and director of the New Workplace Institute at Suffolk University Law School.

So, here we educate site visitors about a key part of the HWB as introduced in the 21 states since 2003. The bill requires the “private right of action.” That means that individuals wanting to sue using the bill after it becomes law must rely on an attorney they find and hire. There need not be government involvement.

If you were to want to be a plaintiff in a discrimination lawsuit, you must first go through the federal EEOC with your complaint. The EEOC will eventually give you permission to sue with a “right to sue” letter. Then, your case would require you pay for a private attorney.

If you allege that your employer violated either a state or federal occupational safety regulation, you would necessarily file a complaint with your state’s OSH department or the federal Dept of Labor/OSHA. Government gets involved. Unfortunately, U.S. occupational safety and health regulations are scant. Worse yet, employer penalties for confirmed violations are laughable. Preventable death of an employee costs only $10,000! Fines are a joke. Inspections are pre-announced and toothless.

Federal OSHA has been de-fanged by the combination of (1) deliberate gutting of budget adequacy by political opponents of both parties (corporate loyalists) in Congress for many decades that dictates too few inspectors in a large country, and (2) a reluctance to regulate and punish unsafe employers that converted to OSHA’s push to help employers “comply.”

Here are the arguments in favor the “private action” provision contained in the HWB.

1.) When state agencies process complaints for citizens, it costs the State money. Staff time is required for intake interviews, data coding, investigations, adjudication, appeals, and case completion. State money is better spent on requisite social services during austere times.

Our appeal to legislators to enact the HWB involves persuasion and convincing. One of the bill’s most attractive features is that it will be “revenue neutral.” It will not cost the state money when it becomes law.

2.) A second reason to elect private right of action over state enforcement is the transparency that court filings provide. Employers can be held accountable via lawsuits and press attention. Bullying situations may be resolved to preserve positive public relations by employers.

With state involvement, especially using OSH violations, accused employers and individuals are assured secrecy under the cloak of confidentiality. Similarly, retaliation of complainants (a routine practice) is kept hidden from view.
Secret internal complaint handling by employers is one of the factors accounting for workplace bullying’s prevalence. Abuse conducted behind closed doors can be denied and not dealt with. That prevalence was demonstrated in two national representative (scientific) surveys in 2007 and 2010 by the Workplace Bullying Institute.

3.) Third, state agencies have slow bureaucratic processes. Even if we assume state staff are expert investigators, current agency cases languish for years. Proceedings are drawn out when employers contest jurisdictional issues. For example, a person using the state is stalled while the employer argues over whether the case is governed by workers compensation laws or disability or should be in civil court. Years pass. No progress.

4.) Fourth, state and federal OSH violations result in insufficient penalties to discourage future instances of health-harming abusive conduct in American workplaces. When cases require retributive justice to ameliorate bullying, gentle recommendations or calls for voluntary change fall short.

Additionally, the health-harm effect threshold found in the HWB is not a simple statement about what is required to ensure that workplace bullying happens. Bullying happens long before health harm is demonstrable. However, if one wants to use the courts to seek justice, there is an additional requirement. It is not enough to have been bullied to file a lawsuit. I think we all agree that courts should not be clogged with trivial (hurt feelings) cases. Rather, when bullied targets are traumatized and seriously impaired, the probability of being taken seriously by the court increases.

5.) State agency directors are political appointees. Governors bring their own partisanship to state governance. When a particularly rabid anti-worker governor gets elected (in 2010, this is exactly what happened in Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, South Carolina). It is certain that no state agency would faithfully investigate workers’ complaints of abusive mistreatment by employers who have contributed to the Governor’s election campaign. In other words, prosecution of investigations and enforcement will depend on the political leanings of the administration in power at the time.

6.) State involvement permits free complaint filing by individuals. Genuinely bullied targets would want to file, but bullies will likely use the process to attack their targets, this time with the state’s help. The beauty for bullies is that the state would absorb costs. No attorney need be retained. It’s free to make trouble for others.

Thus, state involvement increases the risk of frivolous complaints. Whereas a reliance on private right of action forces individual plaintiffs to pay for an attorney. The cost prohibitive nature of lawsuits screens out cases without merit, and courts can easily dismiss cases without merit. Free filing exposes the process to risk from bullies determined to abuse the process.

Given the above 6 reasons, we discourage state lawmakers from abandoning the “private right of action” provision of the HWB. This is not the time to strain already scant state fiscal resources.

Gary Namie
Healthy Workplace Campaign

For another tutorial on the HWB, read this article.

For another tutorial on the HWB, read this article.

Hope this answers the long-standing question.

Check out the variety of recording devices that can be easily hidden.

In the Instant Poll, we asked:
For targets of workplace bullying: who is your greatest supporter?

Respondents had to pick their major supporter, making only one choice from the following options.

Spouse/significant other, result = .318

Myself, result = .179

A coworker, result = .164

Immediate family (parent, sibling, child), result = .127

No one, result = .119

Therapist/medical professional, result = .077

Spiritual leader, result = .013

Family — partners and immediate relatives — were credited as the prime source of support by 45% of respondents.

Interesting is that a voluntary reliance upon oneself is given the second highest rating (18%). This could be a healthy reliance, an introspective journey, one characterized by strength and deliberate purpose. Of course, this counters the vast anecdotal record of targets who call WBI for help and who overestimate their power to rectify their employer-generated problem.

The “No one” gives support option (chosen by 12%) suggests that those targets are involuntarily left alone to deal with the bullying situation that resulted from the combination of efforts by several do-nothing, intervention-averse people. They may have asked for help and been denied. Hence, they were isolated.

Families are present for targets in 45% of cases; while 30% of bullied targets are left to cope alone.

Your reactions?

In 2012, we expect a flurry of activity. There will be hearings for existing bills, new bills introduced, bills moving to floor votes and a real chance that one or more states may pass the HWB into state law. To prevent confusion during the hectic period when inaccurate portrayals of the HWB will surface, let me clarify our goals for the bill proposed in every state and then showcase the key features of the bill and distinguish it from what wounded, but unhealed, targets of bullying might wish for.

Repeated, Harmful Abusive Conduct Defined

It is important for legal laypeople to understand that the text of the HWB was written by Suffolk Law Professor David C. Yamada. He has made workplace bullying his legal specialty. His year 2000 treatise published in the Georgetown Law Journal was the U.S. legal world’s introduction to bullying and the need for “status-blind” harassment protections for workers. He modeled the HWB on existing anti-discrimination statutes. Practicing attorneys and we who are not familiar with the structure of laws make the poorest critics. That’s why we at WBI accept the HWB completely as the best model legislation for contemporary America.

Legal critics and bully apologists love to claim that bullying is too ambiguous, subjective, and undefinable. Not true. As a first step, we do not refer to “workplace bullying” anywhere in the HWB text. Given the full range of manifested bullying possible, from mild and covert to severe, it only makes sense to have a law address the most egregious, harmful and severe forms. The HWB puts the misconduct on par with domestic violence and other potentially traumatizing experiences. If people are to be given the right to sue, it must not be over a misunderstood interpretation of an arched eyebrow.

Here is the definition codified in HWB. “Abusive conduct is conduct, including acts, omissions, or both, that a reasonable person would find hostile, based on the severity, nature, and frequency of the defendant’s conduct. Abusive conduct may include, but is not limited to: repeated infliction of verbal abuse such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults, and epithets; verbal or physical conduct of a threatening, intimidating, or humiliating nature; the sabotage or undermining of an employee’s work performance; or attempts to exploit an employee’s known psychological or physical vulnerability.” Who gets to say what is verbally abusive or threatening? The recipient, just as in anti-discrimination law.

A Necessarily High Standard

Therefore, not every person offended by the actions of others could use the HWB. The bill requires that harm be demonstrated by a medical or mental health professional or that the employer foolishly punished the plaintiff worker by demotion, punitive transfer, retaliation or termination (some adverse employment action). Serious harm required to pursue a serious lawsuit against either the employer, the perpetrator, or both.

Critics argue that courts will be flooded with baseless lawsuits that employers love to call “frivolous.” But system hurdles will minimize the chances of that happening. First, plaintiffs will have to pay for a private attorney out of pocket to mount a case. Costs alone discourage filing cases just to annoy employers. Attorneys will not accept cases with no to little chance of winning. Judges are quick to grant summary judgment to employers (they throw out the entire lawsuit by siding with employers before hearing evidence).

Abusive conduct must be malicious, as defined in the HWB, not by the court. “Malice is defined as the desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another.” This requirement also will help sort out trivial bullying from health-harming abuse. In severe bullying cases, this standard will most likely be met.

High standards are necessary to weather challenges of constitutionality, if they arise. Laws should have a higher standard to meet, a higher threshold of impact and severity, than company policies. Bullying happens before the onset of health harm. That’s why companies should be less tolerant of the misconduct and respond earlier than any law should require.

The Primary Reason to Enact the HWB

There are two goals stated in the text of the bill. First, it provides legal incentives for employers to prevent and respond to abusive mistreatment of workers. Second, it plugs holes in existing labor laws by allowing employees who have been harmed psychologically, physically or economically by being deliberately subjected to abusive work environments to seek legal relief which they cannot now do.

A good, non-abusive, employer need not fear the HWB becoming law. However, if abuse is routine practice in an organization’s work environment, that employer requires prodding to stop. WBI surveys show that employers do nothing 44% of the time when bullying is reported (according to the national 2007 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey) and the most common response of employers to bullying (according to an online survey of bullied targets, the real consumers of bullying-related employer responses) is to actively resist employee’s desire to address it (46%) and to remain unengaged (35%) with only 3% of employers creating specific policies and faithfully enforcing them.

It is obvious without the threat of litigation, employers can continue to ignore bullying. Plugging the gap in the law does that. More important is the use of the HWB to dangle the incentive for employers to do what they should be doing voluntarily. With the threat of vicarious liability (holding the employer liable for the misconduct of their managers (72% of bullies are bosses)), employers can be compelled to act.

Employers On, Then Off, the Hook

Plaintiffs can sue their employer (the entity with insurance to cover legal defenses for this type of misconduct, called Employment Practices Liability Insurance – EPLI) because managers are “agents” of the employer and are considered to have acted on the employer’s behalf, whether or not the bully’s actions are known to the employer. That’s the point of employer vicarious liability.

Under HWB, plaintiffs have the option of suing their bully. The only defense for an abuser is if he or she acted “at the direction of the employer, under threat of an adverse employment action.” In other words, the bully was made to do the bidding of the employer under threat.

The HWB text states that if “the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any actionable behavior;” then it would not be held liable. That means that if the employer has a policy (a preventive act) and enforced it (corrected promptly), the employer escapes liability. It cannot be sued. It has a defense against a claim.

The get-out-of-responsibility provisions in the HWB for employers are called “affirmative defenses.” They are the incentives for employers to start addressing, rather than ignoring bullying. Similarly, the HWB cannot be used against employers if a bullying correction process was in place and the target did not use it, or if the employee was punished for poor performance, misconduct, illegal or unethical activity, or if “economic necessity” led to termination.

Inadequacy of Current Laws

The conclusion of Yamada’s seminal law journal article that launched the HWB is that the tort that most closely fits cases of workplace bullying, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), nearly always fails to provide relief for bullied targets. The primary reason for the failure is that the threshold of “outrageous conduct” is rarely crossed in U.S. courts. That is, what you and I would consider over-the-top cruelty, thus outrageous, does not meet the U.S. legal standard of conduct beyond the bounds of civilized society. That translates to a license for any manager to do anything and courts consider their tactics within their allowed prerogative. As Yamada concluded IIED is inadequate because courts are too strict for plaintiffs while forgiving most ever transgression of bullies. [In Canada, the tort uses the "reasonable person" threshold. There it takes much less violence for conduct to be deemed outrageous.]

In a 2011 case, a young woman won a $41 million jury award for a combined IIED and sexual harassment case. But it was extremely severe. Even the jury had to admit her manager’s lewd conduct and sexual battery crossed the line. But that’s what it takes to win.

The other existing laws that pertain to bullying cases are state and federal civil rights statutes. We know from the WBI 2007 national survey that 1 in 5 bullying cases also have an illegal discrimination component. That is good for the plaintiff. By filing an EEOC or internal discrimination complaint, the employer will have to pay attention. Of course, complaining triggers a reflexive retaliation by employers. But that’s more good news for plaintiffs. There can now be a charge of retaliation. According to the EEOC, more cases are won by proving retaliation for filing a discrimination complaint than are won when the claim is that one of the seven protected categories was the actual reason for the mistreatment. A 2010 study of the efficacy of discrimination laws found that plaintiffs win in only 15% of cases, and the rate is declining.

The public (and many lawmakers, pundits, bloggers, and nearly everyone who is a target) misunderstands is that to be eligible to claim discrimination — sexual harassment, hostile work environment, racial discrimination, religious persecution — it is best when only the recipient/target is a member of protected status group based on race, gender, age, disability, etc. When the harasser/bully/perpetrator is also protected, it is problematic and may disqualify the plaintiff from filing. The majority of bullying is same gender, same race. Thus, bullying which is 80% of all harassment, is invisible in the eyes of the law. Only a very narrow slice of the population is ever eligible to claim discrimination. Always determine whether the perpetrator is similarly protected. That nullifies any protection for the target. It is a simple and erroneous statement to say that a hostile work environment is illegal in the U.S. Sad, but true.

Given the inadequacy of IIED and civil rights statutes to address workplace bullying, a problem of epidemic proportions in the U.S., there oughta be a law! That’s why we need the HWB. We need it despite whining protestations from corporate defense attorneys who point to IIED and civil rights laws as adequate — for employers, yes — for plaintiffs, protections are non-existent.

A Target’s Wishlist

We certainly wanted a law in the beginning of our involuntary involvement with workplace bullying back in 1995. When we started the organization that has become the Workplace Bullying Institute in mid-1997, we had learned the hard way that existing U.S. employment law was very narrowly defined and did not deserve to be called “protection.” David Yamada annexed his legal work with WBI and in 2001 gave us the first version of the HWB to take to the California legislature. Ruth Namie, Carrie Clark and I learned amateur lobbying the hard way but were able to get the largest state to introduce HWB for the first time in 2003. Now, there is a nationwide team of volunteer State Coordinators carrying the HWB to their state legislatures. For the technical content of the bill, we defer to law professor Yamada. We and the Coordinator team are the implementers.

When deep in the throes of emotional turmoil through no fault of their own, bullied targets demand justice. They deserve it. Naturally they turn to the law and courts to provide this. They want to sue. They want retributive justice — someone must be punished and held accountable. They want revenge. One late website author used to insist that all bullies were psychopaths. He never seemed to heal. To individuals subject to such constrained thinking and prone to emotional distortion, affirmative defenses for employers make the bill sound weak.

The HWB will become a civil law. The only method for restoring a plaintiff’s dignity and sense of justice is cash. This is not a bill to create a criminal law. There are only two in the world: (1) a new 2011 bill in the Australian state of Victoria, and (2) the French Social Modernisation Law. So, please know that people, however heinous, will not be going to jail after the HWB becomes law.

Targets want draconian laws to punish employers. And so might we at WBI. However, the process of making laws in the U.S. is through legislators who win their elective seats by raising money, most of it corporate money. There is little appetite for advancing laws for middle class working folks. In fact, after the 2010 election, there was a spate of anti-worker, anti-union laws passed simultaneously in several states. Current politicians who populate the state legislatures mostly hate or are indifferent to the plight of workers.

The lawmakers who are the exceptions to the new rules are the brave sponsors of the HWB. Their lives have been personally touched by destructive bullying. They come from all political parties. They lend credence to our statement that the HWB is non-partisan. However, in states with majorities in both chambers and the governorships where anti-worker laws passed, it is an uphill battle to simply get the HWB introduced.

This is the political world we have for the next several years. Abuse at work is serious. But so is self-destruction of the planet by governments’ failure to deal honestly with climate change, pollution and the effect of the destructive human imprint on the natural world. If lawmakers can’t address ways to ensure we have suitable air and water for our grandchildren, you can imagine how easily they dismiss the abuse of adults in the contemporary workplace. The business lobby’s clamoring for jobs through the elimination of basic regulations for employers overwhelms our counter message that employers should be mildly constrained so that work does not become a war zone for anyone.

We appreciate that some legal writers have considered passage “inevitable.” The momentum of the workplace bullying movement that we originated here in the U.S. is building as the term “workplace bullying” enjoys more mainstream acceptance and usage every year. Much work remains to be done and it will not stop when the first state makes HWB law. That will simply launch a new phase in the struggle.

A short final word about why we are pursuing state laws and not a national one. Each state has different workers compensation laws to which the HWB must conform. It would be nearly impossible to craft a national law that could accomplish that task. With a national law, there are also interstate commerce clauses that must be dealt with, further complicating the task. And finally, have you looked at Congress lately, both the paralyzed Senate and the wacky House? We have lobbied a bit in Washington, DC but with a different purpose than to propose a national law to complement federal civil rights statutes.

For those who think we should expand existing civil rights laws, think again. Those statutes are considered sacred by constituencies that benefit most from those laws. There is a dormant opposition to tinkering with those hard-won laws that could be awakened if we sought to supplement current protections in the civil rights codes. Modifying them in the reactionary political climate that has prevailed for the last 31 years in the U.S. seems to be a fool’s errand. We shall stick with our state-by-state campaign unless there is a major upheaval in national politics and a new progressive era is ushered in.

The Confluence of Movements

The Healthy Workplace Campaign certainly benefits from the Occupy movement that addresses income inequality. The protesters have made clear the unnatural and undemocratic disparity that is reflected where we go to work (if we have a job at all). That owners control the entire work environment and can callously discharge workers with no consequences when no union is present. The intra-organizational political disparities reflect the broader economic ones in society. Workplaces are microcosms of society.

In America’s private sector, 93% of workers have no union. The doctrine of “employment at will” prevails. It is that same negation of workers’ rights relative to those of the owners that fosters workplace cultures where bullying thrives. Employers continue to fire anyone daring to organize a unionization drive. Employer campaigns to discredit unions at meetings where they can mandate all-hands attendance seem to work. Many workers, despite unemployment at Great Depression levels, prefer to side with employers rather than with their colleagues to demand fairer treatment.

To improve workers’ lives, there must be attempts to chip away at employers’ unilateral control over workers. They won’t voluntarily yield or share power without pressure from employees working collaboratively and collectively.

In the absence of unions, and to enhance the safety of unionized workers, please help us pass the Healthy Workplace Bill. Do it to restore some fairness to the American workplace.

Gary Namie
National Director, Healthy Workplace Campaign
Nov. 22, 2011

###

An interview with Adam Cohen, Yale Law Professor, on CNN that provides a great tutorial on the HWB.

Child abuse deserves attention, but society has to acknowledge that adults also can be abused through no fault of their own in situations of powerlessness. Is equivalence possible?

Download Podcast 22 (in .mp3 format)

To Dad, on what would have been his 92nd birthday.

Order between Nov. 21 and 30, receive a $5 discount ($34.95). See the product description at this site.

Response options and their corresponding percentages were:


Yes I support and I agree with the tactics .50

Yes I support but I don’t agree with the tactics .173

Yes and I have participated in the protest .082

Yes: = .757

No, disagree with message and tactics used .213

No – don’t support message – but no problem with the tactics .030

No: .243

1. Sexual harassment violates state and federal laws. Harassers pose a legal liability to employers. Therefore, employers will pay cash settlements to avoid court battles and to silence complainants. If you are bullied but there is an underlying gender or race or age difference, do not ignore it. Forget bullying and use the law that exists to compel the employer to pay attention.

1a. Bullying at work is status-blind harassment. It does not require that the recipient be a member of a group protected by anti-discrimination laws. It is more prevalent and often is experienced in addition to illegal harassment, but it is not yet illegal in any state in the U.S. Therefore, contrary to point #1, employers do not face the same risks of defeat in court, so rarely is a bullied target ever paid.

2. Harassment complainants are paid settlements and typically fired for having dared to complain. Before the separation, though, they almost always suffer retaliation for having the courage to complain.

2a. Bullied targets are fired, constructively discharged (made more miserable than a reasonable person should be expected to tolerate), and thrown out the door without getting a penny. Their post-complaint retaliation led to nothing positive for them.

3. Harassers typically keep their jobs or are promoted. They are allowed to deny their actions because settlement agreements always begin with a clause stating that there is no admission of guilt.

3a. Bullies, in all but 4% of cases, keep their jobs or are promoted. Like harassers, they abuse with impunity.

4. Sexually harassed workers who agree to take cash not only lose their jobs, but they are “gagged” by the terms of the agreement to never speak about their experiences again. This allows harassers to become serial harassers. With the benefit of silence, other unsuspecting employees have to endure the degradation because the employer has not made the harasser quit. The complaint to settlement cycle is repeated, costing the employer more money just to retain the a-hole harasser.

4a. In the rare event that a bullied person wins a severance agreement, she or he is typically gagged. However, by keeping your head during the emotional turmoil that swirls around the complaint-retaliation-settlement sequence of events, you can tweak the agreement terms. Agree to never divulge “the terms of the agreement.” But limit the gag clause to not saying that you received a paltry $35K or $45K as did the Cain complainants. Otherwise, you are free to tell the world how that employer back your bully-harasser and made your life hell.

5. Harassers lie to victims, to their bosses, to legal counsel, to counselors, to investigators, to arbitrators, when being deposed, when testifying in court, to judges, and to juries.

5a. Bullies do the same.

6. Harassment victims are not believed, even when they were paid settlements because the employer feared the legitimacy of their claim. Employers will always say that legal counsel made them pay simply because it is cheaper to settle than to take the battle to court. The truth is, employers can wear down any plaintiff who challenges them. They only pay settlements when they think they will lose.

6a. Bullied targets are viewed by the employer and alarmingly by the public as the “troublemakers.” Why? All they did was insist on dignified treatment at work. Not special treatment. To not be treated abusively.

“Ill treatment” included: unreasonable treatment (reported by 47%), denigration and disrespect (40%), 33% experienced both unreasonable treatment and denigration and disrespect, and 6% experienced violence.

The news headline was that “one million UK workers have experienced violence at work.” Using the prevalence estimates from this new study and Office of National Statistics’ number of private and public sectors workers (29.1 million in July), we arrive at the numbers of people experiencing:

- Unreasonable treatment: 13.6 million
- Denigration and disrespect: 11.6 million
- Violence: 1.7 million
- Both unreasonable and denigrating and disrespectful treatment: 9.6 million
- All three categories: 1.4 million
- Denigration & disrespect and violence: 291,000

The questions which appear below included a modified list of items from the Negative Acts Questionnaire which is a checklist of behaviors that academics use to operationally define bullying. In other words, rather than ask people if they think they were bullied (which actually leads to an underreporting because research shows that people do not want to admit it happens to them), the surveyers relied on the behaviors checked to determine if the respondents were bullied.

With respect to individual survey items, 29% of the sample were given unmanageable workloads or impossible deadlines and 27% had their opinions and views ignored. Employers, managers or supervisors were responsible in over two-thirds of incidents. Coworkers were the primary culprits when withholding information which affected performance.

The two most frequent denigration and disrespect experiences were to be shouted at or having someone lose their temper (24%) and being treated in a disrespectful or rude way (23%). More than 20% of people experienced three or more types of misconduct in this category. Regarding sources, managers were responsible in 40% of cases, in 27% of cases clients, customers or the public were perpetrators, while coworkers were 22% of the sample.

In this British study, men in the middle of their careers were the most likely targets. Disrespect rose as the size of organizations rose.

Targets of disrespect were likely to have psychological disabilities. Of course, the researchers made clear in the report that whether the psychological problems were the cause of the disrespect or the result of it could not be determined. Disrespect for this group of targets came from the public in half of the cases and from coworkers in the other half.

Gay, lesbian and bisexual employees were as likely to be disrespected at the same rate as for people with disabilities. In addition, LGBT workers were the workers subjected to the most violence.

The combination of unreasonableness and disrespect (reported by 33% of the sample) is the closest approximation to workplace bullying. The antisocial behaviors depicted by items in those two categories, derived from the NAQ, exclude physical violence. Bullying necessarily stops short of battery — physical violence. The UK prevalence is nearly identical to the US prevalence (35% in the 2010 WBI US Survey and 37% in the 2007 WBI Survey). Both studies were scientific national samples from their respective nations.

Four case studies of organizations are included in the Report. One: a large financial services company; Two: a large National Health Service public agency; Three: a logistics and communication company; and Four: a global engineering company. Each of these anonymous employers offer examples of how and why having policies to address bullying is inadequate.

The final section of the Report focuses on prevention and intervention strategies. In this regard, the authors show remarkable insight that is all too rare among academic researchers. First, they rightly conclude that the notion that employers can find an easy “one size fits all” methodology is wrong. An over-emphasis on policies and enforcement, the HR-led solution, overlooks informal solution opportunities. We heartily concur. Policies, the “lines in the sand,” are necessary, but insufficient if not supplemented by true organizational commitment.

The second major conclusion is that ill treatment thrives when managers in the trenches fail to intervene or to manage properly. Managers can and must stop it. When management abdicates responsibility, ill treatment flourishes. This is the same conclusion we draw in our book, The Bully-Free Workplace (Wiley, 2011).

We are proud to count Prof. Duncan Lewis, co-author of the study, from the Business School at the University of Plymouth, as a WBI colleague.

Download the Report.

Below is a result table showing the results for each of the 21 questions in the British Workplace Behaviour Survey.

29% chose the option: “Bullying becomes illegal (a law is passed)”

28% chose the option: “The bully is punished or terminated”

13% chose the option: “The bully quits”

13% chose the option: “I’m out of the situation permanently under any circumstance”

11% chose the option: “I get separated from the stressful situation/location”

7% chose the option: “I get a severance/separation agreement to leave”

Note: the percentages do not total 100% because respondents could choose more than one option.

Interpretation

The two options tied as the most frequent were the delight from seeing the bully punished/terminated and finally having a law against workplace bullying passed. Both are possible, but difficult to accomplish. First, in only 3% of bullying cases are bullies terminated or even punished, according to a 2009 WBI online study. They bully with impunity, no personal accountability.

Second, we know that according to the 2010 WBI national survey, 64% of the public supports the passage of anti-bullying laws for the workplace. At the time of this Instant Poll, 11 states did have current bills. (Visit the Healthy Workplace Bill website to track progress and to see which state may become the first in the U.S. to pass the legislation.) It is heartening to see the level of support for a law from those with experience being bullied. They know more than others how much having a law might have helped them.

Targets, known to be 98% of the people who complete surveys on the WBI website, may be holding out for rare events before they allow themselves to say “I won.”

It is not surprising that targets, hungry for justice, define negative consequences for the bully as the standard for success in 41% of cases. Either the bully quits or is punished or terminated. Again, in the real workplace, these outcomes are rare.

About one-third (31%) considered getting away from the toxic, health-injuring situation a victory. Separation is the most likely ending of the bullying (66% of the time for women, 49% for men, according to the 2010 WBI national data) — whether voluntary or as the result of target termination or constructive discharge (being driven out against their will).

From our experience at WBI meeting and coaching thousands of bullied targets, we know that in order for people to move on to their personal post-bullying lives, they must give highest priority to their health. Employers do not want to provide the safety required to work in abuse-free environments. So, it is important for individuals to reclaim control over their safety. If that means getting out, it can be perceived as having “won.”

The most beneficial separation is one in which the employer sends you off with a severance agreement. Only 7% think this connotes “victory.” In our experience, this is often the best outcome ever possible. Perhaps targets are not even thinking they can ask for severance. But you always should. In fact, demand severance for your years of loyal, excellent service. You are not choosing to leave. Your productivity has been prevented by the bully. For this, the employer should pay.

Severances are larger when there is a component of illegal discrimination among the tactics. Even without a basis to threaten a lawsuit, you can still demand severance. Don’t leave without trying.

Conclusion

Bullied targets, the majority of whom lose their jobs, are waiting for rare adverse consequences for their bully before they feel that they can claim “victory.” A less attractive set of options, though much more likely to happen, involving separation ranked second. Targets chose separation with severance as the least likely way to define “victory,” despite the positive benefits it carries for targets. The survey findings suggest that targets are unnecessarily hard on themselves waiting on unlikely outcomes before they believe they have “won.”

Note: This survey was an online, non-scientific poll. Characteristics of respondents necessarily restrict extrapolation of results to only bullied targets and not to the general population.

Our Reluctance to Help the Less Fortunate Than Ourselves

Two authors of an academic paper wrote an article for non-scientists in Scientific American called the Last Place Aversion Paradox: The surprising psychology of the Occupy Wall Street protests. The authors note that since the recession began in 2008, public support for economic redistribution (raising the minimum wage) has fallen.

I describe the paradox in this Podcast.

Download Podcast 21 (in .mp3 format)

Simply put, people near the bottom of a distribution are the LEAST likely to agree to help those at the bottom. Seems being next-to-last triggers fears that if those below receive a helping hand, they themselves will be passed up and become the new bottom. It’s an aversion to being last. That fear makes the next-to-last group the most selfish, the least generous.

You can read the research article: “Last-place aversion”: Evidence and Redistributive Implications by I. Kuziemko, R.W. Buell, T. Reich & M.I. Norton in draft manuscript form.

Equally sad is other 2011 research that found that group members choose to banish altruists from their groups even though altruists contribute more and take less than others. They do this because altruists, the givers, raise the ethical standard to a higher level than the group can tolerate. By comparison, regular group members look more selfish, so they kick out their more valuable members who pose an imagined threat.

And so it is with the principle of fairness. Fairness, or equity, is part of the fabric of the American ethos. But is it imagined or actually operating in the U.S.? In a bullied person’s world, there is no fairness. They are targeted for no reason they caused. They suffer from tactics unilaterally determined by the dominating tyrant. They live with an unpredictable schedule of torture and relief completely out of their control. They seek relief and are not believed or considered deserving of help. They lose the job they once loved, asking only that they be left alone to do their work. A majority lose that job and face sickness without health insurance, risk losing their homes, and find it incredibly difficult to reconstruct a new life with a shattered identity.

On Oct. 25, 2011 the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a report on income inequality that was requested by two Senators in 2006. The results are in and confirm that the news that the split between the haves and the have-nots in the U.S. is unprecedented. Between 1979 and 2007, the rise in income for the top 1% of the population was 275 percent. For the bottom 20%, the rise was a meager 18%. This report was conducted by the non-partisan group tasked with conducting research to inform members of Congress. Read the full report for yourself.

Need more proof of American economic unfairness? More facts about income.
- The minimum income of top 1% was $516,633. The average income in 2011 was $1,530,773.
- The maximum income of lowest 20% was $16,961. The average income was $9,187.

But cash income is only part of the story when considering the disparity in wealth. Wealth includes home equity, stocks and investments.
- The average wealth of top 1% was $14 million in 2009 (reflecting a post-recession drop from 19.2 in 2007, you see they suffered a bit, too, at least that is what they will tell you)
- The lowest 20% actually had a negative average wealth of $-27,200 in 2009. That reflects the bursting of the housing bubble and loss of property value, actually putting those families in the red.

The wealthiest 1% had an average of 225 times the wealth of the average median household in 2009. In 1962, the ratio was 125. The median is the value at the exact middle of the distribution of all incomes. In 2011, the median income was $65,357.

The richest 20 Americans had wealth ranging from $12.4 to $54 billion in 2010. See who they are.

According to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S. is ranked 39th in the world with respect to equity of the distribution of family income.

So, it’s clear with respect to income and wealth, the top 1% are deriving all the benefits. It’s an unfair world rigged by tax policies (see the CBO report) to grow wealth for the people who do not work an 8 hr. day that is in any way comparable to what a bullied target works.

Even if bullied targets were once in the top 1%, as only bankers and C-suite dwellers are, after the bullying, they join the ranks of the other 99%. Bullied targets are 99%-ers and have much in common with others who are fed up with economic injustice. It’s just that the target’s sense of injustice cuts even deeper.

For HR or anyone conducting post-complaint investigations to accurately get to the bottom of bullying incidents, that person must look beyond the target for work environment factors, including the bully’s ability to unilaterally conduct a campaign of interpersonal destruction without interference from bosses. Unfortunately, flawed and deceitful investigations do not make the effort to get beyond the obvious. And the most obvious and observable factor is the target, the individual. That’s why they are typically blamed and the bully held blameless.

In attribution jargon, intangible work environment factors are less salient when compared to looking at a real person, the target, in this case. The bias is called actor-observer. Actors, the people to whom things are being done see the environment (external to them) as causal. Observers, commit the fundamental attribution error and see the person as causing (and thus deserving) the misfortune.

Another attributional bias is gender bias. Decades ago, a key study demonstrated that both men and women were more likely to explain success attributable to internal (personal, dispositional) factors when the actor was male and attributable to external (circumstances made success easy) factors when the actor was female. In other words, men got personal credit for brilliance, while women were either lucky or had an easier time of it.

I was disappointed to read in a Psychology Today blog by Azadeh Aalai about a 2011 study that found

Men in typically female roles such as nurse benefit from the glass escalator effect: They’re rated as more competent, more likable, less hostile, and more deserving of promotion than men in ‘male’ positions. Women who jettison tradition for jobs like VP of finance, however, are ranked negatively across all measures—and perceived as less deserving of promotion.

Women are known to experience the limiting glass ceiling effect. Aalai writes that women constitute 66% of the workforce but hold only 15% of senior positions. Women still make only 75.5 cents for every dollar that men earn (a stagnancy since the 1990′s).

I’m saddened that no matter how competent a woman is, she is held to a different, and perhaps unattainable, standard than for a man. Worse is that men actually get a boost from breaking the gender stereotype role.

This is worse than economic stagnancy. It’s a cultural unwillingness to learn from generations of bright women who succeed. Much of the political dialogue is regressive, suggesting that a return to the “good old days” is desirable. Well, I don’t think for many people, the “old days” ever passed. They are still here. Women are kept in check while men are given free reign to break boundaries.

Harry Chapin, the late folkie, in his song Why Do the Little Girls about disparate socialization of boys and girls, wrote “the girls were told to reach the shelves while the boys were reaching stars.”

Girls

The cited research finding came from the article Hirsch, M.L. (2011 October). Gender Contender: The ups and downs of flouting gender norms at work. Psychology Today, 50-51.

I found “a zany brainy look” at the serious subject of gender bias from the Center for WorkLife Law, University of California Hastings College of the Law. It’s called Gender Bias Bingo! Download it. GBB’s glossary of terms is below.

by Erika C. Collins, New York Law Journal, Oct. 24, 2011

The United States has had status-based harassment and discrimination laws in place for decades, well in advance of most other countries. Though the United States has taken several measures to protect those who are harassed in the workplace based on “protected categories,”(1) it has not introduced legislation to assist those who are “bullied” in the workplace, but do not have such a protected status on which to base a claim. Recent surveys indicate that a significant portion of U.S. workers may fall into this category; 35 percent of U.S. workers reported experiencing workplace bullying, the majority of which was same-gender harassment.(2)

Currently, there is no state or federal law to fill this gap in coverage. The first anti-bullying piece of legislation, the “Healthy Workplace Bill” (HWB), was introduced in California in 2003. Since then, 21 other states, including New York, have proposed bills based on the HWB, though none have yet been enacted. The New York State Legislature, however, is considering such a bill. A bill establishing “a civil cause of action for employees who are subjected to an abusive work environment” provides a remedy for victims of harassment that is not based on a protected category and holds employers civilly liable for maintaining abusive work environments.(3) If the bill is passed into law, New York will become the first state in the country to recognize a cause of action for workplace bullying, though several states have considered such legislation in the past.

Other countries have been more proactive in combating workplace bullying. In particular, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France and Japan have introduced new legislation or have interpreted existing legislation to address bullying in the workplace.(4) This article summarizes New York’s proposed bill. It also analyzes workplace bullying laws in place in Sweden, the UK and France as examples of treatment of workplace bullying outside the United States. Finally, this article provides recommendations to multinational employers that are faced with complying with developing bullying laws.

Healthy Workplace Bill

The New York State Legislature introduced an anti-bullying bill in 2010, which passed in the Senate,(5) but was put on hold in the Assembly. In early 2011, an identical bill was introduced in the New York State Assembly and Senate,(6) and is currently under consideration. Supporters of the proposed legislation are hopeful that New York will be the first state to pass it, prodding other states to follow its lead.(7)

The bill would amend the New York Labor Law by providing legal redress for employees who are subjected to an “abusive work environment,” which exists when an employee is “subjected to abusive conduct that is so severe that it causes physical or psychological harm.”(8) The bill defines “abusive conduct,” as “conduct, with malice, taken against an employee by an employer or another employee in the workplace, that a reasonable person would find to be hostile, offensive and unrelated to the employer’s legitimate business interests.”(9)

A single act will not constitute abusive conduct unless it is “especially severe or egregious,”(10) similar to the standard for hostile work environment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.(11) Furthermore, the bill requires employees to notify their employers of the abusive conduct.(12) After receiving such notice, employers must eliminate the abusive conduct, and may not retaliate against individuals who participated in the complaint process.(13)

The bill does provide employers with two alternative affirmative defenses. First, an employer may have an affirmative defense against a claim if it can demonstrate that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the abusive conduct and the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of the appropriate preventative or corrective opportunities that it provided.(14) This defense is not available if the abusive conduct culminated in an adverse employment decision with respect to the complaining employee (e.g., termination or demotion); however, the employer can assert an alternative defense that any such decision was consistent with the employer’s legitimate business interests.(15)

The remedies available under the bill include reinstatement, removal of the offending party from the complainant’s work environment, reimbursement for lost wages and medical expenses, compensation for emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.(16) However, in cases where there was no adverse employment decision, emotional distress damages are capped at $25,000 and punitive damages are not available.(17) As an additional safeguard against unjust enrichment, the bill precludes employees who have collected Workers’ Compensation benefits for conditions arising out of an abusive work environment from bringing a claim pursuant to the law for the same such conditions.(18)

Sweden’s Ordinance

In 1993, Sweden became the first country in the world to enact specific anti-bullying legislation. The Ordinance on Victimization at Work,(19) enacted as part of Sweden’s occupational safety and health laws, offers protection against “victimization,” which it defines as “recurrent reprehensible or distinctly negative actions which are directed against individual employees in an offensive manner and can result in those employees being placed outside the workplace community.”(20)

Unlike New York’s proposed law, the ordinance does not provide a private cause of action for aggrieved employees; instead, it imposes administrative obligations upon employers to prevent victimization, immediately intervene when such misconduct becomes apparent, and attempt to engage in a collaborative process to resolve conflicts.(21) Employers who fail to comply with these obligations may be fined and/or imprisoned for up to one year.(22)

United Kingdom Act

Like the United States, the United Kingdom has not enacted legislation specifically to combat workplace bullying. However, British courts have interpreted an existing anti-stalking law, the Protection from Harassment Act (23) (PHA), as providing redress for victims of workplace bullying.(24) The PHA prohibits individuals from pursuing a course of conduct that either amounts to harassment, or that they should know amounts to harassment.(25)

Courts have interpreted the statute’s vague definition of “harassment” as conduct: (i) occurring on at least two occasions, (ii) targeted at the claimant, (iii) calculated in an objective sense to cause distress, and (iv) that is objectively judged to be oppressive and unreasonable.(26) However, even if the complained of conduct constitutes harassment under this objective test, vicarious liability for the conduct is not automatic; employer liability must be “just and reasonable in the circumstances.”(27) Whether or not an employer has implemented a harassment policy and procedures is one factor courts may consider in determining whether the imposition of vicarious liability is reasonable.(28) This judicial consideration is similar to the first affirmative defense under New York’s proposed law, which is available to employers that take measures to prevent and promptly correct abusive conduct.

There also is a statutory affirmative defense similar to the “legitimate business interests” defense provided in the New York bill, which is available to defendants who can show that the complained of conduct was: (i) pursued to prevent or detect a crime; (ii) legally required; or (iii) reasonable under the circumstances.(29) The PHA provides for remedies similar to those available under the New York bill, including injunctive relief and compensatory and emotional distress damages.(30) Unlike the New York bill, however, there is no cap on the damages that courts may award aggrieved employees. Significantly, a court recently awarded a victim of workplace bullying a record-setting $1.6 million in damages under the PHA.(31)

France’s Law

In 2002, France enacted the Social Modernization Law, which introduced provisions to the French Labor Code that provide civil and criminal penalties for “moral” harassment.(32) The law sets a higher standard for actionable conduct than New York’s proposed legislation does by expressly providing that a single act, regardless of its severity, is not enough to constitute moral harassment.(33) Furthermore, the conduct must have the purpose or effect of degrading the employee’s right to dignity, affecting the employee’s mental or physical health, or compromising the employee’s career.(34) The law places an affirmative obligation on employers to take all necessary actions to prevent moral harassment,(35) and prohibits them from retaliating against employees who report moral harassment or who refuse to be victims of moral harassment.(36)

Labor tribunals have construed the Social Modernization Law as holding employers strictly liable for actionable conduct, even if they implemented measures to prevent moral harassment.(37) Thus, unlike New York’s proposed legislation, there are no affirmative defenses available to employers. The law also provides for the automatic nullification of any employment contract termination resulting from moral harassment.(38) Additionally, labor tribunals have ordered employers to pay damages for breach or “disloyal non-performance” of an employment contract based upon a failure to prevent moral harassment.(39)

Steps Employers Should Take

The practical implications of the global trend aimed at combating workplace bullying are very concerning for both U.S. and multinational employers. To safeguard against litigation and liability for potentially large damage awards, employers should consider taking the following steps:

• Broaden workplace policies to prohibit abusive conduct and retaliation against any employee raising a complaint.

• Include a requirement that employees report abusive conduct, and provide a specific and clear procedure that offers employees multiple avenues to complain about abuse.

• Train all managers on how to handle reports of abusive conduct, and the consequences of retaliation.

• Take immediate and effective action to rectify all retaliation complaints.

• Continually review and, if necessary, revise employment policies to ensure compliance with applicable workplace bullying laws and regulations.

###

Erika C. Collins is a partner at Paul Hastings in New York where she chairs the international employment law practice group. Mina Maisami, an associate with the firm, and Shaira Nanwani, a summer associate with the firm, assisted in writing and editing this article.

Endnotes:

1. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, race, color, religion, sex, and national origin are protected categories. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects workers who are 40 and older from discrimination, and the American with Disabilities Act protects disabled workers. Under the Genetic Information Predisposition Act of 2008, employers are prohibited from using information regarding someone’s genetic predisposition to disease in making employment decisions. Veteran status is also a protected category under the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act. Finally, many states also include sexual orientation as a protected category.

2. Results of the 2010 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey, WORKPLACE BULLYING INSTITUTE, http://www.workplacebullying.org/wbiresearch/2010-wbi-national-survey/ (last visited July 25, 2011).

3. S. 4258, 2011-2012 Reg. Sess. (NY); A. 4258. 2011-2012 Reg. Sess. (NY) See “History of the Healthy Workplace Campaign, HEALTHY WORKPLACE BILL, http://www.healthyworkplacebill.org/states.php (Oct. 4, 2011).

4. See Katherine Lippel, “The Law of Workplace Bullying: An International Overview,” 32 COMP. LAB. L. & POL’Y J. 1, 1 (2010); Jessica A. Clarke, “Beyond Equality? Against the Universal Turn in Workplace Protections,” 89 IND. L.J. 1219, 1259 (2011).

5. Sen. 1823 B, 2010 Sess. (N.Y. 2010).

6. Assemb. 4258, 2011 Sess. (N.Y. 2011); Sen. 4289, 2011 Sess. (N.Y. 2011).

7. See Tina Susman, “State Bills Against Workplace Bullying Gain Traction,” L.A. Times, March 18, 2011.

8. Sen. 4289 §761, 2011 Sess. (N.Y. 2011).

9. Id. (providing the following examples of abusive conduct: “repeated infliction of verbal abuse, such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults and epithets; verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating or humiliating; or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of an employee’s work performance”).

10. Id.

11. See David C. Yamada, “Workplace Bullying and American Employment Law: A Ten-Year Progress Report and Assessment,” 32 COMP. LAB. L. & POL’Y J. 251, 262 (2010) (describing the domestic interdisciplinary coverage of and responses to workplace bullying and discussing decision of the HWB author to base the standard on that of hostile work environment claims).

12. Sen. 4289 §761, 2011 Sess. (N.Y. 2011).

13. Id.

14. Id. §764. This affirmative defense is similar to the Title VII affirmative defense created by the Supreme Court in Burlington Indus. Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (2008) and Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).

15. Id. (providing the following examples of legitimate business interests: “termination or demotion based on the plaintiff’s poor performance,” or a “reasonable investigation of potentially dangerous, illegal or unethical activity”).

16. Id. §766.

17. Id. See also Yamada, supra note 2, at 265 (stating that this safeguard “has the effect of discouraging extensive litigation and promoting quick resolution”).

18. Sen. 4289 §769, 2011 Sess. (N.Y. 2011).

19. SWEDISH NATIONAL BOARD OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, VICTIMIZATION AT WORK, ORDINANCE (Arbetsmiljoverket [AFS] 1993-17) (Swed.).

20. Id. §1.

21. Id. §§4-6. The accompanying guidelines suggest that management set standards for good behavior by example and clearly communicate to employees that victimization in the workplace is unacceptable.

22. See Frank Lorho & Ulrich Hilp, Bullying at Work 15-23 (European Parliament Directorate-Gen. for Research, Working Paper SOCI 108 EN, 2001), available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/soci/pdf/108 en.pdf; Helge Hoel & Stale Einarsen, “The Swedish Ordinance Against Victimization at Work: A Critical Assessment,” 32 COMP. LAB. L. & POL’Y J. 225, 240 (2011).

23. Protection from Harassment Act, 1997, c. 40, §1 (Eng.).

24. See Majrowski v. Guy’s & St. Thomas’s NHS Trust, [2005] EWCA (Civ) 251, ¶56 (Court of Appeal); Green v. DB Group Servs. (U.K.) Ltd., [2006] EWHC 1898 (Q.B.).

25. Protection from Harassment Act, 1997, c. 40, §1 (Eng.).

26. See Susan Harthill, “Bullying in the Workplace: Lessons From the United Kingdom,” 17 MINN. J. INTL L. 247, 285 (2008) (citing Green, [2006] EWHC 1898, ¶ 152).

27. Majrowski, [2005] EWCA (Civ) 251, ¶57.

28. Id. ¶59.

29. PHA §1(3).

30. Id. §3(2).

31. Green, [2006] EWHC 1898 (Q.B.).

32. C. TRAV. art. L. 122-49.

33. Id.

34. Id.

35. Id. art. L. 122-51. One measure that employers must take is preparing a written document displaying workplace rules, which includes a provision prohibiting moral harassment. Id. art. L. 122-34.

36. Id. art. L. 122-49.

37. See Loic Lerouge, “Moral Harassment in the Workplace: French Law and the European Perspectives,” 32 COMP. LAB. L. & POL’Y J. 109, 122-27 (2010) (analyzing moral harassment cases before French Labor Tribunals).

38. C. TRAV. art. L. 122-49.

39. Lerouge, supra note 31, at 123.

Bob is the proverbial bully (Bobette when a woman). He operates freely without risk of being punished or terminated. So, every week is Freedom Week for bullies. Since Bob is free 52 weeks a year, dear executive, please use this one week, Freedom from Workplace Bullies Week, to end your relationship with Bob that makes life miserable for everyone else except you and Bob. It will take courage, of course. Here’s why and how to do it.

Bullies torment and abuse others with impunity. They do so because they have spent months, even years, groveling at the feet of a higher-ranking sponsor. That is, they torment down the org chart, but ingratiate (brown nose, ass kiss) up the ladder. All of their time is spent managing their sponsor’s impression of them. While targets keep their noses to the grindstone doing the work they love, the nose of bullies hover near the rear ends of their chosen sponsors. That’s how Bob makes himself indispensable.

On balance, several people have tried to tell you about Bob before. You didn’t believe them. They brought you news about Bob you couldn’t stand to hear. It hurt you to hear, but they were reporting the emotional abuse Bob foisted on them. You had several fired for daring bring this information to you. Others quit out of desperation. Bob convinced you that they all were faulty and he alone is competent.

If you ask anyone other than Bob about the talent lost to your organization, you will find that Bob has been lying to you. Good people were driven out or were demoralized and dehumanized, then left. All of this was kept from you by Bob. In his narcissistic world, only he mattered.

Truth is, Bob has been too expensive to keep. You’ve paid dearly to retain him — lawsuits settled, turnover and replacement of key players, and lots of lost productivity. Just ask your Risk Manager or legal counsel.

So, there is no rational reason to keep Bob any longer. You may worry about a lawsuit from him if you begin to suddenly hold him accountable. Worry less. Take advantage of the “employment at will” principle. He’s gone when you say he’s gone. Will he survive? Yes, he will land on his feet. With that instant stroke of moral courage, you will send a message to all others who work with you that you care more about them than you care about the single person whose lips have been firmly planted on your behind.

And while you are motivated to change the work climate for the better, besides removing Bob, consider drawing a line in the sand, defining the boundaries of unacceptable conduct. With that commitment, you will have a behavioral standard to which all the future Bobs (and there will be many emerging in the future — think whack-a-mole) can be compared. When they fail to act in an acceptable manner, cut them before the losses mount.

Finally, in the future, long after Freedom Week ends, believe the employees who report to you that they have been subjected to abusive conduct. They are not the likely liars. Bullies are the liars. Grow a thicker skin and stop showing your neediness to the cruel people willing to exploit you as they subordinate others.

Good employers purge bullies; bad ones promote ‘em.

Mediation, when agreed to by both parties, is a prefunctory second step in the EEOC case filing process. Both the target and employer agreed. I accompanied the target as her advocate. The day prior, we reviewed all details of her bullying ordeal and the impact on her life. Most important was her decision about her demands. She created combinations of cash settlement amounts, number of months of health insurance continuance, and pension-related contributions. She had high, medium and low payout combinations. We thought she was prepared for anything and was willing to negotiate.

Mediation was a day-long process. The mediator was a kind woman. Her background as a social worker offset, for us, her term as a judge. Her experience in mediation was extensive. She met with the target first to learn about the case because the EEOC form required only limited information. She put us at ease by offering the choice of face-to-face or shuttle mediation. The target wanted the mediator to go back and forth between us and the employer and their attorney in separate room. We never did see the other side that day.

After discovering the basic facts of the case, told partly by me to eliminate much of the emotion, relying on the target for correction of details, the mediator asked what the target wanted to reach a settlement. The mediator stated that we could be open with her since all communication in our room was confidential. She pledged to not tell the other side what she knew and to carry only the messages forward the target approved. We shared the high and medium settlement figures, implying that our opening gambit would be to ask for the highest amount to be made whole.

Thus began the expectation lowering process. Despite her stated sympathy for the target’s plight, the mediator clearly stated that complainants, in all the hundreds of cases involving her, NEVER collected such a huge amount. I think the target asked for 3 years salary and health benefits. The mediator left us to ponder what she said was an “unreasonable” demand. It was not yet time to negotiate settlement amounts.

The mediator left for her initial session with the employer. She returned with news that they did indeed attend willing to settle. She then directly addressed the target with news that the opening bid from not only this employer, but ALL employers, will be $0 (zero). We asked if that was fair. She said that was simply how the mediation-with-employers game is played.

We were so wrapped in the details the rest of the day that involved 22 mediator shuttle trips between the sides, we missed the big picture, the injustice. Mediators uncritically accept and perpetuate the dominance of employers in mediations by allowing the opening bid of $0.

The rest of the day was spent by the mediator racheting down the target’s demands. Evidence was suddenly questioned and discounted by the employer. Because the mediator personally felt attached to one aspect of the demand, she clung tenaciously to that piece to the end. However, when the target asked her to be as strong regarding more months of salary, she chose to not fight for it. Everything that was within the mediator’s personal boundaries set by experience, tempered by resistant, defiant employers, was achieved by the mediator. But she could not and did not advocate for the target when the demand conflicted with what she, the mediator, considered “reasonable.”

And that’s how it happened. The target was lucky to have a mediator who agreed to put the employer reps in a separate room. She was lucky that the mediator did not discount her story at the start (though she did accept the employer’s denial of mistreatment). However, the veteran mediator achieved a settlement much closer to $0 than the lowest settlement amount the target had prepared herself to accept.

The mediator was a good person, but one does not go to the EEOC to find a friend. The case ended for the target feeling jilted. It is true that she got more than zero, but the employer must have left feeling that it was a good day.

By Anne Fisher, contributor, July 8, 2011: 10:30 AM ET

FORTUNE — Dear Annie: A friend of mine sent me your column about five ways to cope with an autocratic boss, but I’m facing a problem with my immediate supervisor that is actually quite a bit worse. Since I started this job about two months ago (it’s my first “real” job out of college), my boss has become a nightmare. He constantly snipes at everything I do, makes sarcastic remarks, and about once a week has a totally out-of-control screaming fit where he calls me, and a couple of my coworkers, names I don’t even want to repeat.

Another thing I’ve discovered: After cutting our time short to complete assignments, which he always does at the last minute so there’s no way to make up the lost time, he complains to higher-ups — who all seem to think he walks on water — about how “lazy” we are. I really want to succeed at this company, but I’m not sure how long I can stand it. Should I talk to the person above him, who seems like a reasonable human being? If not, what can I do? — Ulcer in the Making

Dear U.M.: Your boss sounds like a classic workplace bully, defined as someone who repeatedly inflicts on others “verbal abuse, threatening conduct, intimidation or humiliation” as well as “sabotage that prevents work from getting done” (those suddenly altered deadlines).

That definition comes from the Workplace Bullying Institute, a nonprofit research and training organization. Alas, it’s not an unusual problem: About 50% of the U.S. workforce reports either having been bullied by someone at work or having witnessed someone else being mistreated, according to a survey of 4,210 American adults that WBI conducted last year.

Another poll last month, by job site CareerBuilders, found that 27% of U.S. employees have experienced some form of bullying at work. Most “never confronted or reported” the bully, the study says.

The WBI research shows that about three-quarters (72%) of bullies are bosses, and one reason they get away with it is that, in most states, abusing employees is not illegal unless the mistreatment is demonstrably based on age, sex, race, or religion, so it flies under the radar of corporate human resources and legal departments. That is slowly changing. So far, 21 states have passed anti-workplace-bullying laws, and 11 more are considering following suit.

Even if you live in a state where bullying is illegal now, suing your employer is probably not your best move. Neither is complaining about your boss to the person above him. For one thing, your boss fits a profile that WBI chief Gary Namie recognizes all too well: The supervisor who is adept at kissing up and kicking down, as the saying goes, and is careful to make a great impression on higher-ups.

“Bullies sneak into companies disguised as high performers and desirably ambitious go-getters,” Namie says. In other words, you’re likely to be perceived as far more dispensable than they are. That’s probably why, a 2007 WBI survey shows, 53% of employers did nothing when employees reported a bullying boss. In 24% of cases, it was even worse: The person who complained got fired.

So what can you do? First, since you want to succeed at this company, start looking around to see if opportunities exist, or may soon exist, that would put you out of this person’s reach. Get to know as many people as you can in other areas of the company where you might want to work, and keep an eye out for job openings. Just knowing that you won’t be working for this boss forever can make it a little easier to put up with him.

Namie, who is co-author of useful book called The Bully at Work: What You Can Do to Stop the Hurt and Reclaim Your Dignity on the Job, offers three other suggestions for protecting your psyche — and your stomach — from your bullying boss:

1. Practice tuning out the tantrums. One way to keep your cool when your boss starts screaming is to practice repeating a mantra in your head like, “Ignore the anger. It’s not yours.” Another approach is to “simply think about the one aspect of the bully’s physical appearance you find most awkward,” Namie says. Focusing on the boss’s goofy haircut or oversized ears “can help you to stay calm” because “you’re not taking him too seriously.”

2. Get a reality check. Bullies have a knack for knowing exactly “how to make you feel incompetent or unworthy,” Namie notes. “When confronted by a constant critic who picks apart both your work and your worthiness, it’s hard not to believe he’s right.”

To counteract that, he says, you need a good friend or respected ally at work “who could help you determine whether any of the criticism is useful to your work. Which parts are valid, and which are incorrect, misinformed, malicious, or just plain whiny?”

3. Enlist supporters. Since you mention that a few of your coworkers have also been on the receiving end of your boss’s screaming fits, try sounding them out about the problem, Namie suggests. “Are they willing to brainstorm with you about possible ways to improve the situation, without anyone having to take on the boss alone?”

Even as a group of like-minded fellow sufferers, Namie warns, you probably can’t transform a bully’s behavior. After all, it’s clearly been working pretty well for him so far. But at the very least, you can provide each other with enough moral support to last until you no longer work for this bozo.

Good luck.

Link to original article

We launched The Work Doctor® radio on June 23, 2011. Gary Namie is the host.

In this debut show, Gary discusses the recent Supreme Court decision dropping the job discrimination class action lawsuit against WalMart by six women, representing 1.5 million current and former women employees of the giant retailer.

Joining Gary in conversation is guest Lewis Maltby, Director of the National Workrights Institute,

and author of Can They Do That? Retaking Our Fundamental Rights in the Workplace. Purchase the book on Amazon.com.

Lew is a U. Penn Law graduate, attorney, former HR director, and former ACLU project director. He is the definitive expert.

Mr. Maltby sounds a warning about hidden surprises in employment law that can hurt American workers. He discusses social media and how GPS-equipped, company-owned devices extend employers’ control over workers’ lives.

But it also is a day for demonstrations heralding the causes of working
people and their unions such as are being held on Sunday that were crucial
in winning important rights for working people. The first May Day
 demonstrations, in 1886,  won the  most important of the rights ever won by
working people ­ the right demanded above all others by the labor activists 
of a century ago:

“Eight hours for work, eight hours for rest, eight hours for what we will!”

Winning the eight-hour workday took years of hard struggle, beginning in the 
mid-1800s. By 1867, the federal government, six states and several cities
had passed laws limiting their employees’ hours to eight per day. The laws
 were not effectively enforced and in some cases were overturned by courts,
 but they set an important precedent that finally led to a powerful popular
movement.

The movement was launched in 1886 by the Federation of Organized Trades and
 Labor Unions, then one of the country’s major labor organizations. The 
federation called for workers to negotiate with their employers for an
 eight-hour workday and, if that failed, to strike on May 1 in support of the
 demand.

Some negotiated, some marched and otherwise demonstrated.  More than 300,000
 struck. And all won strong support, in dozens of cities ­ Chicago, New York,
 Baltimore, Boston, Milwaukee, St. Louis, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Denver, 
Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Detroit, Washington, Newark, Brooklyn, St. Paul
 and others.

More than 30,000 workers had won the eight-hour day by April. On May Day,
 another 350,000 workers walked off their jobs at nearly 12,000
 establishments, more than 185,000 of them eventually winning their demand.
 Most of the others won at least some reduction in working hours that had
 ranged up to 16 a day.

Additionally, many employers cut Saturday operations to a half-day, and the
 practice of working on Sundays, also relatively common, was all but 
abandoned by major industries.

“Hurray for Shorter Time,” declared a headline in the New York Sun over a 
story describing a torchlight procession of 25,000 workers that highlighted 
the eight-hour-day activities in New York. Never before had the city
 experienced so large a demonstration.

Not all newspapers were as supportive, however. The strikes and
 demonstrations, one paper complained, amounted to “communism, lurid and 
rampant.” The eight-hour day, another said, would encourage “loafing and
 gambling, rioting, debauchery, and drunkenness.”

The greatest opposition came in response to the demonstrations led by
 anarchist and socialist groups in Chicago, the heart of the eight-hour day 
movement. Four demonstrators were killed and more than 200 wounded by police
who waded into their ranks, but what the demonstrators’ opponents seized on
were the events two days later at a protest rally in Haymarket Square. A
 bomb was thrown into the ranks of the police who had surrounded the square,
 killing seven and wounding 59.

The bomb thrower was never discovered, but eight labor, socialist and
 anarchist leaders ­ branded as violent, dangerous radicals by press and
police alike ­ were arrested on the clearly trumped up charge that they had 
conspired to commit murder.  Four of them were hanged, one committed suicide
 while in jail, and three were pardoned six years later by Illinois Gov. John
 Peter Altgeld.

Employers responded to the so-called Haymarket Riot by mounting a
 counter-offensive that seriously eroded the eight-hour day movement’s gains.
 But the movement was an extremely effective organizing tool for the
 country’s unions, and in 1890 President Samuel Gompers of the American
Federation of Labor was able to call for “an International Labor Day” in 
favor of the eight-hour workday. Similar proclamations were made by
 socialist and union leaders in other nations where, to this day, May Day is
 celebrated as Labor Day.

Workers in the United States and 13 other countries demonstrated on that May
Day of 1890 ­ including 30,000 of them in Chicago. The New York World hailed 
it as “Labor’s Emancipation Day.” It was. For it marked the start of an 
irreversible drive that finally established the eight-hour day as the
 standard for millions of working people.

###

Dick Meister is a San Francisco-based columnist who has covered labor and
 politics for more than a half-century as a reporter, editor, author and
commentator. Contact him through his website, dickmeister.com

Here is the simplified version of the research article written by Bryant and Sias themselves.

People spend much of their time at work interacting with coworkers. Peer coworker relationships are those between employees of the same rank and are important elements in organizational processes and work-life wellness. Peer coworkers can share off-the-record organizational information and are also sources of emotional and task-related support. Employees who enjoy positive and trusting peer coworker relationships report greater productivity and job satisfaction, making coworker relationships an important concern for organizations.

Unfortunately, deception is a common workplace occurrence that can disrupt peer coworker relationships. Deception refers to acts by which a person misrepresents information to communicate a false sense of reality to others. Deceptive behaviors range from outright lying to strategically omitting or altering details of information shared with others. Such behaviors are extremely common, with numerous studies revealing the average person uses some form of deception in one out of every five social interactions. Organizations function best when individuals work together as a unified system, so deception between coworkers can create individual stress and also provoke a breakdown of organizational communication.

We conducted a study to examine how employees make sense of deception by a peer coworker. We interviewed individuals employed in various occupations and asked them to describe an incident in which they were deceived by a coworker. Our interviews revealed that deceived employees made sense of deceptive events by considering their deceptive coworkers’ motives as well as the degree to which their organization may have influenced the situation. We identified four distinct types of peer coworker deception:

Corrupt System Deception. Many participants blamed systemic company flaws for their coworkers’ deceptive behavior and explained that such organizations require employees to lie to survive. These companies were described as being cutthroat organizations in which deception was rampant. One example of corrupt system deception involved a coworker who, according to the participant, lied because the manager encouraged workers to “give as little information as possible to the other departments” and “intentionally be vague when sending the messages to other departments so they can’t trace it back to us if something goes wrong.” Other examples involved employees who perceived deception as a way to earn bonuses. As one participant explained, “It’s just the culture. So it’s kind of like a survival of the fittest, but you’ve got to be a dirty dog to work there. In my opinion you can’t be an honest person and survive.” Such workplace climates were incredibly stressful for honest employees who learned to survive by expecting that their coworkers will deceive them, adopting a deceptive work style in return, and simply grinding through their days without being invested in their work.

CYA Deception.  Some participants reported their coworkers were deceptive as a defense mechanism or coping response. One person explained, “I don’t know if it’s dishonesty, but people cover their ass, I mean they CYA. They may not necessarily do what they’re supposed to, so they do things to cover up some of their lack of performance.” Employees were somewhat sympathetic towards their coworkers in CYA deception and explained that these lies lacked malice and were simply an attempt to stay afloat and avoid getting in trouble due to an honest mistake. This form of deception was prevalent in highly complex organizations where coworkers could easily deflect blame off of themselves without directly implicating another person. Employees also explained that CYA deception occurred because their coworkers felt they had no outlet to confess their mistakes without retribution, and therefore resorted to dishonesty. As such, the organizational structure received some degree of blame for CYA deception.

Personal Gain Deception. The most prevalent form of coworker deception involved employees who deceived for personal gain. Many employees explained that their coworkers used deception to discredit other employees and make themselves look better within the organization. Other employees told of coworkers who stole money and materials from the company, or inappropriately took clients from other workers via deceptive practices.  Personal gain deception sometimes victimized the organization at large, such as when coworkers lied about the amount of hours they worked. Personal gain deception was most problematic, however, when employees felt targeted and were directly and negatively affected by their coworkers’ gain.  For example, one participant explained that a coworker wanted to get a promotion so she attacked the participant’s character and told lies to discredit her in front of the boss. In such cases, participants found it difficult to continue even a cordial working relationship with their deceptive coworkers.

Personality Trait Deception. The final form of coworker deception was perceived to result from the coworkers’ character or personality flaws. Some reported their coworkers possess avoidant communication styles and therefore tell white lies to avoid looking bad or upsetting someone. This form of deception was conceptualized as a mismatch of communication styles and employees found it to be an unfortunate but unavoidable aspect of relational communication. Other coworkers were perceived to have seriously flawed morals and described as “lazy,” “shady,” “sneaky,” and “unbalanced.” Employees largely ignored the organizational climate when evaluating personality trait deception and instead focused on contextualizing the vast history that proved their coworker was a liar. Employees avoided working with such coworkers and struggled to do so when their job tasks were closely connected. As one participant explained, “Personally, the guy really disgusts me and if I remember what he does I really don’t want to talk to him.”

The average person commits some form of deception in one out of every five interactions, yet these acts might be interpreted in different ways depending on other people’s perceptions of the deception. Our study suggests that deception is viewed as an unavoidable aspect of all relationships; however, lies that maliciously target particular coworkers or reflect a destructive work environment are highly problematic. Indeed, peer coworker deception can wreak havoc when it hinders organizational members’ ability to perform their jobs.

Organizations can minimize deception in several ways. First, employees will be less likely to engage in CYA deception if they feel comfortable admitting to their mistakes. Training supervisors to communicate more effectively and more openly with employees could provide employees with an outlet to seek help and repair mistakes without fear of repercussions. Employees make mistakes and providing a safe channel of open communication could prevent small missteps from becoming large problems when concealed. Similarly, competition is common in organizations, but it does not need to be destructive. However, many participants in our study asserted that coworker deception was a “survival of the fittest” behavior necessary to outperform coworkers, gain commissions, or be promoted. Notably, participants often blamed their company for either creating or fostering this competitive environment, which ultimately destroyed coworker trust and hindered productivity. Organizational leaders might help prevent coworker deception by facilitating a collaborative environment that rewards cooperative success over individual achievement. If workers personally benefit from lying, removing these individual benefits would also likely remove a common motive for deceptive workplace behavior and help shape a more honest and positive organizational climate.

###

The research article:

Bryant, E. M., & Sias, P. (2011). Sensemaking and relational consequences of peer coworker deception. Communication Monographs, 78, 115-137.

Abstract from the article:

This exploratory study examined sensemaking of peer co-worker deception from the perception of the deceived. A total of 58 narrative accounts of deception were collected via face-to-face interviews with 23 employed adults. Analysis revealed four primary narratives of co-worker deception: corrupt system narratives, “cover your ass” (CYA) narratives, personal gain narratives, and personality trait narratives. Perceived motives and consequences were primary considerations in the sensemaking process and employees reported changing their communication patterns to avoid deceptive co-workers or hold them more accountable for their actions. The theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed and suggestions for future research are posited.

Thanks to some internet sleuthing by IL State Coordinator Carrie Clark, we learned that lobbyists for the Illinois Family Institute (Ralph Rivera also represents Pro-Life Action League) and Concerned Christian Americans (Rev. Vanden Bosch) were anti-gay extremists. The claim at the CCA website was:”Many of the ‘Bullying Programs’ are actually being used to promote and protect homosexuality in the workplace.”

As it turns out, the attack on the ADULT anti-bullying movement mirrored the intolerance these groups masquerading as well-intentioned religion advocates were using to derail STUDENT anti-bullying bills in state houses.

This dishonest practice is confirmed in the new report by the People for the American Way issued on April 14, 2011. Big Bullies: How the Religious Right is Trying to Make Schools Safe for Bullies and Dangerous for Gay Kids.  The four big lies used by the rr are:

- schools indoctrinate students to be gay

- anti-bullying protections give special rights to gay students

- hetero kids’ rights are being trampled (they are victims themselves)

- blaming LGBT advocates for “bullying” schools into thinking programs are needed

This upside-down, irrational, stupid drivel is exactly what these folks use to bully lawmakers into thinking that their position has equivalence to ours. We at WBI and all the school anti-bullying advocates stand against abuse.

The rr favors abuse. They are the bullies. Lawmakers should turn a deaf ear (both Rep. Art Turner and Eddie Washington did so in 2010). Others have not been so strong.

Read the report to better understand this national, insidious problem.

At Sultana High (17311 Sultana Street, Hesperia, CA) at 6 pm on Monday March 28, there will be a meeting of the Hesperia (CA) School District Board during which Dr. Matt Spencer will present a special 30 min. introduction to workplace bullying at the invitation of Board member Anthony Riley. Watch the sparks fly as Bully Chris Bentley, president of the Board, attempts to derail the info session. We will post video of this public event when it becomes available. Stay tuned.

UPDATE 11

The Hesperia (CA) School District Board is anything but unified. Pres. Bentley has been a divisive force. The bully Bentley has branded fellow Board members Riley and Black “evil” in a March 4 letter to the Hesperia Star newspaper. Then, in a March 25 letter, Hardy Black, reveals one of Bentley’s original motives to get involved with the District — to get his children’s school absences changed from “truant” to “excused.” Read the battle of the letters.

Letter to the Editor by Hardy Black
March 25, 2011

“Bullies thrive where authority is weak.” Tim Field
“Never be bullied into silence.” Harvey S. Firestone
I first became acquainted with Chris Bentley as he spoke during the public comment segment of an HUSD board meeting at Sultana High School the summer of 2006. Mr. Bentley protested the HUSD photo shop and was abruptly cut-off in mid-sentence by Board President Eric Swanson. (I watched the same scenario repeat at every 2006 Board meeting.) Obviously Mr. Bentley was treated quite rudely even though his view of the HUSD photo shop had merit and deserved the Board’s consideration.
I approached Mr. Bentley during the break between “open” and “closed” sessions and questioned him as to why he was so passionate in his assault on the HUSD Board? He explained that his children attended Maple Elementary School and had been unfairly marked “truant.” His attempt to change their absences to “excused” had hit an immovable bureaucratic wall. To Chris Bentley this was intolerable! The establishment would not bend so it was time to dismantle it by declaring “all out war!”
Since that conversation I have watched a pattern emerge. Agree with Chris Bentley and you’re an OK person. He’ll engage you in civil conversation, treat you cordially, and may even express support for you in one of his many “letters to the editor.” But, disagree with him and you likely will become a target of his disdain, a pawn to be ground-up in his personal “war.” Since he does not work to support his family, once he delivers his children at school he has all day to focus attention on the battle of his choosing.
Mr. Bentley considers himself smarter than most anyone else and seems to relish confrontation and pushing things beyond the braking point. In my experience no one “pulls out all the stops” like he does. He will do whatever it takes to cajole, intimidate, harass, bully, beat down, destroy or annihilate anyone who gets in his way!
The list of individuals who have been the object of this treatment is by no means complete but includes:
1. District office personnel: Richard Bray, Rob Challinor, Mark McKinney, Hank Richardson, William Freeman, George Landon, David McLaughlin, Jovy Yankaskas, Matt Spencer, Patrick Traynor, Laura Carevic, Larry Bird, Terry Barrett, Becky Shreve, Ruth Ter Keurst, Jean Campbell
2. School personnel: Bill Pittsford, Karen Elgan, Scott Sheffield, Alan Cota, Karen Prestwood, Dan Boatwright, Jennifer Ruiz, Rebecca Swanson, Sandi Utter, Robert Kistner, Vicki Kirk, Patty Staples
3. Board Members: Eric Swanson, Bruce Minton, Nellie Gogley, Lee Rogers, Hardy Black, Helen Rogers & husband Marlon, Robert Kirk & son Mark, Anthony Riley & mother Cathy Rough
4. School Board Candidates: Ellen Richardson & Chris Lindsay
5. Chala Salsbury and parents of Crosswalk High School
6. Debra Tarver and parents of La Verne Elementary School
7. HUSD police personnel: Chief Michael Graham, Corporal Brian Owen, Officer William Holland, Secretary Rene Woldrige
8. The Hesperia Teachers Association leadership team
9. The California Service Employees Association #684 leadership team
10. Hesperia Star reporter Beau Yarbrough and editor Peter Day
11. Attorneys Dennis Wagner & Tristan Pelayes
I am sure there are many more who have been the objects of Mr. Bentley’s bullying, but these I have personally witnessed, been told by a witness, or the individual themselves. Bullying is debilitating to those uses it on. I call on fellow Board members to do something to stop it! I HOPE THEY LISTEN before it destroys our school district! But bullying is by no means the most insidious weapon in Bentley’s arsenal! In subsequent letters to the editor I will provide more examples of Chris Bentley’s weapons of war!

Editor’s Note: Hesperia Star reporter Beau Yarbrough says he has not been intimidated or mistreated by Mr. Bentley. Others mentioned in Mr. Black’s letter are welcome to share their views or clarify, or deny, Mr. Black’s assertions. Mr. Black is an elected member of the Hesperia Unified School District’s board of education.

March 4 Letter to the Editor by Chris Bentley — Evildoers

March 04, 2011 9:01 AM

Chris Bentley
Hesperia
We have all learned by sad experience that Hardy Black, Robert Kirk, and Anthony Riley are dishonest and deceitful men interested in serving only themselves. Hardy Black, Robert Kirk, and Anthony Riley continue in their attempts to change history to somehow make their long, long, list of past evil actions simply disappear as if they were not involved at all in committing their gross incompetence and atrocities’ that will reverberate throughout our school district for years to come.
Fortunately, there is a long record of well-respected voices that have cried out against the evil of Hardy Black, Robert Kirk, and their minion Anthony Riley.
It started with David Long, a long-term principal in this district, when he described the beginning of the Kirk and Hardy Black era with, “Fear and suspicion seem to be the current governing tactics used by the governing board. There seems to be more time spent behind closed doors in the school district than ever before. People at the district office and the school sites have been forced to spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about offending board members, trying to fulfill arbitrary and time consuming demands only to have their work tossed aside by the board, and trying to find time to do the job for kids they were hired to do.”
This newspaper reported that Long’s open letter to the board blasted school board members Hardy Black and Robert Kirk for governing through “fear and suspicion” and stated that the Black and Kirk had “declared war upon all administrators in Hesperia.”
Only eleven short months later, another employee, long-term well-respected assistant superintendent George Landon, stood up at a meeting and had the courage to state, “It is with great anxiety, and with mixed emotions, that I submit my letter of resignation this evening. I will be resigning in order to maintain my integrity and morals. I can no longer be associated with a district where differing views, opinions, and issues are not discussed and respected.”
Mr. Landon was speaking of the conduct of Hardy Black and Robert Kirk. He could no longer work in their empire; so he moved on to provide his expertise to other school districts.
A week later, Peter Day, the editor of this newspaper, wrote, “Surely, these three (Kirk, Hardy Black, and Lee Rogers) have learned to mellow out a bit and stop their micro-managing of our highly regarded school district. They’re not going to continue to force key people out of our district, I thought. But I was wrong…what has become painfully clear is that Robert Kirk and Hardy Black are over-confident and meddlesome…and that’s a shame.”
These three well-respected opinions in this community only partially described the debauchery of Hardy Black. There were many more who spoke out against Hardy Black’s control and destruction of this district. There were even many more who left the district to go work elsewhere. Hardy Black has literally cost this school district millions of dollars in wasted expenses, legal costs, and legal settlements.
And now Hardy tries to falsely paint me with a similar brush. It simply ain’t true. I stand by my actions and whole-heartily refute any of the flat out lies that Hardy Black tries to throw at me.
Hardy’s lies about me may have speed of circulation among his supporters, but the real truth about me, and my actions on behalf of the parents and students of this school district, has endurance.
I will persevere and endure this Hardy Black nonsensical horse manure thrown madly about and keep my focus on the things that matter in this district—our kids, our parents, our budget, and our employees. And that focus includes working to correct the extensive spiritual damage that was done, and continues to be done, to this district by Hardy Black, his cohort Riley, and their overpaid, incompetent, and divisive staff plants.

Watch the bully himself in action on video (by which he professes to stand) in earlier installments, in reverse chronology.

Board Bully Bentley Can’t Stop
School Board Bully Bentley Retaliates
Board bully Bentley goes Latin
When the School Board Pres is the Bully

UPDATE 10

At the Feb. 14 Board meeting, Dr. Matt Spencer read a letter claiming that over 20 (now numbering over 50) HUSD employees report being attacked, threatened or interfered with by Bentley. That comes up first in the video below. Here is the letter he read.

February 14, 2011
Dear Board of Trustees:

This letter is given to provide the Board of Trustees with additional information for consideration related to the recent reporting of concerns of abusive conduct by a Board Trustee. The Misconduct was reported to the Board the evening of Thursday, January 13, 2011, and an urgent request was made, on behalf of several employees personally known to Dr. Matt Spencer, the Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Services to initiate an investigation into the alleged misconduct.
In the past several weeks, we have become aware of more than twenty employees in our respective sites and departments who desire to give statements regarding the personal effects of the offensive, unprofessional, and abusive conduct experienced from Chris Bentley as well as the thousands of dollars wasted as a result of Mr. Bentley’s mandates to devote hours and hours of their work time to attend to his personal projects and additional expenditure of District funds related to these projects. These employees request that the Board take action to initiate such an investigation and give them the opportunity to officially and thoroughly report their concerns. These employees further request that the Board consider the inclusion of the following components in the structure of the investigation.
1. That the investigation be conducted by a third party with expertise in the investigation of abusive and harassing workplace misconduct
2. That every employee of the Hesperia Unified School District be notified of the conducting of the investigation to give opportunity for others not known at this time to report their concerns
3. The investigation be conducted in a discrete manner
4. For purposes of the investigative report, the statements of the witnesses would remain confidential, and
5. That these employees be given assurances that there will not be any retaliatory action taken against them for participating in the investigation and stating their concerns.
On behalf of these employees, we urge the Board to conduct the investigation, thus giving an opportunity to officially report the offensive, unprofessional and abusive conduct they have been subjected to; conduct that has no place in an educational working environment.
Respectfully,
Dr. Matt Spencer, Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Services
David McLaughlin, Assistant Superintendent of Financial Services
Laura Carevic, Director of Fiscal Services
Michael Graham, Chief of Hesperia School District Police Department
Larry Bird, Principal of Sultana High School
Ruth Ter Keurst, Information Systems Analyst

When the police chief challenged Bentley at a public Board meeting, Bentley unilaterally decided to eliminate the district police force. The next video clip features Superintendent McKinney’s defense of the police department to which Bentley explodes (it’s about MONEY!!!!!). Then two other Board members complain about Bentley’s (1) “political” retaliation against the police chief, and (2) Bentley’s arrogant insistence on moving against the police without consulting the Board (it’s HIS district, after all, isn’t it?).
In the March 12, Hesperia Star newspaper, Board member Hardy Black wrote:

“What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say!” Ralph Waldo Emerson
The state of affairs at HUSD are such, much to the actions of President Bentley that I feel compelled after 6 years his antics that “basta ya,” enough is enough. In sequent weeks and months I will bring forth detailed facts documenting the outrageous destructive behavior of Chris Bentley.
In as much as possible I will focus on documented facts and the outraged testimony of those who he has intimidated, bullied and personally attacked. I have been verbally attacked in a profane and vile manner and have personally witnessed at least 25 others receive the same treatment. What does Mr. Bentley think of his behavior? He is in complete and total denial. In his recent email to principals he says: “I personally stand by all of my actions. I stand by my words. Since I have been on the board, I have never spoken an ill word to anyone at a school site.”
What about your recent confrontational visit to Canyon Ridge High School…? Why did six administrators recently present the following letter to the HUSD School Board? Why do you, Mr. Swanson, Mrs. Childs block an open investigation into workplace and school site bullying? If indeed you Chris Bentley “stand by your words and actions” and have nothing to hide, why are you in total denial? There have even been allegations that bullying may have been a factor in the death of an HUSD student last month.
Mr. Swanson wants to keep everything quiet because it “makes HUSD look bad,” but if the problem exists to the degree that many employees indicate, I myself call for a frank and honest investigation!

Board member Hardy Black requested a 30-minute special presentation concerning Work Place/ School Site Bullying to be given during the March 28, 2011 open session HUSD special board meeting at Sultana High. Open session begins at 6:00 PM.

Finally, it seems that Bentley has the closure of Canyon Ridge, the alternative school, on his priority list. On Feb. 17, several students bravely came forward to testify at the public Board meeting against closure. One brave woman student directly addressed Bentley about his visit to the school during which he carried on emotionally in the principal’s office with witnesses. Bentley shamelessly confronts the student, demanding to spin the story in his favor. The audience sides with the student.

The “adult” Bentley bullies a Canyon Ridge student. Has he no shame?  Watch the public video record below and judge for yourself.

Read the previous Bentley record in reverse chronology:

School Board Bully Bentley Retaliates
Board bully Bentley goes Latin
When the School Board Pres is the Bully

A secretary at a major Chicago-area hospital endured yelling and name-calling. Then came the phone threat. Here’s how the author of ‘The Bully at Work‘ says to handle it.

By the time she called me, she had run out of options.

A secretary at a large Chicago-area hospital, she’d endured years of harsh treatment at the hands of a clique of nurses that basically ran her floor. The nurses referred to another secretary, a very large woman, as “fatty” and “fat-[butt].” They yelled at the secretary herself and scolded her when she stood up to them: “Watch your tone with me.”

But the final straw was a message she received on her home answering machine at 12:30 a.m.

“Be nice to the nurses, [witch]” a man’s voice said.
The secretary called the police, who helped her trace the call. But beyond that, they said, there wasn’t much they could do.

She had already complained to her union and her manager, who often went along with the bullying. Her attempts to simply transfer off the floor—about 50, she says, since 2007—have been similarly unsuccessful.

“What else are you supposed to do?” she asked.

I had no idea, so I called up Gary Namie, co-author of “The Bully at Work: What You Can Do to Stop the Hurt and Reclaim Your Dignity on the Job.”

“When bullying is this severe and this repeated and it involves stalking, [it's] abuse,” he said. “They are treating her like a battered spouse they can kick around. This is domestic violence where the abuser is on the payroll.”

Namie says it’s important that the secretary knows that she didn’t cause the bullying and she’s not alone in experiencing it. According to a survey conducted by Zogby International for the Workplace Bullying Institute, 35 percent of American workers have been bullied, or about 54 million Americans.

In this case, he says, the responsibility for fixing the problem lies with management.

“I guarantee you she’s not the only one [being bullied] and she’s not going to be the last one. It’s on every floor and it’s part of the culture of that place … they are a toxic workplace.”

Unfortunately, in these cases low-level supervisors are often cowed or co-opted by bullies and offer little help.

“[The secretary] has to go high up the ladder” to upper management, he says.

“She has to ask for safety, but she also has to say, matter-of-factly, ‘This is your leadership role. You’re in leadership to make this a safe work environment so we can protect the lives of patients. We’re here to cure, heal and rehabilitate and, by golly, this interferes with the mission.’ “

The executive may respond that the secretary isn’t a health care provider, but Namie strongly disagrees.

“The [heck] she’s not,” he says. “Families interact with her, people interact with her, staff relies on her, and when she’s disrupted, the department’s disrupted.”

Namie also advises the secretary to take good care of herself during a trying time.

“Trust me, [the bullies] are hurting her,” he says. “If she hasn’t gone to a physician, she’d better go to a doctor right away. She’s probably got blood pressure issues—gastrointestinal issues, a whole host of stress-related physical conditions.”

It’s not just the severity of the workplace hostility that takes a toll, Namie says. Frequency matters, too.

“It’s the constant, unremitting exposure that causes stress, and the harm comes from the inescapability.”

Office Hours appears weekly in TribU. If you have a work-related question — and remember, no question is too serious or too silly — send a note to Nara Schoenberg at nschoenberg@tribune.com.

The question: If public-sector unions lose the right to bargain for working conditions, do you expect to see more bullying and abuse in your workplace in the future?

216 individuals completed the survey. 47% were members of a union; 53% were not.

The responses:

45.8% — I have no union — YES, I predict more bullying

6.9% — I have no union — NO, I do not predict more bullying

35.1% — I am a public-sector union member — YES,  I predict more bullying

1% — I am a public-sector union member — NO,  I do not predict more bullying

9.7% — I am a private-sector union member — YES,  I predict more bullying

1.4% — I am a private-sector union member — NO,  I predict more bullying

Here are the various ways that people predicted that YES there would be more bullying:

Overall:  YES — 90.7% ;   NO — 9.3%

Union members:  YES — 95% ; NO — 5%

Non-union individuals: YES — 86.8%;  NO — 13.2%

The question: For those who have ever lost a job to bullying, how did the next job compare financially?

Responses from 241 site visitors (a sample of individuals known to declare themselves to be targets of bullying at work)

26% — That job was never replaced – there was no next job

25% — Less money, but safer

13.7% — Less money, bullied again

11.6% — More money and safer

17% — More money, but bullied again

5.9% — Got another job, no change

Of those who did get another job, the financial status was:

LESS money earned — 52.8%

No change — 7.9%

MORE money earned — 39.3%

Thus, nearly 40% did come out ahead confirming the validity of our advice that there will be an eventual end to the bullying. And if you move along quickly enough without suffering severe health harm, you will have a new life. Getting out can be positive.

The fact that 53% did suffer an economic setback is probably based on the dwindling number of well paying jobs on the market to replace the job the target once loved. To those people, we emphasize the benefit to personal health and sanity of leaving the toxic workplace. You were too good for that place anyway.

The saddest fact is that over one-quarter of bullied targets were not able to replace their lost job. We know that bullying comes uninvited. No one asked to be intimidated or humiliated. Since the most veteran, competent workers are targeted, it is safe to assume that they once loved their jobs very much. They simply wanted to be left alone to do the work for which they were getting paid. But bullying displaced them and put them on the street involuntarily, regardless of whether they were fired or had to quit to preserve their health. This is the tragedy of workplace bullying.

Callahan’s article was a so-so attempt from someone new to workplace bullying. Her advice was not hurtful except for advising targets unwisely to (1) not get emotional (as if they can predict the assaults and control the spontaneous reaction to humiliation), and to (2) communicate (she actually wrote: “Pull the bully aside and talk to them someplace quiet where you can privately tell them how their behavior is inappropriate and that you won’t tolerate it.”). Otherwise it was a solid attempt to raise awareness.

Here’s the comment that speaks volumes and reflects a willingness to turn on fellow workers, to hold them responsible for their fate, and make individuals solve all of their own workplace problems by walking away.

One miracle of the modern at-will workplace is that if you see people anywhere in the organizati­on that are behaving other than in accordance with organizati­onal expectatio­ns of profession­alism and mutual respect on the jobsite, and you happen to be the manager, you can solve the problem in about 10 minutes, including the paperwork, in the modern ‘paperless­’ office. That’s how long it takes for most people to stuff their personal effects out of their desk or locker in a cardboard box, hand off their keys, and make their way to the parking lot.
And, from the other side of that, if you’re an employee, under at-will ‘no fault’ type work agreements­, you can pretty much clock out right then and there, no excuse or notice given or required, have a nice day, I must terminate my employment­, now, so it sort of works both ways, managers that want to keep good employees must respect their employees, and employees that want to keep good jobs need to respect their managers and coworkers also. It’s all about making a buck, and if you can’t maintain good manners for 8 short hours (7.5 in most examples, be honest) with your employees and coworkers and managers and stuff, then….ma­ybe you need to go back to whatever school you attended, and start over.

There you have it. Freedom is achievable if you are willing to walk away. What do you say?

The “fair” versions of person blue received the highest retention scores and the selfish person was seen as the least desirable. Surprisingly, the unselfish person was seen as less desirable as the selfish one. In a second round of studies, the benevolent-unselfish actor was expelled but not due to confusion or incompetence on their part.

In a final test of plausible explanations for why the group is willing to expel a valuable member who is an over-contributor to the group’s positive impact while using few resources, participants were asked reasons for expulsion. It turns out that, by comparison to self, for some, it was less fair when someone in the group was altruistic. The prime reason (by 58% of participants) given for cutting the unselfish member was the resultant negative self-evaluation. It also appears that the distinctiveness of being benevolent was resented as being too different from the rest of the group. The person was seen as a rule breaker and non-normative by 35% of participants. The selfish actor was expelled for perceived destructiveness (77%).

This study demonstrated counterintuitive hostility to a generous group member who either makes others feel bad by comparison or appears threatening by virtue of her or his virtue. The benevolent other is not motivated to create either experience for group mates. This matches closely the experience of bullied targets ostracized by coworkers. The study offers these new explanations.

Source:  Parks, C.D., & Stone, A.B. (2010)  The desire to expel unselfish members from the group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2010, Vol. 99, No. 2, 303–310.

City of Helsinki employees engaged in a longitudinal study (baseline period 2000-2002) exploring the association between bullying — reported and observed — and sleep problems. The follow-up survey was in 2007. Respondents were asked if they were  bullied by defining “mental violence or workplace bullying [as] the isolation of a member of the organization, underestimation of work performance, threatening, talking behind one’s back, or other pressurizing.” Frequent sleep problems were defined as delays in falling asleep or waking up too early for at least 15 days per month.

At baseline, both women and men reported a 5% bullying prevalence. The observing bullying at baseline percentages for women and men were 9% and 7%, respectively. Sleep problems at baseline were reported by 21% of women and 17% of men. At follow-up, 26% of women and 20% of men had sleep problems. Follow-up period prevalence rates were not analyzed.

For women (a huge sample of 5,399 respondents), there was an association between earlier reported bullying (in this or another workplace) and current sleep problems. The background factors (covariates) that most weakened the relationship were obesity, mental disorders and long-standing illnesses. For men (n=1,247), bullying during the baseline period was most strongly related to current sleep problems. And as with women, obesity, mental disorders and long-standing illnesses combined to weaken the association.

Witnessing or observing bullying also impaired sleep. Frequently witnessing it caused current sleep problems for women more than men. For both men and women, when social factors and health were taken into account, the link between observed bullying and sleep problems disappeared.

The primary value of the study is the demonstrated link between bullying and sleep problems in a large-sample study. Gender differences also emerged with the key difference being that women were more likely to have sleep disturbances from witnessing bullying.

Download at Source:  Lallukka, T., Rahkonen, O., & Lahelma, E.  (2010) Workplace bullying and subsequent sleep problems — the Helsinki Health Study.  Scandinavian Journal of Work Environmental Health, Nov. 30, 2010, an online first article.

Dr. Kristin Neff at the Univ of Texas, Austin has created her own research and practice niche called Self-Compassion. It involves (1) treating ourselves with the kindness we would extend to others, (2) recognizing our shared humanity, and (3) being mindful (and not catastrophizing) about negative aspects of ourselves. Self-compassion is superior to self-esteem since it does not involve evaluation or comparison with others. We think Self-Compassion is going to be a valuable tool for healing wounds from bullying.

Here is Kristin Neff describing the concept. You can visit her YouTube site for all videos.

Neff’s website is a treasure trove of published research articles, her Self-Compassion scale for researchers (though bullied targets will want to apply the scale to themselves and score it to gauge how unnecessarily tough on themselves they might be), and description of a training program that she hopes will create a greater sense of well-being.

Self-compassion sounds a bit like self-love, which borders on narcissism, but it is very different. It is a judgment-free way to perceive your own identity. As Neff describes it, the pursuit of higher self-esteem is problematic and more akin to narcissism.

As the Feb. 28, 2011 New York Times article about Neff’s work by Tara Parker-Pope said in its title, it is about learning to “Go Easy on Yourself.”

Employers have unchecked power over non-unionized employees. Whatever dribbles of democracy and employee participation that happen are determined unilaterally by the employer (the owner or highest-level executive). If sharing does not suit him or her, employees are told to hold on, shut up and be glad you have work at all.

Driving employer rights is the doctrine of “employment at will” adhered to in the U.S. as if the courts had ruled on it (they did not, read this to learn the deliberately distorted history). Business sold this notion as if it were bidirectional. Employers can put you on the street for no cause. Employees can dump their employers and put themselves on the street. See, both have “free will.” Nonsense!

If you are prone to magical thinking, you might believe that all it takes to combat bullying (mistreatment by the employer or its agent, managers) is the collective effort by concerned co-workers who witness the events. Yes, in your dreams you see the heroic target in the boss’s threshold backed by throngs of agitated and supportive peers. In reality, chances are better that only a breeze will be behind our hero at the door when left to fight alone.

The abandonment of bullied targets is not fantasy. It is reality. We have surveyed targets and looked closely at the issue. In less than 1% of cases do co-workers provide support as solid and comprehensive in the above fantasy. There are many reasons to account for this lack of courage. Most explanations come from the field of social psychology. Just this month, there was an article describing the bystander non-intervention effect. And I could lecture on several others. Suffice it to say, the “F” word drives it all. Fear of being the lone supporter, fear of botching the help, fear of being pushed away by the target whose shame makes him want to be left alone, fear of incurring the bully’s wrath and being next.

So, how do workers in the 21st century achieve some sort of power balance with employers? Will Facebook and Twitter accomplish parity with corporations? Some may think so, but why have we given up on Unions? More in a moment about that. But first let’s see what 313 bullied targets who completed the first 2011 WBI Instant Poll thought about the role for unions.

The question:  “Given the current assaults on workers by employers, what role, if any, do you see for unions to address workplace bullying?”

The responses and percentages:

- Unions are more necessary than ever to protect worker health and safety. Employers’ power must be checked.  .4728
- Everyone should have the option to join a union if he or she wishes.   .2396
- Unions are unnecessary. They are no more trustworthy than are employers.  .2396
- The contemporary worker and workplace are rarely suited for unions.  .04792

Results of WBI Jan 2011 Instant Poll

About three-quarters of targets still believe that unions have a positive role to play and want to have the option to join or not. With a new Congress that took power in 2011, it is unlikely that Federal legislation to make joining unions easier will ever pass into law.

However, the most important finding from this small sample survey is that 24% do not trust their unions any more than their employers. This is the reality we hear from callers and what we see when we go on-site. I distinguish this distrust from a negative public stereotype about unions fostered by corporations and media (only 5% adopted that view). The distrust captured here is from people who have probably asked their unions for help with bullying situations and been rebuffed. Their unions did no more for them than HR. It is based on real experiences.

How could unions be so feckless about workplace bullying?

Four principal explanations come to mind:

1) Unions officers rise in the ranks based on their ability to fight and be adversarial (good to win victories for the union’s members) and do not want any curbs on their actions with anyone else, whether it is with management or with other members. In other words, they might be intimidators and want to stay that way without interference from a new company policy or a future law.

2) Unions are organizations, too. The bureaucratic mindset can take over. People get defensive for the organization and show less compassion for the people the organization is supposed to serve. Some unions have a low service threshold. They don’t care about helping members.

3) Too many unions have been co-opted by “partnership” talk with employers. They want to get along and ignore their members’ needs. This doesn’t mean there is corruption in every instance. Unions have been forced into concessions by scheming, but cash-rich employers for years. Employers threaten to shutter the business and move it offshore if pensions aren’t abandoned or health insurance co-pays aren’t increased, etc. In other words, unions have been whipped into submission. Survival is the operating mode. Concern over quality of worklife issues seems unimportant.

4) Unions can be great when the bully is a non-member, typically a manager.  But when bullying is member-on-member, most unions are paralyzed. They erroneously feel compelled to defend both the abusive and abused member. In reality, the responsibility is to represent, never to defend.

None of these reasons are to be used to defend hapless, ineffective unions. However, if unions are to regain trust of their members, each of the above four issues must be confronted honestly and reversed.

Our work has expanded to offer options for unions to serve their bullied members. We have had marvelous union officials attend WBI University to take back to their unions new ways to deal with bullying. In fact, in late 2011, WBI will offer a special Unions-Only University to increase the number of wise member-supporting unions out there.

Perspective 1 is through the lens of people who know bullying from the inside, from the perspective of being the target of a bully’s wrath. They have the experience with their employer’s involvement with bullying. People who visit the WBI website and complete a front-page Instant Poll weigh in on a variety of issues. From their answers, we can describe the world through the lens of bullied targets because site visitors (98%) declare themselves to be bullied targets. The research samples are called “self-selected” samples. Despite the polls being “unscientific,” they provide the most useful information for other bullied targets and shed light on the bullying phenomenon.

Perspective 2 is the national snapshot captured when we commission a national poll. We did this in August for the 2010 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey. Our pollsters, Zogby International, polled 4,210 individuals selected to represent all adult Americans. The sample was a “scientific” one because of the sampling methodology used. It allows WBI to extrapolate the findings to the general U.S. adult population. Surveys like these meet the requirement for publication in scientific journals and at academic conferences. However, when half of the population has no knowledge of bullying (49.6% of the 2010 WBI-Zogby respondents claimed never witnessing and never being bullied), results can be misleading.

What a difference personal experience makes. For instance, we asked in our National Survey and also in one of our Instant Polls:

How engaged is your employer with preventing or correcting workplace bullying?

A large portion — 36.9% — of the national survey respondents said they were “not sure” about employer activity. We did not give the online survey respondents the same opportunity. We eliminated the “not sure” people and adjusted the percentages accordingly for a direct comparison between the two groups. Here are the differences.

For each response category, the percentages for the survey groups are given.

From the online targets’ survey, we see that 81% of employers are either doing nothing to address bullying or actually resisting action when requested to do something. The non-expert public direct comparison percentage is 44.8.

Most startling is how optimistic is the general public that employers are very engaged in the battle against workplace bullying. One-third of adult Americans gave employers credit for having specific policies and faithfully enforcing them. Perhaps this confidence assumes that since schools have been forced to deal with bullying, workplaces for adults would similarly address bullying. Of course, this statistic is not founded on truth. Bullied targets tell us that less than three percent (2.7%) of employers are actively engaged like the public thinks.

The two views about employer engagement are divergent. The differences are so great that the veracity of one or both groups warrants scrutiny. Who shall be trusted — the “average” American or a veteran of the bullying wars? We have 14 years experience with the latter group. They have proven themselves to us to be honest.

It also is true that one cannot imagine the intensity of the defense for the bully coupled with attempts to discredit and demoralize you, the target, until it happens to you. In other words, without direct experience, you might believe the promises that all employers care deeply about the health and safety of their workers. This is a naive belief not supported by the evidence — empirical (as shown in the above table) and anecdotal (if you talk to bullied targets).

The findings above illustrate a second point about the American public. Americans hold myths about employers as benevolent stewards of workers. They want to believe. And as most elections prove, they are susceptible to slogans, broad promises, and symbols. Facts and evidence pale by comparison. Americans are willing to ignore facts when their worldview dictates a contrary view. This indefensible ignorance about employer actions seems to have affected our own national survey.

It is critical that lawmakers understand the reality of the bullying phenomenon and employer resistance to voluntary action. A major point of our advocacy for the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill is that without laws compelling action, employers will continue to ignore bullying. Employer lobbying groups promise that voluntary action will suffice. When lawmakers, the source of much of the over-hyped optimism and sloganeering in our culture, adopt the false belief that a third of employers are doing the right thing now, they will be reluctant to sponsor or support the legislation.

The danger of a society duped by untruths about workplace bullying is that action is stalled. The more credible truth about employer action is that very little is happening. Targets have told us so. And we see the resistance up close as consultants (Work Doctor®) who now focus our work with employers exclusively on eliminating workplace bullying in the workplace since 1998.

Gary Namie, PhD Research Director, Workplace Bullying Institute

© 2010 Workplace Bullying Institute

Zogby International was commissioned by the Workplace Bullying Institute to conduct an online survey of 4,210 adults from 8/18/10 to 8/23/10. The margin of error is +/- 2.2 percentage points. The sample was weighted to reflect accurate gender, age, and regional representation.

You can download a pdf version of this report.

“I believe mediation can be a useful tool in very limited cases involving bullying. I am much less sanguine about its use more broadly as a tool to reduce or eliminate workplace bullying on college campuses or anywhere else  …

Restorative justice conceives of wrongdoing as behavior that harms individuals and communities, rather than as violations against “the state” (Umbreit, 2005, p. 254). For the purposes of this discussion, a restorative approach would focus on identifying: (1) who has been harmed by bullying; (2) exactly how she, he, or they were harmed; and (3) how to best repair that harm.”

Read the entire contents of this thought-provoking and optimistic essay.

Maté, a Canadian physician and author of Scattered Minds about ADD, spoke with host Amy Goodman about the societal corruption of the conditions for normal brain development in children. Too many are neglected or abused, increasing the number of hyperaggressive children, and in turn, adults.

During critical years of brain development Maté argues that neglect of children by loving parental caregivers who are working two or more jobs or simply not emotionally present for their children because of their own depression or stress from working deprives the children of developing a moral sense. Stressed fathers do not support mothers. Normal childhood development requires non-stressed, emotionally available adults.

The absence of a bond with adults can lead to inadequate development of the prefrontal cortex affecting the ability to show empathy, insight or a sense of social responsibility. Without emotional caregivers available, Thus environments account for the quality of brain development in children and young teens. The reliance on parents and environments reflects our social nature. Contrary to the pseudo-Darwinist (Ayn Rand-type) arguments that humans develop solely as individuals, biology  shows that we need parents, extended families and communities surrounding us to be fully developed in a healthy social way. In other words, bullies remain emotionally immature and incredibly cruel and insensitive toward others. There could be a biological explanation.

The work of Robert Hare with serial killers, psychopaths, suggests too a link between inadequately developed prefrontal cortical areas of the brain can account for seemingly inexplicable evilness.

Anthes, in her Boston Globe report, highlighted the research of Martin Teicher that found verbal abuse by parents was as psychologically damaging as physical abuse. Subsequently he found that kids suffered more depression, anxiety and other psychiatric disorders when bullied by peers than by parents. Teicher said in a 2002 Scientific American article, “Stress sculpts the brain to exhibit various antisocial, though adaptive, behaviors. Whether it comes in the form of physical, emotional or sexual trauma or through exposure to warfare, famine or pestilence, stress can set off a ripple of hormonal changes that permanently wire a child’s brain to cope with a malevolent world.” Teicher’s 2010 fMRI study revealed differences in mylienation of the corpus callosum (the tissue connecting the two brain hemispheres) for kids abused by peers.

Tracy Vaillancourt’s work, also featured by Anthes, found higher levels of cortisol in boys bullied by peers. Too much cortisol can damage brain structures such as the hippocampus that is involved with learning and memory. Paradoxically, girls had abnormally low levels of cortisol. This may reflect living a chronically stressed life.

Cortisol research is burgeoning. In one study, high cortisol levels were associated with feelings of shame and threats to one’s self-image. [Acute threat to the social self: Shame, social self-esteem, and cortisol activity. by T. Gruenewald, et al. Psychomatic Medicine, 2004, 66, 915-924.]

The Boston Globe’s Anthes also described Daniel Peterson’s research with stressed rats demonstrated the impact of bullying by a dominant other resulted in hippocampal damage. New neurons were produced, but in stressed rats, a high percentage of cells died prematurely.

In a 2009 study that deliberately stressed rats that got “stuck in a rut” due to cortical and mid-brain structural changes in response to the stress, researchers were able to reverse the effects. Robert Sapolsky, stress guru, considered this study an important linkage between the behavioral malaise stressed people feel and the underlying neurological explanations for it. [Chronic stress causes frontostriatal reorganization and affects decision making. by E. Dias-Ferreira, et al. Science, 2009, 325, 621-625.]

Finally, we now know that stress interferes with cellular replication that keeps us young. DNA replication is prevented when the protective tips of the chromosomes, the telomeres, fray. 2009 Nobel Prize winner in Medicine and Physiology, Elizabeth Blackburn at the University of California, San Francisco shared credit for the discovery of telomeres. In a study of chronically stressed mothers who had reared children with special needs for 15 years, the shortening of their telomeres represented an average shortening of their life expectancy by 9 to 12 years. [Accelerated telomere shortening in response to life stress. by E.S. Epel, E.H. Blackburn, J. Lin, et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), 2004, 101(49), 17312-17315.] So much progress has been made using this cellular marker as predictor of the aging process, Blackburn and her team are developing a commercial process for public use.

We’ll alert site visitors to the latest in relevant neuro and biologically-related research as it surfaces.

Read the story that ran on WIS-TV-10, Columbia

Personal shame is made possible by a deep-seated lack of deservedness, as in “I don’t deserve the respect or love of others.” Individuals raised in abusive family environments readily accept the reality that love-depriving parents create. The destructive, hateful messages include: “You are not loveable and no one can love you, ever.” These are the origins of shame. In adulthood, when another person humiliates you, it reminds you of that earlier wound. The pain is re-experienced.

Now in adulthood, repeat same lie-filled script uttered by an abusive spouse or partner and you see how domestic violence induces shame — “you are worthless and unlovable.”

The intimidating, humiliating boss or co-worker says similar things — “you have no brain, why waste money training you when you will forget in a week anyway …”  See the pattern? The message is the same. You do not deserve good treatment because you are a bad, faulty, broken, worthless person.

As an adult who has had many positive experiences in the intervening years since childhood, you could know objectively how valuable you are to your employer and co-workers. You have been the go-to expert for years, the most technically skilled. If you were a vain narcissist like your bully, you would never let in any message from anyone telling you anything that did not reinforce that positive self-image as a valued, trusted, competent individual.

But if you are a target, you may not actually believe the lies spewed by your bully, but your humility compels you to allow for the possibility that there is a “kernel of truth” in the pack of lies. After all, you reason, everyone can improve and maybe this a**hole can actually teach me something to improve myself.

This door-opening, boundary-violating step is the top source of shame ( 35%) for survey respondents — that they might have deserved the criticism.

FACT: The bully probably completed some reconnaissance on you early in the relationship so some emotional buttons could be used later. The problem was made more likely by your willingness to disclose your personal history while the bully gave nothing personal away. The criticisms leveled against you are likely PERSONAL attacks and have little to nothing (depending on your bully’s ability to act shamelessly) to do with work itself.

FACT:  Bullying, just like all illegal forms of harassment, come uninvited. Can you imagine anyone rising on a workday and voluntarily declaring that “today is a good day to be humiliated!!! I’ll be sure to ask for it!!!”? Ridiculous, isn’t it? No one wants or deserves the abuse that is workplace bullying.

The second most frequent source of shame was not being able to confront or counter the bully (28% of survey takers). If you could have, you would have confronted. You were not able for a couple of reasons. First, the bully uses surprise to her or his advantage. It’s the unpredictability and bushwhacking nature of bullying that poses the trauma threat. Bullies not only decide who to target but when and how to attack. Despite their lying rationalization that the target “made” them do what they did, no rational target actually says “bring it on.”  Second, you could not defend yourself because you are not blessed/cursed with a snappy comeback, insulting style of your own. You are quieter, more reflective, more reticent to say the first thing that comes to mind (which serves you well in most circumstances except when under attack). Your inner a**hole stays buried when faced with aggression. Bullyproof people let their inner a**hole fly and the bully backs down, recognizing one of their own kind.

The response that was claimed by 22% of respondents — embarrassment from letting the bullying happen — is also stigmatizing. But it is more likely guilt than shame. Guilt derives from doing bad behaviors. Shame is being a bad person. Bullied targets often ruminate guiltily over being controlled as if they sought it. It is important to re-characterize “letting it happen” to “working with a hyperaggressive person who ignores my professional boundaries.” It is not the responsibility of the invaded person to stop the invader, especially a more powerful one. Invaders must be prevented by their host institutions (employers).  Since the majority (72%) of bullying is done by someone who outranks you, control is in their hands. You have little to say. Couple their title power with surprise and it is remarkable that you can hold on to the amount of personal dignity you have to date. The bully had unilateral decision-making power. Rarely can you stop it.

In a 2010 Today Show appearance, Nicole Williams, was asked to comment on a bullying story (provided by WBI). In studio, she stated naively that bullied targets have the “responsibility” to stop their bullies. She has never been bullied or has no empathy for what it is like to work under someone’s thumb on a daily basis. Watch the clip and see for yourself how wrong she was and is.

With respect to confronting or being targeted, you are not the reason that you were bullied. The motivation comes completely from the bully’s twisted, insecure, threatened mind.

The saddest result from the survey was that only 13% of bullied targets said that they had NO SHAME because they neither invited nor deserved the abuse. It seems that self-effacing, self-defeating explanations are held by the vast majority of bullied targets.

What cannot be ascertained by this simple survey is whether bullied targets had the shame and guilt prior to their experiences with bullying or changed from the prolonged exposure to it. That is, we know emotional and stress-related injuries from bullying change individuals. It is also likely that bullying lowers one’s resistance to shame (and personal self-elevation and self-validation abilities), resulting in shame.

The WBI commitment to public education about workplace bullying necessarily must focus on target perceptions about themselves in order to optimize their mental health for the battles ahead. Neither shame nor guilt helps one cope with bullying.

A recent online poll conducted on the Workplace Bullying Institute’s website supported the common sense argument that workplace bullying strains the target’s primary relationship at home.

Here are the results:
Since becoming the target of workplace bullying, my relationship with my partner (primary source of emotional support) has been:

• Strained; we experience more conflict or stress as a result (62%)
• Strengthened; we are closer and more connected (17%)
• Dissolved; we are estranged/separated/divorced (14%)
• Unsure how the experience has affected my relationship (4%)
• Unaffected; the bullying has not had an impact (3%)

The vast majority (76%) of respondents reported negative consequences for their relationship, indicating it was marked by more conflict and stress or had been dissolved since being targeted by workplace bullying. Intuitively this makes sense, as the target, under significant pressure, relies on the support of his/her partner to understand and cope with adverse work conditions. The target uses his/her partner as a sounding board and filter for trying to comprehend the injustice of the situation. As expected, the increased and repetitive focus on work stress and anxiety strains the couple’s relationship over time.

In my role as the professional coach for the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI), I’ve spent countless hours on the phone with targets offering customized strategies for dealing with workplace bullying. The topic of relationship strain is a common one and I’d like to take this opportunity to share a few insights from my work with couples as a licensed mental health therapist and my training through WBI.

Knowing that the experience of being targeted by workplace bullying can cause tension in your relationship, here are a few suggestions and examples of how to help ward off the negative effects of this stress.

Set Healthy Relationship Goals
What is important to you as a couple? What parts of your relationship do you want to strengthen?

Put some thought into where you want to invest your time and energy. Think about how the two of you can work together to accomplish mutually agreed upon goals and counteract the stress you are experiencing. To increase your chance of success, make sure your goals are SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely).

Case Study: I recently worked with a target and her husband to address the relationship challenges they faced. “Jan” and “Brian” reported spending more time fighting since Jan had been targeted by a workplace bully than they ever had in the 15 years prior. I asked them each (independently) to identify the top 10 values in their relationship (e.g., intimacy, fidelity, honesty, effective parenting, spontaneity, fun, etc.). The next week, I asked Brian and Jan to share their respective lists and select the top three values they could mutually agree upon. From the short-list, we established goals designed to increase the focus on what they acknowledged as being the most important elements of a healthy relationship. Jan and Brian committed to engaging in two activities per week to advance their goals and built time into their busy schedules to focus solely on their relationship. After three weeks, Brian reported a major shift in the home environment. He said he truly looked forward to coming home each night (something he once dreaded due to Jan’s emotional state after work). Jan said she felt much more supported by Brian and that the “feeling of walking on eggshells” was gone. Together, they noted a significant decrease in marital conflict. Jan recently escaped her workplace bullying situation and Brian and Jan continue to set and achieve goals based on their relationship values.

Expand Your Social Support Network
Everyone needs a social support network, especially in times of stress. Your social support network is made up of friends, family, co-workers, and peers. It is important to build these connections, in part because reaching out to others reduces the strain placed on the relationship with your partner. Additionally, the variety of perspectives offered by the different members of your support network may help you find solutions and opportunities you otherwise might not have considered.

Growing and maintaining your support network is not difficult. For example, you can find new people by joining a social club, church, community education class, or seeking out volunteering opportunities. Maintain these relationships with casual, low-stress activities such as lunch dates with friends, coffee with co-workers, and phone calls and emails to family members and friends.

Though the time you spend with them may look different, you may want to consider expanding your network to include helping professionals (e.g., mental health therapist, physician, mentor, support group, spiritual leader, massage therapist, etc.).

Putting the effort into building a support network is a wise investment, not only in your mental well-being, but also in your physical health and longevity. A strong social support network offers a sense of belonging and security, as well as an increased sense of self-worth. Additionally, research shows that those who enjoy high levels of social support stay healthier and live longer!

Nourish Your Relationship
Similar to setting healthy relationship goals, this suggestion requires an intentional and concentrated focus on the couple. One way you can nourish your relationship is by planning and participating in activities you both enjoy. You do not have to invest a great deal of time and money, just some creative thought.

Try a date night, a picnic, a mini-getaway, take a class together, look through old photos/videos, commit to walking/exercising together, exchange love notes, prepare your favorite meal together, have a game night, read to one another…the possibilities are truly endless. Start by creating a list of your favorite activities and once a week (or more often) simply choose something from this list. It doesn’t need to be a big production, it just needs to be time spent together, focused on something enjoyable. Note: Not every activity you do together will be a resounding success, but don’t give up (and remember to try and laugh at the less-than-successful ones).

Educate Your Partner
The experience of being targeted can be a very lonely one. Many targets report a sense of isolation at work, especially when co-workers and supervisors witness the bullying behavior, but fail to take action or support the target. This sense of isolation may be further complicated by the fact that the target’s friends and family do not understand the phenomenon of workplace bullying. The people around you might encourage you to “buck up,” “quit that job,” or to “just leave your problems at work.” This advice, though well intentioned, is not helpful to a target merely searching for an empathic and compassionate response.

Education is the most powerful tool humans possess. Targets have valuable knowledge gained through personal experience and research conducted on websites and in books like ours. Share this information with your partner, but be careful not to overwhelm him/her. People learn best when they move at their own pace.

Point your partner to a small section of the website or a chapter in the Namies’ book, The Bully at Work. Ask him/her to watch a video or listen to an audio clip. WBI offers many resources on our website, including an introductory brochure designed to share with friends and family. If your partner has never been exposed to workplace bullying, it is understandable why s/he may not be sensitive to your experience. Education is the key to empathy.

Release Your Partner
Our partners care very deeply for us. They see when we are hurting and want to make it better. Workplace bullying sometimes results in a very real and severe psychological injury–the kind of injury your partner cannot repair on his/her own. It can help a great deal to simply tell your partner that you genuinely appreciate his/her concern and desire to “fix” the situation; however, it is not something s/he can fix.

Release your partner from the shame, guilt, and anger associated with feeling helpless to correct the problem. You can let your partner know you want and need his/her support, but that this is a situation you must solve on your own. I can’t tell you how many times clients have told me that this sincere, straightforward message saved their relationship.

Jessi Eden Brown, MS, LMHC, LPC is the professional coach for WBI and a licensed therapist in private practice. She provides targets with emotional support and customized strategies for effectively addressing workplace bullying.

Partners are invited to be involved in the coaching process in the event they (a) don’t understand or believe what is happening, or (b) want to be able to provide better support to their bullied partner. Coaching fees are not affected by the decision to include a partner. Learn more about WBI’s coaching services.

If you are the target of workplace bullying, find additional help here.

The WBI 2003 online survey reported that the five top reasons individuals are targeted for bullying, in rank order, were: (1) refusal to be subservient (being independent), (2) being more technically skilled than the bully, (3) being liked by co-workers/customers (being the go-to expert), (4) being ethical and honest, and (5) not being sufficiently political. Thus, people are targeted for their strengths and the threats they pose to the defensive, narcissistic perpetrator.

In the scientific (nationally representative) 2010 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey, respondents could check whether they had a college degree (or beyond) or whether they did not have a degree. That allows us to determine if the reported experiences with bullying differed according to education level.

The prevalence question given to respondents was: “At work, what is your experience with any or all of the following types of repeated mistreatment: sabotage by others that prevented work from getting done, verbal abuse, threatening conduct, intimidation or humiliation?”  Here are the responses sorted by education and compared to the overall sample.

Note that the respondents with more formal education reported a higher bullying rate. Not having a college degree was associated with a higher denial of bullying rate. Myth busted.

Gary Namie, PhD
Research Director, Workplace Bullying Institute
© 2010 Workplace Bullying Institute

Our anecdotal experiences, however, may not accurately reflect the national experience. According to the 2010 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey, it appears that the 30-49 year age group is the most vulnerable. This finding reflects another major difference between the target audience for WBI and the broader population of adult Americans. Here are the results.

Respondents were asked: “At work, what is your experience with any or all of the following types of repeated mistreatment: sabotage by others that prevented work from getting done, verbal abuse, threatening conduct, intimidation or humiliation?”

For each prevalence question response category, the percentages for each age group are given.

Individuals in the 30-49 age group were the most frequently bullied. The 18-29 year olds were the second highest in currently being bullied and witnessing. The 50-64 year olds were the second highest in being previously but not now currently bullied and in not having any experience with bullying.

The 30-49 age group is also the likeliest representative of the current workforce. The survey respondents included workers and non-workers, all adult Americans. The 30-49′ers are the ones in harm’s way, the most vulnerable to bullying simply by virtue of employment.

Clearly, the national picture does not match our anecdotal database of primarily older workers.

Note how high is the proportion of 50-64 year olds who have historically been bullied. Again, reflecting on the nature of the national survey sample, many of those who had been bullied may now be out of the workforce (often involuntarily). Therefore, they have the lowest rate of currently being bullied.

Gary Namie, PhD
Research Director, Workplace Bullying Institute
© 2010 Workplace Bullying Institute

By contrast, the respondents to the 2010 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey (n=4,210) reported a much different story about the recession’s impact. The large scientific (nationally representative) sample included lots of people who either deny bullying’s existence or have a limited experience with it.  Here is the comparison of results from the two studies.

2010 survey question: Has the bullying problem at your workplace changed since the recession (approx. Sept. 2008)?

2009 survey question: Did the bullying change since the economic downturn (Sept. 2008)?

The reader can see the striking difference experience with being bullied makes — 9% vs. 28% who believed that due to the recession, bullying worsened.

In addition to the sampling differences, there were slight variations in definitions used in the two surveys. For the national survey, we stated that: “For the purposes of this survey, workplace bullying is defined as the repeated mistreatment of an individual employee by a person or a group directed that takes the form of verbal abuse, behavior that is humiliating, threatening, intimidating, or sabotage of the targeted person’s work.” For the online 2009 survey, we defined bullying as: “sabotage that prevents work from getting done, verbal abuse, threatening conduct, intimidation, humiliation, or exploitation of a known vulnerability (psychological or physical).” This is the definition used by WBI and codified in the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill.

You can download the results of the Summer 2009 survey — The Economic Crisis and Bullying.

Gary Namie, PhD
Research Director, Workplace Bullying Institute
© 2010 Workplace Bullying Institute

In August, 2010 WBI conducted a follow-up study to compare 2007 prevalence rates to 2010 rates.

Here are the results.

In both measurement periods, respondents were asked the following: At work, what is your experience with any or all of the following types of repeated mistreatment: sabotage by others that prevented work from getting done, verbal abuse, threatening conduct, intimidation or humiliation?

The obvious finding is that rates are stable. Bullying remains a problem for over a third of the population. Given the margin of error for the 2010 survey, the figures are essentially equivalent.

The decline in the reported current rate of bullying is probably best attributed to the fear and stigma that shrouds the phenomenon of workplace bullying. Bullied targets feel ashamed that it happened to them (though they did not seek it). That suppresses reporting.

There is an ever-present fear of retaliation for reporting it. However, this real-world experience should not govern choices on an anonymous questionnaire. Instead, we believe that into national polls is creeping an unwillingness for respondents to make declarations that best serve their personal interests. That is, there is an increasing reluctance to believe that workers deserve rights.

After 40 years of a steady diet of pro-corporate media messages that what is good for corporations is good for America and to believe otherwise is un-American, it seems individuals are uncritically accepting the message despite its harmful consequences to those same individuals. Unions have been vilified. Workers are told they are lucky to have work. Exposure to these messages convince workers to be submissive, to stop believing that they are entitled to work free from abuse.

To declare you are bullied may require more independence, pride, and self-assurance than we originally thought.

We originally hypothesized that bullying rates would have increased since the great economic recession. It sounds logical. However, in a separate question, we explored this question. Few respondents reported that their workplace situations worsened since late 2008. The potential explanation can be found in our report of that finding — Recession & Bullying: 2010 WBI Survey.

In conclusion, we accept the stability of workplace bullying prevalence since 2007 as evidence that the problem is still worthy of elimination. Much work remains to stop bullying for the 35% of affected Americans.

WBI Research Director, Gary Namie, PhD
© 2010, Workplace Bullying Institute

2010. Zogby International was commissioned by the Workplace Bullying Institute to conduct an online survey of 2,092 adults from 8/18/10 to 8/23/10. A sampling of Zogby International’s online panel, which is representative of the adult population of the U.S., was invited to participate. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, gender, education to more accurately reflect the population. The margin of error was +/- 2.2 percentage points.

For the 2010 survey, we addressed the missing groups — those who are both targets of bullying and witnesses. Finally, we asked if respondents were perpetrators, the bullies. A tiny proportion (7/2092) admitted to being one.

The results show that the majority have the dual experience of being bullied and witnessing it.

Here is the complete breakdown.

WBI Research Director, Gary Namie, PhD
© 2010, Workplace Bullying Institute

What does official Washington say about the recession’s impact? Mostly that things are getting better because banks and investment houses reported record profits last quarter. Recovery is underway. The one nagging problem is that it is a “jobless recovery.” To hell with the quarter of the population looking for jobs that will never materialize or working for peanuts in demeaning jobs for wages that cannot keep a family afloat. Where is our leaders’ compassion for people suffering?

Annie Lowrey writing for the Washington Independent (Death and Joblessness, 8/17/10) explored in depth anecdotal tales of suicide and hopelessness at the website Unemployed Friends. She interviewed a CDC spokeswoman who timidly said that “more studies” are needed to understand the link between economic strain (I say catastrophe) and risk factors for suicide. Some economists are studying the link between joblessness and suicide. Despite the lagging social science research on the topic, it seems intuitively clear that once a person’s identity is taken from her or him, and the ability to support one’s family is lost, it is easy for serious emotional destabilization to follow.

School suicides related to bullying always grab headlines. Sometimes, they result in state laws, like in Massachusetts following the Phoebe Prince suicide. Without a doubt, suicides are a cry for help from young people. Schools are often too poor to have licensed psychologists available anymore. The opportunity to prevent is lost simply for budget reasons. Budgets reflect organization values. To ignore the message, as schools do, is to risk becoming a hardened institution incapable of empathy. How could it not adversely affect learning, the core mission?

Serial suicides at Foxconn, the Taiwanese employer hiring and exploiting Chinese workers on behalf of American high tech companies like Apple, also made headlines for a while. The story behind the story was that working conditions were inhumane in many ways including the prohibition of worker-to-worker contact on the shop floor. The employer eventually did raise salaries to be equivalent to rates workers once made only with overtime. But it is unlikely that production floor conditions were modified. Non-unionized workers lack the voice to demand a psychologically healthy workplace in any country, including the U.S.

Noteworthy U.S. workplace suicides

The 2010 University of Virginia Kevin Morrissey suicide grabbed headlines because his surviving sister dared to suggest that her brother’s boss had tormented him for 3 years. One journalism ethics professor suggested that suicide stories are taboo in the media because victims tend to be flawed, broken people.

Jodie Zebell was a conscientious 31 year old Wisconsin mammographer who was initially bullied by health clinic co-workers who resented her skill. The supervisor joined in. She took her own life months later in 2008.

Marlene Braun was an environmentally oriented doctoral scientist working her dream job for the Bureau of Land Management in California. She inherited a new boss with a bachelor’s degree and the political mandate to violate land stewardship ethics. He resented her skill, knowledge and ongoing relationships with everyone involved with protecting the land. She committed suicide in 2005.

Unfortunately the failure to report suicides keeps hidden several compelling reasons to change institutions that can drive an otherwise sane person to take her or his own life when there is no perceived way out.

Massacres, not Suicides

The American way of dealing with seemingly unsolvable personal and economic problems seems to be to direct violence toward others. According to one study conducted after the September 2008 beginning of the recession, there has been a 73% rise in domestic violence cases due to “financial issues.” State budget cuts are depriving women of support in dealing with partner violence when funding for shelters, sexual assault, and other social services.

And in a more familiar headline-grabbing style, a massacre occurred at a small firm in Connecticut this summer. It is safe to expect more to come in the future.

The challenge is for Americans and American media to recognize, and to not ignore, suicides and the underlying organizational causes that contribute to those decisions. It’s time to stop automatically assigning violence victims (and suicide is inwardly directed lethal violence) sole responsibility for the myriad of conditions that led up to suicide. Yes, the decision was ultimately the individual’s to make. However, suicide is not a snap, impulsive decision. It is the culmination of a series of negative events that led to the hopelessness. And like a victim of abuse, the greatest harm comes from prolonged, unremitting exposure to stress. Psychosocial stressors are not imagined. They are part of the environment — family, workplace, society — and external to the affected individual.

Causation is always a mix of external and internal factors. It is never completely the result of an individual’s personality. But much work remains to convince the public and media who are content with simple one-sided explanations that the mostly invisible situational/environmental/external factors contribute mightily, often outweighing personality as predictors.

Suicide is a social marker, an indication, that the society is mistreating its people while offering few ways to heal or to discover alternatives. Those who choose suicide are the “canaries in the coal mine” early readers of a toxic world gone awry.

We owe a great deal to the brave, desperate souls who took their own lives. To enoble their decisions, we must learn what they were trying to tell us through the ultimate sacrifice.

According to the University of Western Ontario press release, high levels of cortisol found in hair proved to be a higher risk factor than either age, blood pressure or cholesterol.

Be aware that this is a preliminary study about a technique not yet commercially available, but ….

Here is the CBC report (by the bald guy) about the study.

The study can be downloaded here.

The citation:  Relationship between hair cortisol concentrations and depressive symptoms in patients with coronary artery disease.  by Y. Dowlati, et al. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, June 24 2010, 6, 393-400.

The question asked: “Do you support or oppose enactment of workplace bullying laws that would protect all workers from what can be considered malicious, health-harming abusive conduct committed by bosses and co-workers?” This is the language of the HWB. Here are the results for the entire national sample as well as by political ideology and race.

For comparison, consider that the Sunday newspaper magazine, Parade, asked the same question in a July 18, 2010 article titled: “Workplace Bullying: Do We Need a Law?” The magazine’s online poll results found overwhelming support for a law — 92% yes.

According to a WBI Instant Poll posted on July 23, 2010, 96.8% of 252 online respondents stated their support for a workplace bullying law.

Readers will want to digest Suffolk Law Professor David Yamada’s thorough and thoughtful Labor Day 2010 analysis of the liberal, moderate and conservative features of the Healthy Workplace Bill. He is the bill’s author.

WBI Research Director, Gary Namie, PhD
© 2010, Workplace Bullying Institute

A recently published journal article by Janet Raver confirmed that those who endure ethnic harassment (which is legal and actionable) have their misery compounded when also bullied. It is an additive effect. [Once, twice or three times as harmful? Ethnic harassment, gender harassment and generalized workplace harassment.  by J.L. Raver & L.H. Nishii.  Journal of Applied Psychology,  2010, 95 (2), 236-254.]

WBI Research Director, Gary Namie, PhD
© 2010, Workplace Bullying Institute

Because bullying ignores gender and rank boundaries, it makes sense that hyperaggressive perpetrators of abusive misconduct do not identify with a particular political party. Nor are targets selected principally based on a political ideology.

However, in the 2007 WBI survey and now again in the 2010 WBI national survey, the reported prevalence rates for bullying differ based on party affiliation and ideology. Here are the results and comparisons with the national average.

Question: “At work, what is your experience with any or all of the following types of repeated mistreatment: sabotage by others that prevented work from getting done, verbal abuse, threatening conduct, intimidation or humiliation?”

Survey respondents were asked if they identified with one of the two major political parties or if they self-identified as independents.

A similar pattern emerges when respondents were asked to identify their political ideology.

Thus, Republicans and Conservatives reported less bullying and were more likely to report no experience with bullying at all. In other words, party affiliation and ideology may be serve as a perceptual filter, a lens through which the phenomenon of bullying is interpreted.

Many people do not realize they are being bullied. It is a shameful experience that one does not readily admit to. It’s a stigmatizing act. The findings above illustrate that a conservative perspective makes one less likely to admit that bullying (“repeated mistreatment” as used in the definition in the survey) occurs; conversely, being politically liberal seems to make a person more likely to define observed or experienced misconduct as bullying.

What cannot be determined from the data alone is whether conservatives underestimate bullying that is occurring or if liberals overestimate its occurrence.

WBI Research Director, Gary Namie, PhD
© 2010, Workplace Bullying Institute

Gender of targets:  58% are women;  42% are men

Gender of perpetrators:  62% men;  38% women

Men bullies target  men in 55.5% of cases; women in 45.5%

What tends to make news (based on the 2007 WBI findings) is that women bullies target women in 79.8% of cases;  men in 20.2%.  In 2007, the woman-on-woman bullying prevalence was 71%. Now it is 80%. Looks like the American workplace is grower ever more toxic for women, at the hands of women.

The frequencies of all gender dyads of all bullying: 34% male perp/male target;  30% female perp/female target; 28% male perp/female target; and  8% female perp/male target.

For our set of alternative explanations for this phenomenon, read this. and a UK story and the Today Show.

All of the above results are from Survey 1 (details below). The results below are from Survey 2 (details below).

Female and male survey respondents reacted differently to the prevalence question.

WBI Research Director, Gary Namie, PhD
© 2010, Workplace Bullying Institute

Survey 2. Zogby International was commissioned by the Workplace Bullying Institute to conduct an online survey of 2,092 adults from 8/18/10 to 8/23/10.  The margin of error is +/- 2.2 percentage points.

Another good person is a New York City-based HR professional who blogs and has written a book called the HR Toolkit and works with our NY State group to pass the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill, despite SHRM’s official opposition to the legislation.

I write this love letter at the request of HR folks who hate reading the negative news about how HR does too little to stop bullying within their organizations. Believe me, I hate the fact that HR doesn’t help enough, too.

Really, I want to tout the value HR brings to organizations, but I need proof. I do not demonize HR. They are not wicked, ok maybe threatening, but not demonic. But I report the experiences bullied targets tell us. It’s that simple.

Clearly individuals are separate from the institutional role that dictates that they serve their executive masters and allow bullies to operate with impunity. The caveat is that whatever personal conflict over doing the right thing or the commanded or expected thing should compel more HR folks to be ethical, right and just.

That’s why I rely on empirical and anecdotal data to shape the story. HR folks, here is what 462 people who probably had been bullied told us on our summer 2010 online Instant Poll.

The percentage of cases in which HR took action and stopped the bullying: 3.4. There it is — the good news. Headline:  HR Effectively Stops Bullying (3% of the time). HR you earned it. Celebrate. The 3%-ers are the good people. But what about the rest of you?

In 60% of cases HR did nothing after bullying was reported to them. Doing nothing was followed by an increase in bullying, for 26.6% of respondents.

Worse still, HR botched matters by taking action that helped the alleged bully and hurt the complainant in 32.5% of cases.

This is the reality confirmed by WBI coaches who have listened to over 6,000 detailed tales. And you might want to view the contributions to the WBI HR Forum.

Don’t get defensive. Don’t attack WBI. Just do the right thing for the person hurt by the ones typically more powerful. Stop siding with the powerful just to keep your job or to curry favor from them. Grow a conscience. Be moral leaders. Teach executives about bullying and show them how destructive it is, for people and for leaders.

Now the Good News …

Here’s some great news for HR staffers. Though you have not fooled those who turned to you for help inside your organizations, the general public believes that HR is serving aggrieved employees. This statistic is derived from the latest 2010 WBI scientific national poll.

14.3% of adult Americans credited HR with taking appropriate actions that stopped the bullying with positive outcomes for the target (compared to the 3.4% from the non-scientific online poll of people with actual experience as customers or HR).

Botched efforts occurred in only 5.3% of cases.

HR doing nothing was estimated at 24.9%, allowing the bullying to continue but in only 6.2% of situations was the target harmed by increased bullying.

In the majority of cases, 51%  of adult Americans , survey respondents were not sure if HR was told about the workplace bullying situation.

So, HR, please do not demonize WBI. Do better and we will gladly report it.

• HR & Ombuds. = useless
• Mgr. Bully – Divide and conquer: A new manager who was not well-received by the team [due to regular Monday hangovers, regular tardiness, DUI conviction, and skipping out on meetings] works to separate people that work well as a team by telling people individually that their coworkers said nasty things about them. [lies] Then, try to convince each person that the bully is the only friend they have.
• Mgr. Bully: Organize team events that involve activities or locations that an experienced, degreed, older, physically handicapped team member cannot participate in or gain access to and chastise target in front of the whole (much younger) team for not being a team player. Be sure to mention in target’s performance review so it follows them for the rest of their career at this company and prevents them from being able to post for other positions.
• Drop doors in face; leave handicapped target trapped in meeting rooms with heavy doors & no H/C buttons. Chastise for being late getting back.
• Bully and Assistants: Spray the air and/or cubicle with heavy perfume, on or near a highly-qualified worker who suffers from asthma, knowing it will result in a serious attack. Then, complain to personnel that the person hurt their feelings and made nasty gestures (choking, coughing) because they like to wear perfume. Be sure to recruit friends to spray the area as well so the target is regularly ill. Then try to befriend the target by saying how sorry you are that they are ill all the time, and suggest that they go out on disability. Offer to do anything you can to help with this.
• Asst. Bullies = brown-nosers who are afraid for themselves: Offer to help the target when the workload in their area is unusually heavy, then sabotage the work knowing the issues that result will be pinned on the target who is responsible for certain business locations.
• Mgr. Bully: Tell the team to compile and deliver a presentation to the whole division about the team’s function within the business. When the target gets up to speak, interrupt right away and say in a nasty tone “we are running out of time, hurry up.” Then, allow the team members that follow to each spend 20+ minutes with their parts of the presentation. In addition to public humiliation, be sure to mention in target’s performance review that they did not do their fair share of the presentation.
• Mgr. Bully: When asking for ideas from the team, always shoot down suggestions from the target (before they can even finish a sentence)in a mocking tone of voice. Be sure to roll eyes and sigh for added effect. Then turn attention to asst. bullies and praise all of their suggestions even if the ideas are irrelevant. (Ex: teambuilding exercise suggestions. Target suggest: Fish Philosophy event from Charthouse Learning. Assistant Bully suggests: Get together in a room to put seeds and dirt into pots. Go back to work.)
• Send meeting invites with no room specified. Day of meeting, tell target that a room hasn’t been found. When target heads to restroom, alert Asst. Bullies and all disappear. Scold target for missing meeting. Mention in performance review.
• Area Atty’s bought by Corp. – won’t fight it.

Trish

While here, take a second to take the Instant Poll on HR’s efficacy.

The arguments in both sides of the debate follow.

My, my, my. What am I to do with Human Resources, the “Dark Arts” department according to former HR Director Bruce Cameron in the documentary Fired! The Movie and in Denise A. Romano’s new book The HR Toolkit: An Indispensable Resource for Being A Credible Activist? And recently, Yale Law lecturer and Time writer, Adam Cohen, during a discussion on CNN about our anti-bullying legislation stated as a matter of fact that HR is not on the workers’ side in bullying situations (at time1:58 in the video).

Consider some evidence. The stories WBI has culled from 6,000+ hour-long sessions with targets of workplace bullying since beginning this work 13 years ago have produced only TWO (2) stories of HR bravery, courage and morality — of doing the right thing for the target and not for the bully or her or his management allies. Empirical evidence from WBI year 2000 survey of 1,300 targets suggest that HR did nothing in 51% of cases and worsened the situation for targets in 32% of cases. The bully’s bosses were slightly worse (40% did nothing, 42% increased the hurt). You say the findings came from a “nonscientific” study. True.

According to the 2007 national sample polled by Zogby for WBI, of all adult Americans who witnessed or experienced bullying themselves, 44% said that employers (most likely an HR rep) did nothing when bullying was reported and 18% said the employer made conditions worse. That was a large, scientific sample.

The anecdotal and empirical evidence combines with our on-site consulting experiences over the years with HR. Never has an anti-bullying initiative been successful in the long-term when HR was the sole driving force. In most cases, HR undermines the intervention after the Work Doctor consultants leave. In a recent intervention, the HR rep actually denigrated the internal team of peer experts who committed their time and energy to help their colleagues deal with bullying. That HR rep did so during the training, before the program could be implemented. It seems destructive HR practitioners are growing more brazen.

Here is the most frequent scenario. Bullied targets suffer for months, in silence and shame. The well-known history of local HR’s failure to help dampens targets’ eagerness to complain. Powerless to confront or to level the field of combat, they seek the employer’s help finding relief from their uninvited misery. They tell HR their story. The first question considered is if they have the right to complain. If the magic combination of membership in a protected status group by the target while the alleged bully is not also protected is not satisfied, the complainant is rejected by HR. The law simply does not apply in most cases of bullying or plain cruelty. Without laws, there is next to no employer incentive to help workers even though bullying is costly and torpedoes the mission or reason to be in business.Targets are de-legitimized. HR typically alerts the bully that she or he is being complained about. Retaliation for daring to expose the chicanery follows.

If a law (and therefore an on-the-books policy) applies, HR accepts the formal complaint. And in cases of alleged sexual harassment or racial discrimination, regardless of targets’ expectation of safety for simply asking if an anti-discrimination policy was violated, HR launches an investigation without their permission. Reprisals ensue (retaliation in 60% of cases, WBI 2009 survey). HR acts as judge and jury. Typically one person conducts the “investigation.” Petrified witnesses do not cooperate. The bully says she or he didn’t do it. Targets, by then emotional wrecks, are doubted or flatly treated like liars. The bully got away with it. Targets stew over the injustice of such sham “investigations.” In a WBI 2008 study, 40% of targets claimed that HR’s investigations were “unfair or inadequate.” With few findings in the targets’ favor, bullies quickly learn that they can act with impunity (with 89% confidence, WBI, 2009 survey). No one can, or is willing to, stop them — certainly not HR whose primary function is management support (and 72% of bullies are bosses).

That’s the reality for too many innocent targets.

Into the debate I add our 9-year old Healthy Workplace Bill Campaign, the grassroots drive to enact anti-bullying laws for the workplace. The bill holds individual offenders and employers accountable for repeated, malicious health-harming abusive conduct by bosses and co-workers. Sounds like support should be a no-brainer. Who in the world would OPPOSE legislation aimed at humanizing the workplace? Who could assume the morally dubious position of claiming that no law is needed when bullying occurs at the inarguable rate affecting 37% of adult Americans (54 million Americans in the workforce)?  Are you surprised that the HR trade association — SHRM — Society for Human Resource Management opposed the HWB in 2010.

If decent individuals who work in HR stand-up for employees and support the HWB, show me where they have written protests to SHRM to act more humanely and honorably.

Funny thing about the notion of HR as a profession. Professions require some minimal formal education, years of documented practica, licensure, and practicing in a manner subject to state regulations designed to protect consumers. Think of medicine, law, dentistry or mental health counseling as examples of professions. But HR? A 2006 poll of over 5,000 HR reps found that 46% of respondents thought that a college degree (Bachelor’s level) was NOT required to be a “HR leader.” We’re not talking about the lowest entry-level assistant or coordinator. Imagine an uneducated Vice President of HR without a degree! Perhaps just drawing a salary to differentiate oneself from a volunteer is adequate to become a self-described professional.

The trade group, SHRM, substitutes education for its own certification credentials. The acronyms are downright funny. PHR, SPHR (Senior Professional in Human Resources) and GPHR (Global Professional in Human Resources). HR uniforms with fancy epaulets and brass buttons to convey certificated members could be the next step for credibility. The dismal performance record certainly doesn’t match the pomp and bluster.

If HR had helped employees and proven its worth to executives by valuing their contributions beyond merely busting unions and trying to minimize damage from litigation, its practitioners would long ago have achieved parity with corporate finance executives and be beloved by unions. Every HR conference in every year has some variation of the “take us seriously, we mean it!” theme. If it’s a “profession,” it is a vain one, though lacking a healthy dose of profession-esteem.

Am I unsympathetic as an outsider? No. I was an HR director working under two putz VPs in different corporations. One fellow’s sole function was to make sure the multiple CEO’s and fellow VP’ers had company cars. He was the last one to turn out the lights when that corporation drove into the fiscal ditch and dissolved. I also know how HR Management should be run and what it could accomplish with talented people at the helm. I taught graduate university HRM courses in days past.

I share all of this background and evidence to help defensive HR reps and their apologists understand why I criticize HR as a function, a department, a service — not the few brave individuals who buck the trend and act with decency. Broad sweeping generalizations or stereotypes are only unfair if they are not true. I’ve shown above why I can say that HR, with few exceptions, is a morally bankrupt internal organizational service that contemporary organizations should consider dropping.

Any HR types who want to become citizen lobbyists (and risk their jobs for doing so, I might add) on behalf of our Healthy Workplace Bill. Find your state at this website and volunteer. If you are that committed, volunteer to become State Coordinator in the 19 states that don’t yet have a Coordinator.

Cavaet: A Denmark consulting acquaintance reports that in her country HR and the unions are aligned against bullying. HR does not defend abusers. The enemy is the destructive phenonmenon, not employees victimized by it. If only this were true in the U.S. and Canada.

You Lost Me at Disingenuous
by Sharon Sellars, SPHR, GPHR

As an HR professional (yes, professional) for over 25 years, I have seen firsthand the impact that workplace bullying has on employees and employers.  Now, as a consultant, at least 25% of my business is either a request for anti-bullying training or an appeal to assist a client employer with what turns out to be a bullying problem.  When I found your website and learned more about the Healthy Workplace Bill, I was excited that perhaps I could become an advocate to increase awareness of this growing problem in business.

That was before I read your comments regarding the SHRM opinion.  I am a member of SHRM, along with over 250,000 other HR professionals.  That does not mean that I agree with every opinion that it generates any more than any AARP member agrees with everything AARP does or any business agrees with everything the Chamber advocates.  In your response to SHRM’s opinion, you successfully alienated every HR person who might view your website.  Your responses came across as completely anti-HR, anti-business, and pro-union.  By adding these additional ingredients into your bowl, you have created a recipe for failure.

To clarify, by being in the business for as long as I have, I have met 1000’s of people in HR and people who own businesses who sincerely care about the welfare of the employees who work with them.  The business literature is filled with documented facts regarding employers who show that with caring, rewarding, recognition-filled, family-friendly workplaces not only do we increase retention but we also increase productivity.  No matter what you think, I have been an employee advocate all of my professional life and I can introduce you to thousands of others in HR who are as well.  Your comment that only unions are employee advocates is laughable and I could write my own dissertation regarding why unions are more “big business” than any conglomerate I can think of.

My point here is NOT to get into a war of employer vs. union.  There is a bigger issue here.  I sincerely think that the Healthy Workplace Bill has merit and even if it does not pass, it could be very successful in increasing the awareness of bullying in the workplace.  Your biggest potential advocates are the HR professionals as we are the ones who have witnessed it, have had to deal with it, have had to play “CSI” to figure out what is going on.  We are the ones who investigate why a long time employee is suddenly missing work, why productivity in a certain department is down, why the new manager is trying to terminate someone who had high performance marks for previous years and most importantly why employees are enduring emotional distress at the hands of others.  Many times unearth a bully issue.  Even if one HR organization is not going to support your Bill, I believe that you are doing a disservice to your cause by writing off the individual HR professionals themselves.  By one figurative swoop of your pen, you offended the very people who can help this Bill pass.

So the real question here is – do you want the bill to pass or are you just trying to sell books or promote unions?  If it is the former, then I recommend that you rewrite your responses to the SHRM opinion into a fashion where you respond to SHRM’s opinion and not personally attack the HR professional.  If it is either of the latter two, then you are the one who is disingenuous and I will not support your Bill.

S. Sellars
SLS Consulting
Summerville, SC

G. Namie

A 2008 book, Depraved Indifference: The Workers Compensation System by Patrice Woeppel, is described in an interview with the author by Frank Smecker. If you have any doubts that the system was created by and for employers to stave off lawsuits, read the interview and book. The system pays only 27% on average of the illness and injury costs for workers. Corrupt employer-only physicians never acknowledge injuries caused by employers. Having a separate occupational health insurance system locks out work-related illness and injury from the regular health care insurance system. The book author also posits several recommendations for changing the corrupt WC system.

Top-Down/Shut-Up Workplace Breed Disaster

Who says workplace culture doesn’t matter? When oil platform engineers tried to warn BP about potential risks of rushing installation of the well without adequate safety checks, they were told to shut up. The environment and the entire Gulf economy pay. In bullying-prone workplaces, the rules always dictate command and control from the top, no use even raising concerns, you’ll have your head handed to you. Targets pay with their health, jobs, careers. A Gary Namie podcast.

Download Podcast 17 (in .mp3 format)

Read the several wise comments at the Chronicle site to see how few support this notion. The Conflict Resolution industry completely missed opportunities to report and address workplace bullying before the bullying movement appeared on the scene. They have had decades to develop systemic solutions and to educate leaders in their organizations. They have done none of these things.

In other words, if ADR proponents had recognized workplace bullying for the destructive phenomenon it is, they could/would/should have acted. Instead they were blinded by their ambition to sit at the right of CEOs and be taken seriously. When the focus is up the hierarchical chain, the needs of real workers are ignored. It’s an industry in serious need of justifying itself to survive, given its relative invisibility in the C-suite.

Now conflict resolution types are trying to claim part of the solution to bullying simply because bullying is  a “hot topic.” Why has the AAA never contacted WBI to discuss collaborations or to send representatives to WBI University Training for Professionals to learn the fundamentals from us? Because they have no interest.

To ADR practitioners, we say you had your chance to help but blew it. There is ample historical proof that you don’t understand either the impact of bullying on people or don’t care. Both groups are apologists for bullies in the workplace providing institutional cover by making it appear that “something” is being done. ADR solutions are illusory band-aids that accomplish no long-term success. Bullying exists because of explicit or tacit approval of executives. Executives and ADR do not communicate on a regular basis. They are not on the executive team. CEOs do not seek counsel from ADR before acting. Bullying is outside the ADR pay grade.

Solutions should be left to those of us who have championed the value of bullied targets, not hyperaggressive bullies, from the start. Organizations win secondarily when bullying stops. But to make the only goal the appearance of a conflict-free workplace is delusional. Put injured workers first. ADR never did that in their management support functions.

All the workers who have been re-traumatized and betrayed by ADR know where mediators stand on bullying. Too late to change stripes now. The American Arbitration Association’s wandering into the workplace bullying arena is a disingenuous, opportunistic endeavor. For the sake of bullied staff and faculty in American colleges and universities, please stay out. Stick to what you know; it’s certainly not bullying.

Read the many astute comments by veterans of the bullying wars in the academe and David Yamada and Loraleigh Keashly as they tell exactly how mediation produced further injuries. The comments are linked to the Chronicle article.

Finally, our position reflects an opinion about the ADR role in organizations. Roles are separate, in our mind, from the individuals trying to reduce destructive conflict. We have met several well-intentioned professionals who just happen to be ADR proponents. Lamont Stallworth is one such person. However, individual integrity notwithstanding, mediation is an inappropriate tool to mitigate bullying in the academic (or any) workplace.

Tiatorio argues that bullying serves as a crude “social stabilization strategy ingrained from an earlier clan-based life.” By using violence, the strong eliminate the social outliers, the different ones. Sounds just like social darwinism except that it comes from an advocate of societal ethics. He invokes Greek mythology describing Procrustes who attacked people and had the nasty habit of adjusting the leg length of passersby to fit a bed he had positioned conveniently on the road to Athens. Procrustes shortened legs that were too long and stretched the short ones to fit his arbitrary standard. For some bizarre reason, Tiatorio thinks Procrustes served some important social function. I do not.

However, I do agree that bullying/aggression/violence is infused, perhaps inextricably, in our culture. He doesn’t have faith that school administrators can run their buildings in ways that stop bullying or that laws work. Instead, he believes “this as an educational issue requiring a proactive, early and on-going curriculum response involving children and their families …  bullying can only be reduced through broadening our sense of community, knowing that only this can actually stabilize the group and ensure harmony.” Too bad his solution is curricular (as a former teacher) and so obtuse as to be undoable — “broaden our sense of community” — when our society grows more polarized allowing people to de-humanize and demonize others with impunity more every day.

I’m not as optimistic as in my younger years. Without the threat of undesirable consequences looming, people will choose the more expedient course of interpersonal behavior every time — aggression. No amount of bullying is good for society. It coarsens it. We grow cruder and rougher and more adversarial when no laws are present to ensure good conduct that might have been normative previously. So, let’s get real. The reason we work so hard to push for laws (the WBI Healthy Workplace Bill Legislative Campaign) is to have society officially declare that repeated abusive conduct is unacceptable!

Since Tiatoro brought up mythology, who knows which god(s) did good deeds and made peacemakers in the world?

Destructive workplace behaviors contribute to the inability to retain nurses in the healthcare environment because of the stress associated with these behaviors. Briles (2003) defined the problem of destructive workplace behavior as “working manners, habits, and styles that can directly and negatively affect the bottom line of a unit, department, and the entire organization” (Red Ink Behavior section 2).

These destructive workplace behaviors cause targeted employees to experience serious physical and psychological damage (Rowe & Sherlock, 2005), resulting in negative aspects of the EVLN model, which consists of exit – leaving employment, voice – verbal threats of retaliation, loyalty – entrapment by the organization, and neglect – willful negligence to work duties.  The resulting organizational decline costs the healthcare organization both time in retraining new employees and money to mitigate the effects of EVLN.

Considering the nursing shortage and the increasing demand for healthcare services, strategies need implemented to improve satisfaction, increase motivation, augment productivity, and improve retention to ensure safe and quality healthcare. The cause and mitigation of these destructive behaviors are illustrated by presenting a background of various aspects of cultural liability in the current nurse environment and are validated by examining three studies that address lateral/horizontal hostility as well as the supervisor or management’s roles in recognizing and addressing abuse.

Lateral Hostility

Destructive workplace behaviors consist of demeaning, abusive, and hostile communications or actions among employees. Lateral hostility or disruptive behavior among or between coworkers is prominent within the nursing profession. A survey conducted by Alspach (2007) revealed that “25% to 32% of … critical care RNs reported only fair or poor quality of interactions with peers…, especially in relation to respect and verbal abuse” (p. 10). Nurses described various forms of verbal abuse or bullying as blatant or subtle communication that caused emotional distress using words or tone as well as intimidating, threatening, or patronizing mannerisms.

Some examples of individual workplace bullying include, but are not limited to sabotaging, engaging in the silent treatment, spreading rumors, devaluing a peer, discounting input, or fault-finding.  The resulting behaviors are manifested in the EVLN model. Individual workplace bullying, “manifested by one RN toward another, represents system and cultural issues, symptoms of an emotionally, spiritually, and psychologically toxic and oppressive environment” (Alspach, 2007, p. 11). Individual or lateral destructive workplace behavior has deep seated origins. Frustrations with working conditions may cause some nurses to redirect hostile behaviors toward other nurses. Another viewpoint proclaimed bullying type behavior emerges from power struggles, leadership styles, and organizational conditions. Furthermore, some believe lateral destructive workplace behaviors are learned from the existing organizational culture.

Horizontal Hostility

Horizontal hostility involves conflict or destructive workplace behavior by group members toward other individuals outside the group or toward group members themselves as a means of conformity. Another definition of horizontal violence is groupthink. Capella University (2005) defined groupthink as a “phenomenon in which the norm for consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action” (p.217). Groupthink or mobbing emulates the concepts of horizontal violence in which an oppressive leader, who has attained a degree of status, causes oppressed group behavior. The oppressor attains the ability to control others to achieve self-serving goals in a way that humiliates or denigrates the self-esteem of those on his or her hit list and creates a toxic work environment.

Culture as a Liability

The toxic workplace environment created by dysfunctional aspects of internal and external influences creates “a culture as a liability” (Capella University, 2005, p. 491). Cultural liability is amplified when nurses experience burnout because of heavy workloads and lack of recognition. The most pressing trends that contribute to destructive workplace behaviors and foster toxic healthcare work environments include an increasing nurse workload because of an aging and growing population, increasing age of the registered nurse workforce and nurse faculty, increasing turnover of nurses, decreasing enrollment in nursing schools, and cost-cutting pressures of managed care (Jorgensen-Huston, 2003). The increased job stress associated with heavy workloads is amplified and turnover is increased when nurse managers, physicians, patient family members, patients, or coworkers fail to recognize nurses for good performance and impose abusive interactions.

The lack of recognition coupled with decreased job satisfaction intensifies destructive workplace behaviors, increases turnover, affects patient outcomes, and amplifies costs to the organization.

The cost to replace a staff nurse was 1.2 to 1.3 times that of a nurse’s average annual salary. High vacancy and turnover rates can adversely affect patient outcomes due to the loss of experienced staff and increased stress on the remaining nurses whose already heavy workload increases to overcome the effect of vacancies. (Texas Center for Nurse Workforce Studies, 2006, p.2)

Therefore, the goal for healthcare leaders is to mitigate the effects of destructive workplace behaviors causing the toxic work environment by creating a healthy work environment that supports the nurse.

Culture as an Asset

In a healthy workplace environment, nurses thrive because of increased morale, increased job satisfaction, and decreased turnover. “The environment in which RNs work is an essential issue in their job satisfaction and turnover…. and a healthy work environment is the base for recruiting and retaining nurses and ultimately for providing optimal care for patients…” (Ulrich, Lavandero, Hart, Woods, Leggett, & Taylor, 2006, p. 46). Hospitals that have achieved Magnet Status – best practices in nursing – have high satisfaction, low turnover, and optimized nurse-to-patient ratios.

Factors that contribute to Magnet Status include nurse autonomy and control over his or her working environment and effective/respectful communication among nurses, physicians, team members, and management.

The American College of Critical Care Nurses (AACN) recognized the issue of hostile or destructive workplace behaviors, mandated a zero tolerance for abuse policy, and identified some components in a healthy workplace environment to include collaborative communication; mutual respect; competent nursing leadership; protection from physical, verbal, and emotional abuse; influence and control over practice; professional development; and recognition.

Despite the AACN policy for zero tolerance for abuse, an open – online survey reported over “9000 instances” (Ulrich et al., 2006, p.54) of verbal, emotional, and physical abuse.  Nurse leaders must strive to create healthy work environments; however, as evidence from the survey results more research is needed to address destructive workplace behaviors of nurses, groups of nurses, coworkers, leadership or physicians, and clients. The following studies will explore the phenomena of destructive nurse workplace behaviors and will identify potential causes and solutions to the problem.

Rosenstein’s Study

Nurses cite physician abuse as one of the major reasons they resign. “…disruptive physician behavior refers to any inappropriate behavior, confrontation, or conflict, ranging from verbal abuse, to physical and sexual harassment….; two-thirds of nurses say they [have] been abused by physicians at least once every two to three months…” (Rosenstein, 2002, p.27). To determine the relationship between nurse turnover and abusive physician relationships as well as divergent views amongst nurses, physicians, and administration, Rosenstein (2002) administered the Nurse-Physician Relationship Survey.

The most striking finding in the survey indicated that 92.5% or 1,089 respondents have seen physicians abusing nurses (Rosenstein, 2002). The most frequent forms of abuse witnessed include physicians yelling at and berating nurses. Nurses feared retribution and believed they received minimal administrative support when physician abuse occurred. Abusive physician behavior toward nurses does increase turnover; the survey indicated that 30.7% of the respondents have either quit or witnessed another nurse quitting because of hostile physician behaviors.

Although respondents did not concur on the best approach, the most cited solutions were collaboration and communication, education and training, open forums and group discussions, and greater accountability for both nurses and physicians (Rosenstein, 2002). Accountability could be enforced by using a professional’s code of ethics, reporting abusive behaviors to the ethics committees, and establishing a zero tolerance for abuse policies as recommended by the AACN.

Rowe and Sherlock’s Study

Rowe and Sherlock’s (2005) study explored the frequencies, types, and effects of verbal abuse experienced between nurses. Based on previous studies, nurses are an oppressed group that displays characteristics of occupational burnout that turns the oppressed into the oppressor. Bullying is both psychological and physically damaging and has a direct influence on job satisfaction, morale, and retention. Victims report feelings to include, but not limited to isolation, lower self-esteem, rejection, powerlessness, uselessness, depression, and hopelessness (Rowe & Sherlock, 2005). Frequent verbal abuse with the accompanying psychological and physiological manifestations causes nurses to accept or perpetuate the destructive behavior or resign.

The results of the survey indicated that verbal abuse does occur both laterally and horizontally between nurses, but also from other sources such as physicians, patients, patient family members, and ancillary staff. The most prominent source for verbal abuse is lateral hostility between nurses (Rowe & Sherlock, 2005). The most frequent types of abuse were hostile, judgmental, and critical communications. Nurses reported both constructive and unconstructive coping behaviors ranging from clarification by dealing directly with the abusive nurse to using silence, calling in sick, complaining about the work environment, or resigning.

The recommendation to mitigate verbal abuse and its effects centers on practice management. Using creative morale building strategies is a start to change destructive workplace behaviors. One way to improve morale is to get nurses involved in decisions involving policies and procedures (Rowe & Sherlock, 2005). Empowerment is a strong motivating factor. When nurses are involved, organizational commitment and positive organizational behaviors increase. In addition to empowerment, a nurse’s morale is increased by enforcing a zero abuse policy, encouraging nurses to report abuse, and educating staff on destructive workplace behaviors.

Yildirim, Yildirim, and Timucin’s Study

Yildirim’s et al (2007) study explored mobbing or groupthink type behavior among nurse faculty in Turkey. The psychological terror of mobbing begins when a group of individuals single out one or more victims and attack their “honor, honesty, reliability, and professional ability…” (p. 447).  The various attitudes and behaviors of the oppressors create a type of “psychological violence” (p. 447) that frightens, excludes, isolates, and delays a victim from accessing organizational resources that enforce his or her rights. Mobbing is becoming more prevalent among nurses in a variety of healthcare and education environments and has devastating physical and psychological effects on victims.  Various responses to mobbing include, but are not limited to fatigue, stress, headaches, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), suicide, unexplained fears, insomnia, loss of appetite, heart palpitations, depression, weight gain or loss, neglect of work duties, absenteeism, and turnover.

Yildirim’s et al. (2007) study revealed that 91% of nursing staff who took part in the study had experienced mob type behavior and 26.6% of nursing staff experienced mobbing behavior two times a week on the average. “The most frequent forms of [mobbing] behaviors included attacks on personal status (85%) and attacks on personality (82%)…” (p. 451).  In addition to the aforementioned responses to mobbing listed in the description of the authors’ study, victims of mobbing experienced mistrust of coworkers, continuance organizational commitment, and retaliation toward other nurses. The coping mechanism most used in a mobbing situation was the victim working harder and becoming better organized to avoid criticism. Other nurses assumed a proactive approach by confronting the abusers directly and trying to work out a resolution. Fifty percent of those that experienced mobbing reported that they resigned their position.

Healthcare leaders, nurse managers, nurse educators, and nursing staff need to become more aware of mobbing behavior through formal educational forums. The extreme negative implications of destructive workplace behavior such as mobbing create long-lasting psychological consequences for the victim. Yildirim et al (2007) suggested that mobbing behavior be prosecuted as a felony. Policies and procedures, such as the zero tolerance for abuse policy recommended by the AACN, should be enforced and abusive behaviors should be reported. To avoid fear or apprehension in reporting abuse, the authors suggested forming a committee of nurses who have witnessed or experienced mobbing behavior.

Conclusion

In conclusion, destructive workplace behavior among nurses is a very real and serious phenomenon that affects the health of the victims, the bottom line of the healthcare organization, and the quality of outcomes for patients. By examining the nurses’ culture as a liability, one can appreciate how both internal and external factors contribute to these dysfunctional behaviors. In a healthy workplace environment, nurses thrive because of increased morale, increased job satisfaction, and decreased turnover. What are the differences in these two environments? The answer is empowerment, recognition, trust, autonomy, communication, professional development, respect, and accountability. The three studies emulated the components of both a healthy and toxic workplace and revealed issues that involved lateral, horizontal, and institutional response to abusive behavior. A common theme in the three studies and the nurses’ current work environment is the importance of job satisfaction in the retention of nurses.

References

Alspach, G. (2007). Critical care nurses: Are our intentions nice or nasty? Critical Care Nurse, 27(3), 10-14.

Briles, J. (2003). Zapping conflict in the healthcare workplace. Denver, CO: Mile High Press, Ltd.

Capella University (2005). OM: 8004: Managing and organizing people (An Edited Work). Boston, Prentice Hill Custom Publishing.

Jorgensen Huston, C. (2003). Quality health care in an era of limited resources: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 18(4), 1-12.

Rosenstein, A. (2002). Nurse–physician relationships: Impact on nurse satisfaction and retention. American Journal of Nursing, 102(6), 26-34.

Rowe, M. & Sherlock, H. (2005). Stress and verbal abuse in nursing: Do burned- out nurses eat their young? Journal of Nursing Management, 13, 242-248.

Texas Center for Nursing Workforce Studies. (2006, September). The economic impact of the nursing shortage. E-Publication # 25-12515.

Ulrich, B., Lavandero, R., Hart, K., Woods, D., Leggett, J. & Taylor, D. (2006). Critical care nurses’ work environments: A baseline status report. Critical Care Nurse, 26(5), 46-56.

Yildirim, D., Yildirim, A., & Timucin, A. (2007). Mobbing behaviors encountered by nurse teaching staff. Nursing Ethics, 14(4), 447-461.

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000179 EndHTML:0000002687 StartFragment:0000002361 EndFragment:0000002651 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/garynamie/Desktop/nursing%20article.rtf

jcpainter@cox.net

Check out Dr. Gary Namie in a variety of media appearances on the Workplace Bullying Institute’s YouTube Channel

Our YouTube videos provide education on the phenomenon of Workplace Bullying, guidance for targets of bullying, and suggestions for employers to create safe, healthy working environments.

WKMG-TV news director Steve Hyvonen called for a Saturday meeting of the 60 employees to discuss “what makes bad TV news.” But he also instructed staff to write the names of three co-workers who are “often a negative influence on what we do” and who have “a poor work ethic.” He called them “battery drainers.” How about voting for the boss, unanimously?Full details of the story, including boss’ memo, from a local blogger

Send a direct message to Steve Hyvonen by selecting WKMG News Director from the “Select Recipient” drop-down menu at this page.

Watch MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s treatment of it

A physician demands that a prescription be filled despite proof that it has been prescribed from faulty information; an intimidated ER nurse doesn’t dare speak up when a life-threatening condition is  overlooked; a surgical team stands knowingly, yet silently by as a surgeon makes a life-threatening  error ; despite the plea of a mother, nursing staff refuse to challenge the doctor’s written order resulting in the  senseless death of a  toddler; a senior nurse refuses to assist a junior nurse  as a critically-injured patient slips away. What is the common factor in these, and  other similar and actual situations?  Workplace bullying.  In  medical environments, personnel often couch it in more benign language:  intimidating and disruptive behavior.

Workplace bullying involves repeated health-harming mistreatment usually directed toward underlings or peers, but affecting the quality of patient care and life in general.  Workplace bullying falls into one or more of  the following categories:  work sabotage, verbal abuse, or conduct that is threatening or intimidating or humiliating. Conduct that is in opposition to  the employer’s legitimate business interests, workplace bullying levies real costs, financially, emotionally, physically, and in every other way.  In the medical work place it contradicts professional ethics, including the Hippocratic Oath, for it severely compromises patient safety and quality care.

Bullying is about the bully, not the target.  The bully puts his/her personal agenda of controlling another human being above the interests of patients and the employing medical organization.  A bully’s weapons of choice often include deliberate humiliation, the withholding of critical resources or information, social manipulation, and professional sabotage.

What are the myths that allow the destructive behaviors to continue and thrive?

Myth 1:  Bullying behavior is not prevalent.

Intimidating behaviors are increasing at an alarming rate.  A survey conducted by the Institute for Safe Medical Practices (ISMP) found that 88 percent of the medical practitioners surveyed encountered condescending language or voice intonation, 87 percent encountered impatience with questions, 79 percent dealt with reluctance or refusal to answer questions, 48 percent were subjected to strong verbal abuse, 43 percent  experienced threatening body language, and 4 percent reported physical abuse.  Intimidating and disruptive behavior involves more than  one or two offending individuals in a given medical organization.  Thirty-eight percent of respondents reported that three to five individuals were involved in negative encounters and 19 percent reported that more than five individuals were involved in negative encounters.  Moreover, only small differences between male and female respondents showed up in reports, with male respondents somewhat more reluctant to confront a known intimidator, and female respondents somewhat more willing to ask for help in dealing with a known intimidator.

Myth 2:  Targets deserve or ask for abuse. Smart people don’t become targets.

Individuals most often targeted by bullies prove to be independent, skilled, bright, cooperative, nice, ethical, just and fair people.  In fact, targets are often amongst the most highly skilled, competent, and altruistic individuals.  Bullies, driven by their own personal insecurities, perceive skilled and competent coworkers as a threat.  Bullies tend to thrive in environments in which (1) there are opportunities to behave in a cutthroat, zero-sum, manner, (Note 1) (2) there is a pool of exploitable targets (typically those people with a pro-social helping orientation), and (3) negative personal consequences are negligible, and (4) perpetrators  are rewarded for their bullying behavior by those who collude with the intimidation, or those who are afraid to challenge the bully.

Myth 4:  Bullies are worth keeping around.

Bullies are exhorbitantly expensive.  Conservative estimates and  prevalent data indicates that bullying medical practitioners cost organizations over a million dollars per 50 employees per year in turnover costs alone.  Damages to organizations also include poor morale, low productivity, and difficult recruitment and retention of quality workers.  The ability of health care workers to work as a team is compromised, the quality of patient care is diminished, and lives are needlessly lost.  Medical lawsuits invariably accompany the substandard medical care produced by such sabotage, and the cost in this regard may be incalculable (Note 2) .

Negative impacts specifically on Targets and their families include damages to psychological and physical health, financial stability, social support systems, and professional growth opportunities.  In a survey conducted by Zogby International, 45percent of targets reported stress-related health complications, ranging from depression and PTSD to cardiovascular diseases and neurological compromises.  The greatest harm comes from prolonged exposure and 44 percent reported suffering from workplace abuse for more that 1 year.

Myth 5:  Employers generally recognize the harm done to their organization and deal effectively with bullying behavior.

In the vast majority of cases, bullying  stops only when the target loses his/her job either by quitting, being forced out, or transferring to stay employed.  But it’s only a matter of time before the bully identifies a new target. The bully infrequently (Note 3) endures negative consequences.  According to the Workplace Bullying Institute national scientific survey, the Target quits 40 percent of the time, the Target gets fired 24 percent of the time, and the Target transfers 13 percent of the time.  The Bully is punished only 23 percent of the time.  And 62 percent of employers ignore the problem altogether.   According to the ISMP survey, only 39 percent of medical practitioners felt that their organization dealt effectively with intimidating behavior.  Medical corporate cultures typically do not  deal effectively with workplace bullying.

Myth 6:  There are legal protections against workplace bullying in the United States.

The United States remains the last among western democracies to have no anti-bullying laws for the general workforce.  If mistreated employees who have been subjected to abusive treatment at work cannot establish that the behavior was motivated by race, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, or age, they will  likely find no legal protections against such mistreatment.  According to the WBI survey, workplace bullying is four times more prevalent in the United States than illegal harassment.

Myth 7:  Bullying is just part of the medical culture necessary to maintain quality patient care.

According to the ISMP survey, a remarkable 40 percent of clinicians have kept quiet or remained passive during patient care events rather than question a known intimidator. Forty-nine percent of respondents reported that intimidation had altered the way they handle order clarifications or questions about medication orders.   Forty percent simply assumed that a questionable order was correct or asked  another professional to speak with  an intimidating prescriber. Seven percent reported being involved in a medication error in which intimidation clearly played a role.

At the release of a Sentinel Event Alert by the Joint Commission establishing a zero tolerance policy, Dr. Mark Chassin, President of JCAHO, stated:  “The Joint Commission has maintained a database of serious adverse events for many years and in continuously analyzing those data, we find that failures of simple communication among caregivers underlie many, many of these adverse events. One of the most important barriers to good communication is the intimidating and disruptive behaviors we’re talking about today.

The ignoble history of tolerance and indifference to intimidating and disruptive behaviors allows this type of behavior to go unchecked.  By giving tacit permission, health care organizations are condoning workplace bullying. At last,  the Joint Commission has insisted  that enough is enough (Note 4) . Safe patient care is dependent on trust, teamwork and a collaborative work environment among caregivers. The space for intimidating and disruptive behaviors shrinks daily for workplace bullies, no matter what their reasons  and no matter who they are. Some have argued that the stress of delivering health care in life or death situations excuses the behavior of bullies. Yes, there are very real stresses in health care because the stakes are high, and health care professionals are often pushed to the breaking point mentally and physically.  But responsible professionals agree that there’s a right way and a wrong way to manage that stress (Note 5).”

Intimidating and disruptive behaviors in no way contribute to quality patient care. Rather, they undermine patient safety and devastate staff morale.

Myth 8:  There is nothing that can be done about bullying in the medical workplace.

Don’t fall into the  trap of believing that  abuse in the medical workplace is a necessary evil that cannot be addressed.  Each of us can make a difference:  First, we can support laws that make health-harming workplace violence illegal.  Second, we can support organizations in establishing and enforcing appropriate policies.  Third, we can pay attention to those around us.  There is safety in numbers and in unity.  Bullies try to divide and conquer in order to exert their will.  We can refuse to participant in their social manipulation tactics.  We can ask questions, insist on answers, and verify facts when coworkers appear to be targeted.  We can support ethical behavior.  We can treat all of our fellow coworkers with the dignity and respect that they deserve.  We as a community can and must demand that our medical workplaces become bully free zones.

Reference Notes:

[1] The Joint Commission Teleconference on Disruptive Behavior Among Health Care Professionals, Wednesday, July 9, 2008.  Contact the Joint Commission to inquire about availability.

[2] The Joint Commission (2008).  Sentinel Event Alert: Behaviors that Undermine a Culture of Safety.  Issue 40: July 9, 2008. Available online:  http://www.jointcommission.org/SentinelEvents/Sentineleventalert/sea_40.htm.

[3] Institute for Safe Medication Practices:  Survey on workplace intimidation, 2003.  Available online: https://ismp.org/Survey/surveyresults/Survey0311.asp.

[4] Intimidation: Practitioners speak up about this unresolved problem (Part I),  ISMP Medication Safety Alert!  From the March 11, 2004 issue.  Available online:  https://www.ismp.org/Newsletters/acutecare/articles/20040311_2.asp.

[5] Gary and Ruth Namie, “The Bully at Work”, Sourcebooks Inc., 2009.

Denise Halverson, PhD, is Utah State Coordinator for the Healthy Workplace Bill Legislative Campaign

The essence of the MEG test is the measurement of the dynamic synchronous neural (bundled) interactions, an essential aspect of the brain function. MEG Dewars (caps) are helmet-shaped and contain as many as 300 sensors, covering most of the head. Then, complex statistical analyses of the data are required to differentiate activity across various areas of the brain to identify specific patterns.

MEG can detect neuronal events with a precision of 10 milliseconds or less, while fMRI, which depends on changes in blood flow, has a lower precision of several hundred milliseconds. MEG also accurately pinpoints sources in primary auditory, somatosensory and motor areas.

Research on brain–machine interfaces has been ongoing for at least a decade. During this period, simultaneous recordings of the extracellular electrical activity of hundreds of individual neurons have been used for direct, real-time control of various artificial devices. Thinking about moving an arm is converted to moving an artificial limb — neuroprosthetics restores mobility in severely paralyzed patients.

MEG has been used to diagnose Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, schizophrenia, Sjögren’s syndrome, chronic alcoholism, facial pain, and multiple sclerosis.  “Communication patterns are very different from disease to disease,” says Dr. Apostolos Georgopoulos from the Brain Sciences Center at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center and University of Minnesota. “So the different diseases create disturbances in the communication that can be used as a fingerprint, a signature, for the disease.”

For years, the diagnosis of PTSD, has been a subjective process involving mental-health professionals conducting structured interviews with patients suffering PTSD-like symptoms.

In a Jan. 2010 issue of the Journal of Neural Engineering, Georgopoulos and his research team reported the successful diagnosis of PTSD using MEG. The Minnesota researchers used MEG to assess 74 U.S. military veterans believed to be suffering from PTSD, along with 250 subjects not thought to be suffering from the condition. Distinctive brain patterns indicating PTSD were found in 72 — or 97.3% — of the 74 people diagnosed with PTSD through the traditional interview process; false positives turned up in 31 of the 250 subjects (12.4%) without PTSD. The findings counter the popular notion that PTSD is not a real disease but a fabricated disorder. The neuronal patterns revealed a distinctive communication pattern, the “PTSD fingerprint.”

Georgopoulos likens the MEG test for PTSD to diabetic blood-glucose monitoring tests to keep their disease under control. “The test is totally safe — there are no magnets, no isotopes — you can do it as frequently as you want,” Georgopoulos says, adding that it also doesn’t require dredging up the traumatic events that generate PTSD. “The whole thing takes literally a minute.”

This most recent application of neuroscience to the world of stressed and traumatized individuals seems profound. However, the question remains about how to distribute the technology and methods to medical practitioners for practical use in the field.

The Jan 2010 J Neural Engr article |  MEG explained at Wikipedia

Brain-machine interface: Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10, 530–540 (1 July 2009) | doi:10.1038/nrn2653

MEG detecting diseases: J Neural Eng. 2007 Dec;4(4):349-55. Epub 2007 Aug 27

North America’s expert on psychopathy is Robert Hare. The documentary, The Corporation, explores the premise that businesses behave maliciously and without conscience. This DVD is recommended viewing.

Hare draws the analogy between people and corporations.

- superficial, style over substance
- grandiosity, we’re number one, none better
- manipulative, that’s what PR is for
- lacks empathy, hey it’s “just business” to rationalize cutthroat competition
- lacks remorse, anything goes if not caught, bonuses after economic crash
- does not accept responsibility for actions taken
- impulsive and reckless, especially in the absence of regulations
- focus on short-term, quarterly stockholder gains are all that matter
- poor behavioral control, irrational and quick to rage
- ignores consequences of their actions on others (the climate, workers, economy)
- actions harm others, anti-social

Read his essay on the topic.

I was making great money, loved my job and my customers, the retirement plans, and the company car. All this experience yet nothing prepared me for the unexpected environment I entered into at age 48.

“Borrow trouble for yourself, if that’s your nature, but don’t give it to your neighbor.” –Rudyard Kipling

Perhaps Rudyard Kipling knew something about bullying…He didn’t want it, nor did I.

I didn’t know it was workplace bullying until I saw Dr. Gary Namie on Good Morning America in 2004. By then I was in so deep…my health had suffered while I tried to keep working in the dog eat dog world of pharmaceutical sales. Having been a nurse and respiratory therapist for nine years had taught me strong work ethics and giving 110% in all situations as my work could mean the difference between life and death.

Having two successful businesses for 13 years prepared me for long hours, determination, positive energy, working independently, focusing, and achieving goals. All this experience yet nothing prepared me for the unexpected environment I entered into at age 48.

I was making great money, loved my job and my customers, the retirement plans, and the company car. Being a single mom raising three children, paying college expenses, the house payments, the pool, yard, and cleaning services, $500 a month utility bills, insurance, groceries, and family vacations caught me in a hamster’s wheel of life – a series of repetitive motions.

I knew I was in a desperate situation when I told my son to sue the company I worked for if I suffered a heart attack. I was angry. Here I was working for the top medical company in the world yet the bullying increased with every success I achieved. Management decided my fate and I was told I would never be promoted. I could leave if I didn’t like it. I had the all American dream and lifestyle that was slowly killing me.  How could I change my life and survive on less money? The answer came, but not easily.

Perhaps if I had seen Dr. Namie’s segment on hostile work environments and workplace bullying a few months (or years) earlier I would have been able to “name it” and take action, while I had a choice. My wake up call came after I had a complete meltdown and was immobilized in bed for days on end. Clinical depression, anxiety, panic attacks, body aches, shortness of breath, sweating, nightmares, sleeplessness, weight gain, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and a burned out thyroid were the result of “hanging in there” way past what management had in mind for me. I became one more statistic as part of the 30% of people who additionally develop PTSD from bullying. In the end, they succeeded…I left my job, but not by choice.

I became totally and permanently disabled. The stigma of mental illness in our society is damaging in itself and one that will decrease only through education. PTSD is an injury not an illness but many people do not understand the difference; nor do they seem to care to understand.  By not seeing an injury or illness one denies it even exists and the person with a psychiatric injury or illness may even be labeled as a malingerer. Sure, it’s just what I always dreamed of, all 35 working years in my medical related career.

After four years of discrimination litigation, five “Independent Medical Exams” paid for by the employer, retaliation and loss of disability pay when the trial ended, ongoing litigation to get benefits reinstated, five years of psychiatric care, loss of my home, car, and $30,000 in legal fees paid from savings…life has changed, yet, I am thankful!

“It is never too late to be what you might have been.”  George Elliot

Life after workplace bullying is one of daily adjustments. I have learned that less is more and money does not buy time, health, or happiness. I have also learned to ask for help if I need it. This has been the most difficult adjustment, as my experience was to be a giver. It is much easier to give than receive; but now I see the joy in others as I accept help and love from family and friends. I am more humble. I see the small things are the most important things…I have time to smell the roses, play with my grandson, read, listen to music, take long baths, watch the birds and butterflies, walk my Labrador and write about him too.

Miller’s Red Vest is my illustrated children’s  book about my yellow Labrador becoming a Psychiatric Service Dog (PSD). We have a special commitment to look after one another…if Miller sees me become anxious, he nudges me. He protects my space and watches me when we are in public. Having him with me helps me to focus on him when leaving home and lessens my fear.

Miller is a working dog and allowed to go in public places as any other service dog. He travels with me and flies in the cabin as my service dog. While traveling abroad I saw the need to write a book about invisible injuries to teach children (and adults). Not all disabilities are visible to the eye but they are still real. Miller tells his own story of becoming his best friend’s service dog.

As I seek ways out of the depression and anxiety I experience; I write about Miller. The process of writing has also brought my sister and me closer together as a writing team and support system. Writing Miller’s story gives us hours of creativity and collaboration, laughter, and tears, as Miller leads us through his journey to help me overcome the effects of workplace bullying.

Miller’s Red Vest is the first in a series of children’s stories about Miller’s adventures and how he teaches people about bullying, discrimination, and how to become more understanding of invisible injuries. He expresses how important his job is and what it means to wear his red vest.

Copyright 2010 Cheryl Ward

So You Wanna Sue…

New audio tale from a successful plaintiff with painful lessons to share

Download Podcast 13 (in .mp3 format)

But for individuals overwhelmed by the emotional morass of early-stage bullying or the effects of prolonged exposure to workplace stress, we offer telephone coaching/counseling by Jessi Brown, MS, LMHC, LPC. We plan to offer her telephone services one day per week starting in December. That day has not been determined yet. You can request a 55 min. session with Ms. Brown via e-mail (info at workplacebullying dot org)  and we will contact you to select a convenient time.

INTRODUCTORY RATE of $50 (US) per hour.

WBI loves his popularization of the neuroscience of prolonged stress and its impact on health. Adult targets of bullying at work should appreciate his insights. His book  Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers: An Updated Guide to Stress, Stress-Related Diseases and Coping a veritable textbook for those of us not in medical school to which we refer in speeches and WBI University. Purchase his book.

His bio
Robert Sapolsky, Ph.D is  Professor of Biological Sciences and Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences at Stanford University . Sapolsky, a neuroendocrinologist, has focused his research on issues of stress and neuron degeneration, as well as on the possibilities of gene therapy strategies for help in protecting susceptible neurons from disease. His lab was among the first to document that stress can damage the neurons of the hippocampus. He is currently working on gene transfer techniques to strengthen neurons against the disabling effects of glucocorticoids. Sapolsky has received numerous honors and awards for his work, including the prestigious MacArthur Fellowship, an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, and the Klingenstein Fellowship in Neuroscience. He received the National Science Foundation Presidential Young Investigator Award and the Young Investigator of the Year Awards from the Society for Neuroscience, the Biological Psychiatry Society, and the International Society for Psychoneuro-Endocrinology. Author of numerous science articles, he is on the editorial boards of several journals, including the Journal of Neuroscience, Psychoneuroendocrinology, and Stress and is a contributing editor for The Sciences.

Listen to two of his speeches at our Audio library.

- Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers

- Stress and Coping: What Baboons Can Teach Us

Purchase his Zebras book.

Read one of his articles written for general audiences. [The influence of social hierarchy on primate health. Science, 2005, 308, 648-652.]

Elizabeth Blackburn

The 2009 Nobel prize in physiology or medicine was won by Elizabeth Blackburn and two others for the discovery of “how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase.” Telomere shortening makes humans age faster than they otherwise would. Blackburn, the 60-year old biochemist at the University of California, San Francisco , oversees diverse applications of the science from her lab. Read reporter Katherine Seligman’s profile of the scientist.

The most relevant aspect of her original 1970′s discovery is the study of the impact of exposure to stress on telomeres which shortens the stressed person’s life.

Our personal genetic codes are carried in chomosomes made up of DNA molecules . Telomeres are the caps on the ends of the string-like chromosomes. According to Blackburn, telomeres are “like the plastic ends of a shoelace.” Blackburn discovered that those caps protect the chromosomes during replication.

As we normally age, telomeres shorten and start to lose their protective capacity and we lose protection from diseases. As the caps wear down and the cells shut down, we age. Unprotected chromosomes are prone to mutations and cancer.

Elizabeth Blackburn and felllow Nobel winner, Carol Greider who originally was one of Blackburn’s graduate students, identified telomerase, the enzyme that maintains the stability of the protective telomere caps. Because telomerase rebuilds the telomere caps, the enzyme actually delays aging (called senescence by scientists). This was true in simple organisms (the initial work was with yeast cells) and in humans.

Activity by telomerase — the enzyme not the chomosome telomere caps themselves — is associated with cancer cells. Normal cells divide and lose their telomere caps and require telomerase to rebuild. Cancer cells, however, divide constantly (moreso than normal cells) yet somehow maintain their telomeres caps. Why do cancer cells not age and die? Telomerase may hold the key. Research continues.

For bullied targets, the Nobel winning research is directly relevant. There is a connection between stress (the human response to external psychosocial stressors) and aging at the cellular level. Long-term exposure to stress decreases telomerase activity resulting in telomere cap shortening leading to accelerated aging through premature cell death. Highly stressed women experienced the equivalent of an additional 9 to 17 years of aging when compared to non-stressed women.

In an illustrative study led by another of Blackburn’s former graduate students, Elissa Eppel, mothers were categorized as either “caregiving mothers” or “control mothers” based on whether or not they raised a chronically ill child or a healthy child and self-ratings of stress in their lives. Age affects telomere length. They are shorter as we age naturally.  Telomere length was the key measure of the impact of stress in this study. Sophisticated analyses of blood samples yielded telomere lengths and telomerase levels.

Self-ratings of stress were higher in caregiver moms. Within the caregiver group of 39 women, the more years of stressed caregiving, the shorter was the telomere length and the lower the telomerase activity level. And perceived stress was associated clearly with telomere length. The women with the highest stress had significantly lower telomerase activity level, exposing the ends of chromosomes to damage causing them to age faster.

In addition to shortened telomeres, highly stressed women in this study suffered more oxidative stress (cell damage from circulating free radicals that attack cellular DNA and RNA) which causes diseases like atherosclerosis, heart failure, heart attacks, Alzheimer’s, and chronic fatigue syndrome. The release of glucocorticoids, the primary stress hormones released by the adrenal gland during the body’s initial stress response is known to damage neurons. (Read Sapolsky’s Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers for a clear, non-scientific description of this elaborate physiological process.) Low telomerase levels are associated with premature death in adults from bone marrow failure and vulnerability to infections.

The researchers in this caregiving mother study raised the fascinating possibility that people who are more psychologically resistant to stress have longer telomeres than highly stressed individuals. And telomerase contributes to maintaining telomere length. Longer telomeres can extend the life span (in simpler, non-human, organisms). A missing link in the science is the confirmed association between psychological stress resistance and physiological (at the cellular level) stress resistance. But it makes sense.

You can also view Dr. Blackburn’s streaming and downloadable online video lectures about telomeres and telomerase.

Summary: chronic, unremitting stress causes problems at the cellular level that can prematurely age a person and render him or her vulnerable to diseases that kill. Moral of the story: stress is physiological and works at the cellular level. If your workplace has begun to cause you health problems, escape to live. Your body has already begun the process of decline and is aging you faster than necessary. Put your health first.

G. Namie

The Plight of Bullied Teachers

Guest Podcast: Teachers Bullied at School — Observations About Teachers as Targets a Teacher

Carrie Clark, podcaster

Carrie Clark, MA — WBI-Legislative Campaign spokesperson, Co-Coordinator of the California Healthy Workplace Advocates, and CHWA Blogger, former English school teacher, veteran of 20+ years, and WBI Consultant for the Workplace Bullying in Schools Project

Part 1: When Teachers Are Bullied, 6’27″
The special case of teachers, who they are and why they get bullied
Download Podcast 11 – Part 1 (in .mp3 format)

Part 2: Solutions for Bullied Teachers, 2’14″
Download Podcast 11 – Part 2 (in .mp3 format)

Watch the video of Carrie narrating a 2008 BNET production on workplace bullying — Calling a Bully a Bully

Bullies present themselves as omnipotent and powerful to dissuade confrontation and to keep from being revealed as something different. Targets intuitively sense that bullying is compensatory behavior, attempts to cover wrongdoing with bluster and bravado. It’s like the Wizard of Oz in the palace who is exposed by Toto, the dog, when he pulled back the curtain showing the small man pretending to be bigger than he was.

It’s nearly impossible to call a bully insecure or cursed with a sense of self-inadequcy because of the power they often enjoy in the workplace. However, the intuition of bullied targets and witnessing co-workers is spot on. Bullies are small people.

In a 4-study research paper to be published in the November issue of the journal Psychological Science, by Nathaniel Fast (University of Southern California) and Serena Chen (University of California, Berkeley) linked aggression at work to perceived inadequacy of people in power (bosses). [Fast, N.J. & Chen, S. (2009) When the boss feels inadequate: Power, incompetence and aggression. Psychological Science, Nov. 2009]

Three of the studies tested working adults and are most relevant to the workplace.

In the first study, 90 working people completed assessments of their formal authority and power at work, the degree to which they feared being negatively evaluated by others (the inadequacy measure), and their level of aggressiveness as traditionally measured (willingness to hit others, ease with which arguments are entered). The aggression survey is a reliable predictor of physical violence, verbal abuse and the tendency to get into fights. For people with organizational power, believing themselves to be incompetent led them to be more aggressive than competent people. This was not true for people without power.

In the second study with working adults, some people were guided to think about their power or competence beforehand. Aggression translated into how loud (decibel levels from 0 to 130) they would be willing to blast a horn at another person who made mistakes over 10 trials. For people who already had organizational power, being primed to think even more about that power made them more aggressive if they also felt incompetent.

The third study of adults asked participants to rate their organizational power and their aggressiveness as in the first study. People were then sorted into low- and high-power groups based the demand their jobs required. Low power tasks typically involved doing simple work, completing tasks, High power tasks involved influencing others — supervising, closing sales. Then, the experimenters manipulated the perceived level of competence for people within each power group. Those subjected to their own incompetence were instructed to write about an experience where they failed to meet a task demand. Competence was primed by having those people recall a time when they successfully completed work projects.

This study also added another manipulated factor. Half of the people in each group were asked to select the value most important to them from a list (social life, relationships, business, etc.). They then wrote a paragraph justifying the value’s personal importance. This was done to bolster a sense of self-worth, a self-affirmation. People in the no affirmation group selected their least favorite value and wrote about how the value could be important to others.

In all three studies, incompetence increased aggression for high-power, but not for powerless, working adults. Aggression decreased when powerful people were reminded of their competence. When incompetence was primed (the person was reminded of failures) for low-power people, aggression decreased. The affirmation factor created some ego defensiveness and it seems to be the explanatory factor for why power and incompetence mix the way they do to lead to more aggression.

Thus, the results point to the dangerous combination of incompetence in the hands of people with power. The authors, Fast and Chen, claim that their work demonstrates that power holders have an increased vulnerability to perceiving potential psychological threats. Rather than feeling safe in their positions of power with the ability to disproportionately affect the outcomes of other people on a routine basis, the feelings of incompetence escalate the perception of threat in the eyes of people with actual power and authority. In turn, this leads to ego defensiveness (a self-protective mental device) that leads to aggression.

There was some limited exposure of participants to flattery, but the manipulations were weak and artificial compared to real-world kissing-up, ingratiation, that bullies receive at work. So, research on flattery’s effect on aggression by a boss is yet to be advanced.

Unfortunately, aggression equals bullying in this study. Regular working people rated their own tendencies to be aggressive. This was not a study of bullies. Of course, bullies do not offer themselves up for research purposes.

It would be an innovative to extrapolate link between perceived threat and aggression to the organizational level. Executive sponsors feel threatened when their bullying toadies are accused of wrongdoing. They react defensively. With guidance from legal counsel and HR, the entire organization responds defensively attacking the bullied accuser who dared to reveal internal weaknesses. But that is a study for another day. As they say, in the academe, further study is warranted.

Gary Namie

You can request this study (A7) at the WBI Research section.

Stop the fear — of being the only one who comes to your bullied colleague’s assistance, of daring to provoke the bully with an indignant stand, of being the next target, of being called insubordinate if you talk or work with the target person, of losing your job. Go ahead and feel guilty for not helping someone who clearly needs your help and may have asked for it. Why do you worry about the bully’s impression of you? Think more about your personal integrity. Your bullied friend may be too ashamed to ask for help. So, offer it without having to be asked.

If all co-workers stood together and immediately confronted the bully AS A GROUP about interfering with work of the target, he or she would most likely back down, if only temporarily. Bullies are liars and cowards. It gives the target much-deserved safety. Unfortunately, the reputation of co-workers is well known. They cower in fear, doing nothing, or worse, siding with the bully. That’s why some people call bullying mobbing. It becomes many against one. Co-workers do the bullies’ dirty work for them.

By working together and showing the bully a united front, chances of being divided as a group are less likely. And if you stick together, you can’t all be fired (thus overcoming the greatest fear of all). The very least you can do as a group is to comfort the target by sharing your experiences as a former (and probably future) target of the same bully.

At least provide emotional support if tactical support sounds too scary. In the beginning of the bullying, targets believe they are alone and this never happened to anyone before (because co-workers are silent and do not share experiences). Reinforce the target’s humanity. While being bullied, targets come to believe the bully’s lies. The group can counter the lies. Be there for your friend. It’s the social compact among human beings. Honor humanity; dare the bully to act humanely toward all of you. Read more about why groups do what they do in The Bully At Work.

Make the Oct. 18-24, the week of Freedom from Workplace Bullies, the excuse to try something different. The results will please you.  It will be something you can be proud of. And your targeted colleague will thank you.

The event was held Sunday Oct. 25, 2009 at Village Books, Bellingham, WA. Village Books, 1200 11th Street, Bellingham, WA‎, (360) 671-2626‎

The list of known health impacts of bullying is long. Affected systems include cardiovascular (high blood pressure, cardiac ischemia, heart attacks, stroke — a great deal has been discovered by Peter Schnall, MD and researchers associated with the Center for Social Epidemiology), gastrointestinal (colitis, ulcers), auto-immune (fibromyalgia, cancer propensity), and the psychological/emotional (anxiety, panic attacks, clinical depression, acute stress disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder – PTSD).

One characteristic of the onset of depression is sleep disruption — either trouble falling asleep or trouble returning to sleep after premature awakening. A recent study of French workers (E8  by Niedhammer et al. in our Research section) illustrates the association between being bullied and sleep disturbances.

Of those currently experiencing bullying both men and women were twice as likely to have sleep trouble than those not bullied. Problems with sleep were most pronounced when the bullying was daily or almost daily, and for women, if the exposure to bullying lasted more than five years.

Even witnesses to bullying were affected. For men, 60% increase in sleep disturbances; for women, a 20% increase occurs. People who both witnessed and personally were bullied had twice the sleep problems as people not bullied, with men having a slightly worse time than women.

In an American study (E9 in our Research section ), the association between being bothered or upset at work and the quality of sleep was examined. How does work “follow workers home”? Being bothered by work is a direct measure of stress because it captures a person’s emotional reactions to conditions at work. Other negative workplace measures included reports of low control (no autonomy) over work conditions and perceived job insecurity (fearing layoffs). The Univ of Michigan researchers (Burgard and Ailshire) used a longitudinal sample of 1,330 representative adult Americans across the occupational spectrum and across three measurement periods.

The results showed that being bothered or upset at work does consistently account for poor sleep quality. Even stressful negative conditions at home (financial hardship, spouse concerns, children) were not as disruptive as being bothered.

The relevance of the two studies is that sleepy, fatigued workers make performance errors. In manufacturing sites, they risk injury. In white collar workplaces, they make more mental errors. Though bullied workers are subjected to false claims by their bullies that they are poor performers, eventually the stress from bullying makes the person perform poorly. Sleep disruption may be one reason. Thus, the bully’s lies become their own self-fulfilling prophecy.

The studies (both available through our Research section):
Workplace bullying and sleep disturbances: Findings from a large scale cross-sectional survey in the French working population. I. Niedhammer, S. David,  S. Degioanni, A. Drummond, & P. Philip  (2009) Sleep, 32 (9), 1211-1219.

Putting work to bed: Stressful experiences on the job and sleep quality. By S. Burgard, & J. Ailshire. Population Studies Center Research Report 08-652, University of Michigan, 2008.

Read the complete results.

Unions & Bullying

Guest Podcast: Carol Fehner, union activist, former union rep, lifelong bullybuster (and WBI affiliate), retired federal worker

Learn what bullied targets should do to get the union to pay attention.

Download Podcast 8 (in .mp3 format)

The Bully’s Personality

Tutorial: Fun with explanations for bullying that don’t lead to solutions, but provide personal satisfaction gloating that it is they who are defective! This is a long one – 11 min.

Download Podcast 6 (in .mp3 format)

Beware of Bad Advice

Bullying Tutorials

Advice from traditional, HR-promoting, sources such as media types and motivational speakers who make bullied targets responsible for their fate can be harmful. Here are some warning signs.

Download Podcast 5 (in .mp3 format)

Thurman Higginbotham started at the cemetery in 1965 as security guard and rose to his Deputy Superintendent in 1990. Technically, he’s the second ranking executive, but he claims to be the operational chief.

Women in the position of public affairs directors, held by a succession of four women in only two years, seemed especially vulnerable to attacks by Higgenbotham. One woman, Kara McCarthy, was driven out because of a discriminatory hostile work environment (potentially illegal). She claimed that Higgenbotham and other senior managers “did whatever the hell they wanted.”

McCarthy’s successor was Gina Gray hired in April 2008. In her new role after only 10 days on the job, at the funeral of Lt. Col. Billy Hall, Gray clashed with Higgenbotham over a regulation. She knew the press could be present as the had family wished. Higgenbotham instructed her to violate the regs and keep the press far away. He had a history of calling families coercing them to deny press coverage to which they were entitled. The unethical boss won but the press noted the defiant Gray.

Gray was well qualified for her job. She worked 8 years for the Army in public affairs in Germany, Italy and Iraq. She suffered some hearing loss from a 2003 ambush in Iraq. Then, she went back to Iraq as a contractor doing media relations.

Higgenbotham’s campaign of interpersonal destruction began after the publicized incident. Gray complained to Higgenbotham’s “boss” John Metzler. Metzler withdrew support from her on May 27, leaving Gray’s immediate supervisor, Phyllis White, free to hassle her — restricting permission to leave the building, overtime, posters in her workplace and disconnecting her BlackBerry. June 9, she was demoted from director to public affairs officer.

Gina Gray

She filed a discrimination complaint (the pair had both gender and race differences).

Higgenbotham retaliated with trumped-up charges of “poor performance.” On June 27, 2008, Gray was fired. White said Gray had “been disrespectful to me as your supervisor and failed to act in an inappropriate manner.”

On that same June day, Higgenbotham had an IT contractor friend block Gray from access to her e-mail account and transfer access to Higgenbotham who replied to subsequent e-mails as if he were Gray. Gray found out.
The Army investigated and found that the unauthorized access and misuse were criminal offenses. However, the Dept of Justice assistant US attorney declined to prosecute the crime.

Not only did Higgenbotham illegally harass Gray, but he committed a crime and still nothing was done! Of course because of Phyllis White, a woman supervisor, harassing Gray, a woman, the case becomes more a bullying problem than one characterized by illegal discrimination.

Mark Benjamin, the journalist telling this story, discovered that Higgenbotham has falsely claimed he is “Dr. Higgenbotham” despite not having earned a PhD or MD degree. Higgenbotham’s tactic of stealing access to public affairs officers’ computers was confirmed by at least one other woman who held the position.

The kicker, which is no surprise to bullied targets, is that Higgenbotham is also technically inept. Arlington National Cemetery seems to have a gravestone burial records matching problem that was supposed to have been modernized by technology since 2000. Benjamin is filing additional reports that memorabilia left at gravesites are tossed into the trash unlike at the Vietnam Memorial Wall.

Higgenbotham and White are a disgrace to the families whose loved ones gave their lives for their country. They should both be banned for life from federal employment.

UPDATE

You can read Mark Benjamin’s second part of the story about Arlington Cemetery’s policy of keeping the grounds pristine and trashing family momentos and gifts left at gravesites, especially Section 60 where Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans are buried.

Complaints by managers, that all bullied targets will recognize immediately, included: fear of not being taken seriously, worry that managers may lose confidence in their abilities, and damage to mental health and wellbeing. Poor babies. On the other hand, when managers are bullied companies may be more willing to effect policies and procedures to protect management, their most precious resource.

(The WBI-Zogby US national survey found that 35% of all workers bullied were managers of some level.)

Freedom – Some Have It, Most Do Not

Bullying Tutorials

A double standard regarding Freedom — Freedom To … exploit, harm, abuse (for employers, the wealthy, the financial sector) and the less frequently realized Freedom From … bullying, exploitation, harm (for the working poor, the displaced layoff victims, the rest of us)

Download Podcast 4 (in .mp3 format)

Insanity: Abuse for the Innocent & Smart

Bullying Tutorials

To bullied targets: you are not only innocent of not causing the harm the bully elected to inflict, you are among the best and brightest. Adult targets are the smartest and best workers. Your reward — abuse!

Download Podcast 3 (in .mp3 format)

First, screen the next potential employer during the interview process.

• Ask why the job is open and how long the predecessor was there. If asked why you ask, answer "just curious." (Turnover is the key indicator that bullying happens there.)
• Ask what is the hiring manager's attitude toward "workaholics." (If they say it is expected, lots of unpaid overtime, abandonment of family, etc. know what you are getting into.)
• Ask what policies or codes exist to ensure a "Respectful Workplace." If they answer with that naturally they have and enforce anti-harassment rules. Push farther for the presence of a code that makes unacceptable abusive, cruel, destructive conduct regardless of illegality. If they answer that they rely on "common sense," that "no one like that" works here, state that the best places to work recognize that out-of-control people are destructive and have clear guidelines and punish offenders. More important to you than the absence of a policy is the response they give to the question. You decide how risky it is to work in a place that denies it happens. During the interview, you may actually have to say that you left an employer because they refused to protect workers from unsafe people. It is imperative that you take the next job with your eyes wide open. No more surprises. No deer-in-the-headlights paralysis for you.

Second, restore your health before looking for a job. Try to establish new personal boundaries that strangers will not cross, making slight changes as described in the book The Bully At Work. Limit your openness and desire to disclose so much of yourself when others reveal nothing personal about themselves. Make them give first, then reciprocate slightly. Depending on the severity of the harm suffered and the nature of your departure (in your control or involuntarily disgraced), rebound time can be long.

Indignity of Not Being Believed

Tutorials for Targets.

Dr. Namie warns of the harm inherent in Not Being Believed as a bullied person. How can they trust the liars?

Listen and then tell about your experience in a comment.

Download Podcast 2 (in .mp3 format)

to ha•rass

Etymology: French harasser, from Middle French, from harer to set a dog on, from Old French hare, interjection used to incite dogs, of Germanic origin

No wonder bullying and harassment are so dehumanizing, it is as if someone called on the attack dogs. Our South African friend Susan Steinman always invoked in her books the metaphor of bullies as hyenas, flesh-eating, pack-traveling attackers.

Illinois State professor Curtis White ponders in a new essay how humans can destroy the natural world. According to him, the source precedes contemporary culprits, and goes much deeper. Unfettered capitalism and the emphasis on “winning” are certainly to blame. But the human “barbaric heart” underlies our warlike approach to others. Violence and plunder are virtuous in a winner-take-all society. Citing the experience of the Romans, for whom prosperity depended on violence, White makes the point that the strategy is ultimately suicidal. But barbarians lack insight, never pausing to reflect on actions taken.

I know many of you are convinced most bullies are evil, barely human! Others believe all bullies are psychopaths. I thought you’d appreciate yet another way to characterize their quest for interpersonal violence at work — they are barbarians. In reality, we believe most bullies are banal soccer moms and fathers of the month. At work, they are transformed into barbarians.

Love to have your thoughts on the matter.

Dr. Denise Lopez Haugen, Licensed Clinical Psychologist

Square Peg Psychological

503-723-5053

17998 S Anderson Rd, Oregon City, OR 97045-9001

drhaugen@squarepegpsychological.com

Dr. Denise is a graduate of WBI University and an Oregon licensed clinical psychologist (PsyD) who can help you. Tell her WBI sent you.

If you do not live in the area but want telephone counseling, call her and request an appointment.

Read our advice about Selecting Therapists and what different kinds there are.

If your therapist is interested in learning more about Workplace Bullying dynamics in order to specialize, have him or her attend WBI University.

How have counselors treated you? Have they understood? Have they hurt? Please tell us here so others know who to trust and who to avoid. Make sure you name the city along with the person’s name.

Solidarity of the sisterhood is a myth and stereotype. It doesn’t mean it does not exist, it’s just that not all women are nurturant and supportive to one another. Neither is every man macho and hyper-aggressive. Stereotypes are generalizations about sex-role-typed behavior, common acts associated with only one gender and not the other. Many behaviors are gender-typed. 

Workplace Bullying is not gender-typed. Workplace environment factors are better predictors than gender. For example, a culture that carries no accountability or negative consequences, regardless of how harmful the behavior exhibited paves the way for bullies. A place where kissing-up (ingratiation) is the norm is fertile territory, where bullying and favoritism (and its converse, ostracism) thrive.

When we discuss the WBI Healthy Workplace Bill, we speak of “status-blind” harassment. Bullying crosses the boundaries drawn by gender, race, ethnicity, age, and disability. Thus bullying is truly “gender-free.”

What attracts the media to woman-on-woman (WOW) bullying is the fact that women are targeted at a higher rate by female bullies (71%) than by male bullies (46%). Yes, women are crueler to women than they are to men, and that must be explained. But don’t forget that 60% of all bullies are men. 31% of all bullying is men-on-men, 29% is WOW. Why is there so little interest in the more frequent variety of same-gender bullying? Because it’s discounted as routine, expected, predictable. WOW sounds mysterious, counterintuitive, and, I think, somewhat prurient.

So here are some explanations for WOW bullying that rarely make it into TV segments on bullying, print stories and the gabfest which is the blogosphere. We offer this because some readers might get the impression that we are misogynists. We are not! 57% of all bullied targets are women, and the majority of callers seeking help from us are women. We are women’s advocates in the fight against workplace bullying.

The WBI  starter list of explanations

A. It’s the workplace, not the people in it. Employers create work environments where aggression is rewarded. women see this (as well if not better than men) and learn to abuse others to get ahead. It’s the way things are done around here.

In male-dominated organizations, where men hold all the executive positions, women tend to adopt male-sex-typed behavior to survive and succeed. Only in female-run organizations (or those run by males who adopt a female-sex-typed style that values quality of interpersonal relationships as much as power and status differences) can there be hope for a less aggressive, more dignified and respectful way to operate.

See the Women and Bullying articles in our Research section for relevant studies about this particular angle.

B. A double standard about women is alive and well and practiced by both men and women. If women are “nice” they are too soft. If they are tough, they are “bitchy.” There are two social psychological explanations for this. 

First, it is gender bias in the causal attribution process. Causal attribution is simply showing a preference for explaining things that happen. Old research found that if a person is described succeeding at a task, the explanation depends on whether the person described is male or female. Success for men is typically explained by a trait, inherent skill, intelligence, ability. With exactly the same information, when it’s a woman, success is the result of the task being so easy anyone could have done it or luck. And both men and women elect those different explanations. 

Second, the first person to break any barrier and be the lone representative of a group (and therefore, be in the statistical minority) is called a “token.” Tokens are subjected to disproportionate pressure. Errors, however tiny, are magnified. Successes can also be blown out of proportion. In practice, token individuals often break from the pressure. Look at what Jackie Robinson had to endure when he broke the race barrier in the white baseball league. Same for the first woman CEO or the first woman to attain a high rank in any organization. Women are natural tokens in male-dominated domains, like business. Men are rarely the only male in any role, but when they are, they, too are tokens and heavily scrutinized.

C. Women targets are less likely to confront in response to being bullied. But targets, of both genders, rarely react with aggression. That’s what makes them targets. Bullies sense who will be an easier mark. Targets are sorted into those who take no action because of a higher moral calling. It could be their religion that tells them to turn the other cheek or to never lower oneself to the level of a tyrant. Other targets walk away in fear, stunned at the surprise attack. Getting away is the only reaction they have. Once away, they hope time will heal the wound or prevent it from happening again. Regardless of motive, targets do not defend themselves because either they are unable (it’s not their worldview and never acquired the skill of self-defense because it’s a fair world, no one will hurt you) or unwilling to do so. Targets are all “easy marks.” It’s not just women.

D. Most bullies are bosses (in the US, 72% of bullies are bosses). All bullies prefer to bully subordinates. It’s a permitted prerogative that makes being a boss attractive to many people. So, bullying flows downhill.

Women are bosses, too. But they are lower-ranking than men bosses (only 15% of executives are women, only 3% of CEOs). So they are more likely managing other women and not other men executives. They bully whoever they can. So, WOW may be nothing more than proximity at work. You bully those within reach.

E. Though I’m not a woman, I’ve had a great deal to do with them during my lifetime (and Ruth educates me constantly). (She says that) women are socialized to judge other girls while growing up. They pay attention to how others look and dress all the time. Self-identity can be almost entirely dependent on how others appear and how they are judged by others. Without comparisons to others, some would not know how to make decisions.

Two factors emerge. First, modeling one’s personal behavior on the actions of others gives a great deal of power to the other person. Clearly in WOW relationships where apparent friendship preceded bullying, the bully may have been respected by the future target. When she is betrayed, the target ruminates (for way too long) about the inexplicable turnaround, searching for a rational explanation. It doesn’t matter, it just happened because the bully wanted it to. Wanting to be like someone else gives away too much personal control over one’s own life and choices made.

Second, the skill of paying attention since childhood determines the adult woman’s perceptual field. Other women are salient in the social world. More information is gleaned from cultivating relationships with women. Abusive, exploitative relationships with one person dominating the other is simply a twisted, sick reliance upon getting information from another woman (to then be used against her). Targets fall into the trap easily.

F. Feminist writers claim that women grow up accustomed to having their personal boundaries invaded and thus learn to treat other women that same way. A girl’s opinions are treated as irrelevant by the father compared to her brother’s. A girl’s ambitions are tamped down, expectations made more “realistic,” dreams treated as impossible. This is denial of her very psychological integrity, a discounting of her humanity. If this is how she is raised, she grows accustomed to being treated rudely or denigrated as not deserving equal status with others. So, when bullied at work, the immediate reaction is rarely outrage and righteous indignation that a fool would dare lie so readily or be so unapologetically cruel. It is more likely a timid turing away, starting immediately to blame herself, buying into the lies (as if some “kernel of truth” is buried in all the manure), and spiraling into a psychologically compromised state.

Read Phyllis Chesler’s Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman in the Recommended Books section.

So, there’s my preliminary thinking about the topic. Do you see why reporters can’t handle all this information?

Women:  share your favorite explanation for WOW bullying by adding a comment. We want to see lots of input from you, the experts.

Completely rewritten

Order from this page for discount

Enjoy

If the prior edition of this book helped you when you were bullied at work, please write a comment below. Thanks,

GN & RN

Jury found Dr. Raess guilty of battery, awarded plaintiff Doescher $325,000

Expert witness:  Dr. Gary Namie, WBI

Appellate Court reversal

2008 Indiana Supreme Court restoral of trial verdict and award for plaintiff

Read the entire story and view the Supreme Court hearing

1. Targets under report it (40% of targets never tell). Employers simply may not know about it.
2. Most (80%) bullying is legal, rendering laws and law-compliant policies inapplicable
3. Thus, 62% of employers either do nothing or worsen the situation (retaliation) because they can do so with legal impunity.
4. The majority of bullies (73%) are managers; senior managers and HR reflexively side with management when disputes arise.
5. Bullies derive 73% of their support from executives, peer managers and HR
6. Bullies (an unknown percentage) are following orders from above
7. Executives have been bullied by the bullies. They are afraid to act. They have a disproportionate fear of lawsuits brought by the bully if they dare investigate or sanction the bully.
8. Bullies invented their reputation as indispensable high-performers in case they were ever exposed. Target complainants are then not believed.
9. Employers don’t actually know how to stop it. They forgot the lessons learned from having to correct and prevent illegal discrimination.
10. Employers don’t recognize bullying as violence in the workplace. The problem is erroneously defined as “conflict,” and the wrong solutions are applied.
11. Our society is highly aggressive and competitive. Bullies embody these two popular tactics. Hostility is more normative than the exception. So, bullying/abuse/psychological violence at work is positively embraced more often than despised.

WBI

Dr. Emelise Aleandri was one of two victorious plaintiffs in a lawsuit against City University of New York. Her bully, Joseph Scelsa, degraded this professional woman, stole her creative works and subjected her to humiliation at an institution of higher education in such a way that Dr. Gary Namie, expert witness in the case, described his outrageous conduct as the worst he had read about nationally. Scelsa treated Aleandri as a worthless person. Obviously, there is a different, objective realistic way to characterize the accomplished woman.

Read about Dr. Aleandri’s lawsuit against the City University of New York (CUNY) that settled for $1.4 million.

Emelise Aleandri, Ph.D.
2005 Woman of Distinction Award
Queens, New York

Dr. Emelise Aleandri has been selected as a Queens Woman of Distinction for 2005. The New York State Senate’s “Woman of Distinction” program was created in 1998 as part of the State’s celebration of Women’s History Month. Past honorees included 19th Century suffragists and women accomplished in sciences, academics, business and the arts. In addition to historic figures, the Women of Distinction program also honors exemplary present day women throughout New York State whose singular professional or personal achievements, whose commitment to excellence, accomplishments and dedicated service on behalf of their communities merit them special recognition by the State Senate.

Dr. Emelise Aleandri is the Artistic Director of Frizzi & Lazzi The Olde Time Italian-American Music & Theatre Company which recreates 19th century immigrant entertainments. She has a Ph.D in Theatre and is President of the Metro NY Chapter of the American Italian Historical Association. Arcadia published her photographic histories, The Italian-American Immigrant Theatre of New York City and Little Italy, about which she regularly lectures for many community organizations. She also lectures through the New York Council for the Humanities. She is currently at work on a multi-volume history of the Italian immigrant theatre for Edwin Mellen Press. She was the 2001 recipient of the Elena Lucrezia Cornaro award from the Order Sons of Italy in America, the 2002 recipient of the Leone di San Marco Award from the Italian Heritage & Culture Committee, and the ETTA Theatre Awardee in 2000.

Dr. Aleandri has produced three documentaries: Teatro, Festa and Circo Rois. For ten years she was the Producer/Host of Italics: The Italian-American Magazine, a nationally-aired cable TV show and is now an independent producer at the Manhattan Neighborhood network. A singer, folk dancer, TV and film actress, Emelise created the role of the 19th century Italian actress, Eleonora Duse, opposite Lilianne Montevecchi’s Sarah Bernhardt in Penguins and Peacocks. She was also featured in Spike Lee’s films Crooklyn and Summer of Sam, the Walnut Street Theatre production of Italian Funerals and Other Festive Occasions, Festa Primavera at La Mama ETC and the Off-Broadway production of Lou La Russo’s Sweatshop. Next, she will sing and play the tricchabalaccha and sing in the chorus of prostitutes in a recording of Jane House Productions’ musical Via Toledo by Night. On May 28 Emelise and Arnie “Mig” Migliaccio presented a program on Farfariello for Bella Italia Mia at the Paolucci Conference Center, 68-02 Metropolitan Avenue in Middle Village, Queens.

Actions Highlight Myth of HR as Employee “Advocates”

Here is a chilling tale that illustrates post-9/11 threats to free speech in the U.S., the power of an overreaching federal employer, and the role played by an obsequious HR department that can spontaneously launch unwarranted attacks on loyal, veteran employees. — WBI

Event 1: Laura Berg, a 15 year veteran clinical nurse specialist who works in the New Mexico Veterans Administration (VA) Hospital system, wrote a letter to the editor of the Albuquerque weekly newspaper Alibi published on September 15, 2005. It was titled “Wake Up, Get Real.” Berg signed the letter as a private citizen, without citing her VA employer. Her essay criticized how the administration handled Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War. Read the letter itself below.

Event 2: A few days after the letter was published, VA Information Security employees seized Berg’s computer at the local VA hospital where she works. At the time, she was told this action occurred because of suspicions that she’d composed the letter to the Alibi on government time, on government premises, using government equipment. The computer was returned the next day.

Event 3: On Sept. 19, Berg’s AFGE union representative, Thomas Driber, told Berg that her Alibi letter had been sent through “VA channels” to the FBI in Washington, D.C.

Event 4: Inquiries by AFGE lawyers led to a Nov 9 memo from VA Chief of Human Resources, Mel R. Hooker in which Hooker allegedly admitted that the VA had no evidence the letter was written on Berg’s office computer. Despite this, Hooker claimed the investigation was justified because the “Agency is bound by law to investigate and pursue any act which potentially represents sedition.” HR makes clear its distrust of employees here.

Event 5: Sonja Brown, the head of the VA’s Public Affairs Operations, forwarded the following statement via e-mail to Alibi reporter Steven Robert Allen: “While VA does not prohibit employees from exercising their freedom of speech, we do ask that such activity occurs outside government premises and not during their official tour of duty. When we have reason to believe that this policy is not being adhered to, we have the obligation to review an individual’s computer activity.” An unapologetic tone.

Fact: According to Norman Cairns, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Albuquerque, “Sedition is only mentioned in one section of the United States Code and the sedition that’s listed there is basically a plot to violently overthrow the United States government by force. Based on the plain statutory language, sedition always seems to imply the use of force or a conspiracy to use force. The penalty is a $250,000 fine and up to 20 years in prison.”

Event 6: Albuquerque ACLU attorneys George Bach and Larry Kronen represent Laura Berg.They both believe the letter is protected speech under the First Amendment. They have filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the VA for all documents pertaining to this bizarre investigation. They demand an explanation for the department’s investigation of this federal employee. They have asked (HR Chief) Hooker for a public apology “to remedy the unconstitutional chilling effect on the speech of VA employees that has resulted from these intimidating tactics.” Laura Berg is not talking to the press, but reportedly fears losing her job.

Event 7: On Feb. 11, 2006, it was reported that U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) asked Veterans Affairs Secretary James Nicholson for a thorough inquiry of his agency’s investigation into the “sedition” threat posed by the publication of Laura Berg’s Sept. 15, 2005 letter to the editor and subsequent VA-FBI tactics.

The “seditious” letter to the editor that spawned the draconian VA response.

Sept. 15, 2005

Wake Up, Get Real

Dear Alibi,

I am furious with the tragically misplaced priorities and criminal negligence of this government. The Katrina tragedy in the U.S. shows that the emperor has no clothes! Bush and his team partied and delayed while millions of people were displaced, hundreds of thousands were abandoned to a living hell. Thousands more died of drowning, dehydration, hunger and exposure; most bodies remain unburied and rotting in attics and floodwater. Is this America the beautiful?

The risk of hurricane disaster was clearly predicted, yet funds for repair work for the Gulf States barrier islands and levee system were unconscionably diverted to the Iraq War. Money and manpower and ethics have been diverted to fight a war based on absolute lies!

As a VA nurse working with returning OIF vets, I know the public has no sense of the additional devastating human and financial costs of post-traumatic stress disorder; now we will have hundreds of thousands of our civilian citizens with PTSD as well as far too many young soldiers, maimed physically or psychologically — or both –spreading their pain, anger and isolation through family and communities for generations. And most of th