By Jessica Lussenhop, Minneapolis City Pages, May 16, 2012

Joe Henry hated his boss so much, he would’ve preferred his old Army drill sergeant. “A drill sergeant is consistently one way,” he says. “You know you’re going to get yelled at no matter what.”

Henry, a barrel-chested man with military posture, joined the Army at age 18 and deployed with one of the first battalions to enter Iraq in March 2003. He served a seven-month tour locating weapons caches and maintaining communications lines. A fellow vet remembers Henry as a reliable soldier — steady under the sound of constant gunfire.

For Henry, it turned out wartime was easier to handle than a job in satellite TV installation.

After he returned home, Henry began working as a manager for Dish Network. Six months into the job, his days began to start with the same strange ritual. He’d hit the alarm and lie there, wrestling with the urge to call in sick.

“If I make it to the weekend,” he’d tell himself, “I’ll buy myself a new shirt.”

These little carrots would get him into his car and headed toward the office in Maplewood, but as he neared the low-slung industrial complex, the nausea would set in. There were days he thought he was going to throw up.

All this was over his boss, Marshall Hood.

“He’d get in your face. He’d point, he loved to shove the finger,” Henry recalls. “You never knew what was going to set him off.”

It is nearly impossible to successfully sue your boss for being a bully. While there are decades’ worth of precedents on gender and race discrimination in the workplace, just being an all-around jerk is sanctioned boardroom behavior.

“The standard for outrageous conduct is so high that people lose those lawsuits,” says Dr. Gary Namie, the director of the Workplace Bullying Institute. “Nothing is considered outrageous when committed by management.”

A 2010 study commissioned by the Workplace Bullying Institute showed that 35 percent of adults said they’d experienced some form of “repeated, health harming abusive conduct committed by bosses and co-workers.” Studies in Britain, Finland, and Sweden have all correlated bad bosses with an increased risk of heart disease. Workers’ rights advocates argue that some recourse should exist since bosses can have a profound effect on their subordinates’ careers and mental health, to say nothing of the propensity to go mad with power.

“When you put people in positions of authority, of management, if you look at the behavior, it’s one of the best and most reliable ways to turn someone into a jerk,” says Bob Sutton, a Stanford University professor of management science and author of Good Boss, Bad Boss.

Since there are no existing laws against workplace bullies, up until now it’s been up to the lawyers. In 2007, an underperforming sales executive in Utah was waterboarded as a “team-building” exercise orchestrated by his overzealous boss, and he had to fight to the State Supreme Court to have his claim heard.

An Indiana man sued after his boss, an open-heart surgeon, attacked him in the operating room and told him he was “finished.” In 2008, the victim won $325,000 and media accounts dubbed it the first “workplace bullying” victory in U.S. history.

Despite the scant victories, Sutton believes the days of the feckless corporate boss-holes are numbered.

“You can see it as a part of the zeitgeist, of people being more sensitive about bullying with kids,” he says. “It transfers to the workplace.”

Mitch Absey had no idea, as he watched his wife take a twirl with Marshall Hood on the dance floor of a mutual co-worker’s wedding in 2003, that in nine years they’d be facing off in a civil courtroom.
“He seemed like a nice kid,” recalls Absey.

Dish Network is the second-largest satellite television provider in the country, but when it expanded to Minnesota in the late ’90s, the first office felt like a mom-and-pop operation.

Hood was a stocky, bespectacled Georgia native who’d moved to Minnesota to marry a long-distance girlfriend. While they didn’t have much in common, Absey and most of the employees at Dish became friends.

“We knew what we needed to do and we got the job done,” says Shaun Sheridan, who started at Dish in 2001. “A lot of us would hang around and socialize, play ping pong, go to the bar.”

Peter Beard, the groom from the 2003 nuptials, even had Hood in his wedding party.

“He was a fun guy to be around,” says Beard. “He was friends with pretty much everybody.”

At one time, Marco Esnaola and Hood held identical managerial positions, and Esnaola says he saw Hood as a level-headed boss — except once, after he got into a yelling match with a technician (Hood “respectfully declined” to comment for this story through his attorney).
“I brought him into the office. I told him if he ever wanted to become something more than a lead technician he had to never do that again,” recalls Esnaola.

Hood ultimately proved him wrong. In 2004, as the business at Dish continued to thrive, Hood was offered leadership of the branch and the title of general manager. At the time, Absey says it seemed like a fine decision.

“It was like, ‘Oh, okay, well, no big deal. Seems like it’ll be all right,’” Absey recalls. “And it wasn’t.”

The corporate executives loved Hood’s management. Technicians were averaging 11 jobs a week, up from eight. Job completion rates were high. By those quantitative measures, Maplewood was ranked 13th out of Dish’s 93 offices nationwide.

But behind the scenes, an HR rep estimated turnover was more than twice that of the neighboring Chanhassen office. Workers were miserable.
There were small signs at first: Hood stopped socializing with the rest of the office, former friends say. When a new directive came down from corporate — for example, the “eight-of-eight” rule that said all technicians must be in trucks and on the road at eight minutes to 8 o’clock — Hood enforced it personally, hustling technicians out the door, Esnaola says.

Employees also reported he could be nasty, or have “meltdowns” in meetings.

“He’d challenge people to look for other work. ‘Good luck finding another job,’” recalls Sheridan. “It’s not the right message to send to people.”

In one managers’ meeting with about five others, including Henry and Esnaola, Hood got heated over some scheduling issues and overall low productivity. Suddenly, he blew up.

“You’re pissing all over me!” he shouted, beet-red in the face, throwing sheets of a PowerPoint presentation in the air.
“I almost started laughing. I thought he was kidding,” recalls Esnaola. “Apparently, he wasn’t.”

Even Beard saw a rapid change in the man he once considered to be a close friend, and says they argued on more than one occasion in the office.

“It was a dictatorship,” he says.

But none of that petulant behavior compared to what happened in the spring of 2009.

A manager named James Kline was sitting at his desk in the office, chatting with a couple of other employees. Suddenly, Hood came through the doorway, livid. In one hand dangled an entire Dish satellite: a 20-inch diameter disk with the metal arm sticking out as if ripped off the roof. Hood walked toward Kline’s desk, raised the dish to about chest height, and let the heavy piece of equipment smash to the floor.

“I was physically afraid,” recalls Kline.

According to one manager’s later testimony, Hood shouted, “You want your [performance appraisal], here’s your P.A.!”

Hood shouted that he’d found the satellite in the Dumpster behind the office, just days after he’d told the technicians to start salvaging dishes that could be recycled. Then he stormed out.

Henry recalls the rest of the office staff quickly followed suit. “It was almost comical how fast they were moving,” he says.

Even though the incident became the talk of the office, it was never reported to corporate HR. The office had no representative, though Kline says he typed up an informal note that was sent to Hood. Still, he says he and others had talked directly to Hood about his behavior in the past without success.

“There wasn’t any point to try to raise any issues,” he says.

At the start of the day on January 21, 2010, Absey was in his office when he heard a commotion in the common space. It was Hood and another manager named Kemal Nezarevic.

Hood had asked a couple of field service managers where their technicians were. They told him that Nezarevic had sent them home early, against Hood’s direction. Hood hit the roof.

“Why don’t you know this?” Hood yelled, according to Nezarevic’s later account to HR.

The two began to argue, and Hood started toward his office, with Nezarevic trailing behind him. At the entrance to the office, Hood threw his fist at the half-open door. It crashed open, and the two walked inside and closed the door, still arguing audibly. On the outside of the door was a visible hole.

Absey was shocked. “I’d be fired for that,” he says.

By his own admission, Absey says Hood mostly left him alone. But he decided that since he had the longest tenure in the office, he ought to do something.

“He’s getting worse and worse and worse,” he recalls. “These people don’t deserve it. They don’t deserve to go to work like this.”

He called the office’s HR representative from his car and said he wanted to make a formal complaint the next day.

Hood apparently also realized he’d gone too far and self-reported to HR late that afternoon. In Hood’s version of the incident, however, he wrote that he “asked Kemal to come into my office” and that instead of opening his door, “I hit it with my hand to open [it].”

The version in Absey’s report was not so polite.

“When Marshall has done things in the past he gets really nice afterwards and Mitch does not want to take it anymore,” HR rep Dyann Turner wrote. “Everyone is terrified of him — they think they will lose their job if they speak out.”

Turner also took a statement from all the workers present that day.
“That was not cool,” she quotes Nezarevic saying. “I asked him what if that were me instead of the door ….”

The investigation opened a floodgate of complaints. Several of the workers brought up the satellite-throwing incident. One called the office a “place of fear.”

“I was concerned about repercussion of filing a complaint, but I am at the end of my rope,” wrote one supervisor. “I don’t know what’s worse him finding out that I filed a complaint and using it against me or me and our team working in an environment like this.”

About a week and a half later, Hood told Absey his job was terminated.

“All of a sudden I’m getting let go,” Absey recalls. “And he had this kind of, ‘Whup, you know, kind of looks like I got you in the end’ kind of attitude about it. Just nonchalant.”

In the letter Hood gave him, Absey was told the decision was part of a larger restructuring at Dish. In fact, several people lost their jobs that day, but Absey was chosen for termination over an employee with six years less experience.

Esnaola was also let go that day, but because he had racked up some bad numbers in recent months, he expected it. To him, Absey’s firing made no sense.

“I couldn’t believe it,” says Esnaola. “He’d done nothing wrong.”
Absey was in disbelief as well. Hood offered him the much lower-paying position he’d held eight years earlier as a technician, or an internal transfer to a training manager position in Chanhassen. He applied for the transfer and after a brief phone interview was rejected.

Absey went home and told his wife, who runs a flower shop in Linden Hills. “She said, ‘I know this guy who comes in, here’s his number,’” Absey recalls.

Steve Heikens was dubious when Absey first called him. As an attorney with nearly 30 years of experience and a founding member of the National Employment Lawyers Association, Heikens knew right away that the chances of winning in a bully boss case were slim to none.

“Laymen, they think that’s a hostile work environment, but the law defines ‘hostile’ as because of sex, race, age. It doesn’t mean a general hostility,” Heikens explains. “Disrespect for an employee is not illegal. It should be, but it’s not.”

Absey described the crashing satellite dish and the door-punching incident.

“How can it not be against the law to behave that way at work?” he remembers asking. “You have to punch somebody at work for this to be illegal?”

Heikens typed a few terms into Google: “Minnesota,” “violence.” To his surprise, Minnesota Statute 1.5 came up.

“The State of Minnesota hereby adopts a policy of zero tolerance toward violence,” it reads. “It is state policy that every person in the state has a right to live free from violence.”

Heikens surmised that under this statute, he could present Absey as a whistleblower who was retaliated against for trying to keep the workplace “free from violence.” It would be a totally novel approach to a bullying case, but if it worked, it could be precedent-setting.

Almost two years after Absey was fired, Marshall Hood took the stand in Ramsey County Civil Court. Judge Elena Ostby advised him of his right not to incriminate himself. Some of the behavoir he was about to admit to could be considered disorderly conduct.

“Mr. Heikens,” Judge Ostby said, “proceed.”

“Thank you, Your Honor,” he said.

In the two years it took to bring the case to a jury trial, there had been significant changes at the Maplewood office. As Absey was clearing out his desk, a Dish regional manager from Chicago arrived to see the hole in the door for himself. Five days later, the manager sent Hood a letter.

“Based on direct observation of the damage to the door as well as concerns reported from multiple staff members, it was determined that that damage to the door was more extensive than originally reported,” the Chicago manager wrote. “You were not punching the door in an attempt to open it, but instead punching the door in a moment of anger.”
Hood was suspended for three days. Afterward, he remained general manager of the office until it was closed and consolidated with another branch in February 2011 (Hood is now employed with a Dish subcontractor).

Meanwhile, Dish’s attorneys sought unsuccessfully to have Absey’s case tossed. Hood settled privately with Absey, but he still had to testify. It was finally time for Heikens to test his theory.

Heikens asked Hood if he swore at his employees. Hood admitted that he had.

“You must feel that if you add a little intensity, they’ll listen to you even more?” asked Heikens.

“Passion, I would say,” Hood answered.

“Did you demonstrate your passion in the workplace?” asked Heikens.
“I would say, yes,” said Hood.

“Was throwing the dish down on the ground an example of the passion?” asked Heikens.

“No, that was more frustration,” said Hood.

Hood admitted on the stand that he’d thrown papers in the air, smashed the satellite dish to the ground, and punched a hole in his door.

“Do you have any problems related to your temper in the management of the employees at Dish?” Heikens asked.

“I would say I would get frustrated with their lack of performance in certain areas,” Hood retorted. “They all had opportunities to be better.”

“Did you also have opportunities to be better?” asked Heikens.
“Absolutely,” said Hood.

After several days of testimony, the jury heard from top brass at Dish who testified that Absey’s job loss was a long-planned restructuring, and based only on two performance surveys Hood had filled out in 2008 and 2009. In one, Absey had scored a 62 — his replacement, who at the time had been on the job for a month, scored a 64. They also heard a string of human resources employees pass the blame on reporting the satellite dish incident.

Both current and former employees spoke, including a current Dish manager who said that he’d expressed a desire to hire Absey back a month after his departure but was cautioned against it: “Do you want to fill the position with him? He was terminated for a reason.”

On the final day of trial, the attorney for Dish closed by saying that while the company did not deny that Hood had “issues” with his leadership, there wasn’t enough evidence to prove retaliation against Absey. Then Heikens rose for his closing argument.

“Somehow companies have to learn to have a conscience. They have to learn not to treat HR as a black hole, where information goes in and gets buried,” he said. “They have to take it seriously.”

The jury agreed with him. On February 2, 2012, they ruled that Absey’s report was a motivating factor for not giving him a position in another office, and that Dish acted “with deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of others.” They awarded Absey $270,000.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Dish wrote, “We were disappointed in the verdict and we have asked the court to set it aside or grant a new trial.”

Dish is preparing to file an appeal that will attempt to dismantle the legal logic of Heiken’s argument and argue they were under no obligation to hire Absey back. But other attorneys are utilizing Heiken’s strategy in the hopes that this is the silver bullet for bully bosses.

Neil Mullin, a New Jersey employment attorney who knows Heikens through the National Employment Lawyers Association, says he has a stack of previously rejected cases to review. Attorney Alf Sivertson of St. Paul says he has already filed three cases in Ramsey County that he plans to argue using Heiken’s strategy.

“Once the defense bar gets wind of this they’re certainly going to start advising their big corporate clients they now have legal exposure for the verbally abusive or threatening manager.”

Seated in a bustling coffee shop just next door to his wife’s flower shop, Absey says this is not at all what he expected when he originally decided to sue.

“Initially, I just thought they’d give me my job back,” he says. “I went from being a perfect employee to, as Steve put it, persona non grata. They wanted nothing to do with me.”

Still, neither he nor any of his old friends from Dish can say they regret the shutdown of the Maplewood office. Henry says his friends tell him he’s back to his old self again. Esnaola lost 120 pounds after he stopped stress-eating all day. All the employees interviewed for this story found new jobs within months of leaving or being fired by Dish.

“It’s vindication for all the people who were under Marshall at one point or another and felt this wrath,” Esnaola says of the verdict. “It was a nightmare working there. You get what you deserve.”

Absey strikes a slightly less triumphant note. Since leaving Dish he’s got a union job as a low-voltage electrician. It’s good work, but he’s starting his career over again.

“I’m older than I’d like to be, doing what I’m doing,” he says.
He takes more pride in the idea that the case will help other employees working under similar conditions.

“I feel like justice was served, to be completely honest,” he says. “Steve shot me a text to say there had been three cases that had used our precedent to move along. It’s kind of crazy that this hadn’t happened before.” 

Kalola has an M.A. in Counseling (specialty: job, career counseling) and is a member of the American Counseling Association. Kalola’s firsthand experience with bullying and her public service work in government and higher education give her a learned perspective on the practical solutions to workplace bullying.

Part 3 -Target Support (42:53)

WBI has broken the 70 min. press conference into 3 parts for easier viewing.

View Part 1: Lawmakers

View Part 2: Unions & Orgs

Part 2 – Unions & Orgs (17:37)

Speakers: Michael Gary, Healthcare Coordinating Council, CWA; Iris Delutro, Professional Staff Congress, AFT; Tom Comanzo, Public Employees Federation (PEF); John Richter, Mental Health Association for NY State

WBI has broken the 70 min. press conference into 3 parts for easier viewing.

View Part 1: Lawmakers

View Part 3: Targets

NYHWA had the first versions of our anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill introduced in 2006. More bills were introduced during each 2-year legislative season since. In 2010 the HWB passed the NY Senate.

In 2012, according to prime sponsor Assemblyman Steve Englebright, the chair of the Assembly Labor Committee joined the bill as co-sponsor and agreed to move the bill, making it a priority bill to reach the Governor’s desk. This highlight of the press conference is found at the 4:51 time mark of the NY Lawmakers video portion of the press conference.

WBI has broken the 70 min. press conference into 3 parts for easier viewing.

Part 1 (9:52): NY Lawmakers voice their support for bills A 4258 and S 4289, featuring Assemblymembers Steve Englebright, Aileen Gunther, Dennis Gabrysza, & Mark Johns.

View Part 2: Unions & Orgs

View Part 3: Targets

All of this was acceptable in the pre-Columbine era when bullying was considered a harmless rite of passage. But now is now; school bullying is a regular installment in the mainstream media. Hardly a day passes without a story. The documentary by WBI colleague Lee Hirsch, “Bully” is playing in theaters right now. Society frowns on school bullying.

Now comes the story of Republican party leader and presidential candidate Mitt Romney with an image problem — a wooden style. A May 10 Washington Post account of his years at an exclusive Michigan all-boys boarding school, Cranbrook, recounts stories from classmates. The Romney campaign wants to use evidence of his youthful pranks to prove he was (and therefore implying that he is now) capable of looseness and fun.

However, the WP reporter Jason Horowitz, uncovered a serious 1965 incident in which Romney’s disdain for a classmate drove him to assault and battery. Romney was incensed by fellow student John Lauber’s new bleached blonde hairstyle. Romney told then dorm roommate Matthew Friedmann that Lauber “can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” Four witnessing students went on record with independent accounts of Romney carrying scissors leading a posse (“pack of dogs” according to one participant) down the hall to Lauber’s room where they tackled him, pinned him down while he screamed and teared up, and Romney cut off clumps of the hair he hated. “It was a hack job,” recalled Phillip Maxwell, who was in the room when the incident occurred. “It was vicious.” To ABC News, Maxwell claimed it was “supreme bullying.”

Romney, the dorm hair sheriff, and potential future president.

Make no mistake this was not a voluntary “haircut.” The assailants returned to Romney’s dorm room and made a point of not talking about it. Friedmann waited to see what consequences they or Romney would experience. None followed. Yet, Cranbrook was a school famous for its strict behavioral codes. Teachers were fanatics about militaristic white-gloved inspections for dorm room dust after 7 am breakfast where students wore coats and ties and carried briefcases. But nothing happened to Romney. Poor Lauber was expelled before he could graduate when turned in by a classmate for smoking a cigarette.

School Masters Modeled Bullying in the Boys-Will-Be-Boys World

Snitches were useful to school administrators. That’s how Lauber was booted out. Horowitz reported that expulsions were frequent. But nothing happened to Romney who entered Cranbrook as a 7th grader as a non-residential day student and graduated as a dorm resident with his father installed as governor of the state.

Discipline was “applied … briskly when needed” and offenders could be “dismissed, period,” according to Ben Snyder who was a teacher on the committee in charge of Cranbrook discipline. Despite this zero tolerance attitude for which the school must have been proud, Snyder recalled no problems with young Romney because “the family was so straight, they don’t do those types of things.” Wow. Daddy Romney was governor so, of course, son Willard Mitt, would never face discipline.

Given the shame victims endure, it is likely that Lauber did not report the assault. However, given Snyder’s refusal to see Romney doing anything bad, Lauber would have been treated as a liar. It would have taken the five witnesses to come forward truthfully, an outcome WBI research shows simply does not happen.

Almost worse than school administrators granting impunity to offenders they see as fun-loving pranksters is a homophobic school environment where teachers model bullying for the students. The WP article quoted Gary Hummel a gay student who said that Romney barked “Atta girl” whenever Hummel spoke up in class. However, Hummel said that the teachers used the same language.

The Non-Apology & Apologists

Because Romney is running for president, he was asked to comment. He can be heard laughing as he admits to doing “stupid things” when young. He told Neil Cavuto on Fox News “There’s no question that I did some stupid things in high school, and obviously, if I hurt anyone by virtue of that, I would be very sorry for it and apologize for it.”

Rachel Maddow replays clips of Mitt Romney’s inappropriate laughter.

The Romney friend, Gregg Dearth, in the ABC News TV clip above makes the confusing statement that you may “traumatize a little, but if no harm, no foul.” Hey, if traumatized, even a “little,” a foul has been committed.

Romney friend Stu White (quoted in the WP story) said, “I always enjoyed his pranks. But I was not the brunt of any of his pranks.” Enough said.

David Seed, one of the witnesses to the Lauber assault, ran into Lauber in the mid-1990′s. Lauber recalled the incident and said how frightened he was at being held down and brutalized. Lauber said “It was horrible. It’s something I have thought a lot about since then.” This weakens the no harm, no foul rationalization.

Expect major excuses for the adolescent Romney in the days to follow.

Mainstream media will be conflicted between two favorite themes — politics and school bullying. I predict politics wins. Romney will not be branded a bully. His adult behavior will be distanced from his adolescent aggressive proclivities, despite what is known by developmental psychology. He will be said to have “evolved.” He will be portrayed as a nice guy who wouldn’t hurt a fly. But John Lauber died in 2004, unable to tell his story, was not a fly.

Watch the TV anchors (Muir and Diane Sawyer) squirm to protect Romney’s image at the end of the clip.

And these headlines take Romney’s non-apology for something it is not.
The New York Times: Romney Apologizes For Bullying In Prep School, Says He Didn’t Know Victim Was Gay

and the Huffington Post: Romney Apologizes For Bullying In Prep School, Says He Didn’t Know Victim Was Gay

at least the Washington Post hinted about negativity with its headline: Mitt Romney’s Prep School Classmates Recall Pranks, but Also Troubling Incidents

West Virginian Anna Jarvis modified Howe’s day to become Mothers’ Friendship Day to celebrate the reunion of families divided by the Civil War. Her daughter, Anna M. Jarvis, kept the flame alive by staging the first official Mother’s Day celebrations on May 10, 1908 in a Methodist church in Grafton, WV and another in Philadelphia. White carnations were given to attending mothers. In 1914 Woodrow Wilson made Mother’s Day a national observance.

Jarvis unsuccessfully fought the florist industry’s exploitation of the holiday until her death in 1948. For a fuller history, go here.

The popular, simplistic term suggests an acceptance of current situations as inevitable and unchangeable. It is a form of resignation. If we accept bullying as “the way it is,” we give away too much personal integrity. Instead, try “Question Authority” as the alternative.

Download Podcast 27 (in .mp3 format)

Download a copy of her Counseling Today letter

The sad part is that for all their caring and altruism that benefits all of us, the sacrifices of personal health and workplace status are staggering. Nurses are the primary targets of workplace bullying in the healthcare world. Not only do arrogant physicians (lords of the trade) pummel nurses, nurses often mistreat their own. They call it “lateral violence.”

WBI salutes Nurses for understanding workplace bullying and for being such strong advocates for our legislation in states to prevent and correct bullying. Thank you.

An interview with the filmmaker behind Murder By Proxy, the documentary.

Emil Chiaberi has gone “postal.”



Chiaberi was merely curious when one day he decided to research the phrase “going postal.” But what started as a mere curiosity, turned into an extensive sociological study — and finally a documentary film.



His movie, “Murder By Proxy: How America Went Postal,” examines the reasons behind workplace violence, particularly the 1991 shootings at the Royal Oak Post Office.




The film’s main character, Charlie Withers, is a postal worker from Royal Oak. He’s featured throughout the film.



“Murder by Proxy” is available to watch in metro-Detroit Comcast Cable, listed under “New Movies” in On-Demand.



“All of a sudden I saw how all these incidents were connected to the larger cultural trends and that by studying them we could gain better understanding of where we are and where we are heading as a society,” Chiaberi said.



He became so obsessed with the subject that it started to affect his business.

“It came to a point that all I could talk about was mass murders and how they were symptoms of a deep societal crisis,” he said. After a while, I finally realized that unless I do something, like write a book or make a film, and thus get it out of my system, I will never shut up about it.”



Learning by doing



Chiaberi, who grew up in the Soviet Union and now lives in California with his family, also owns a biomedical company. “Murder By Proxy” is his directorial debut.



Chiaberi’s lack of experience and formal education never deterred him from pursuing his goals.



“I studied economics in the Soviet Union, but dropped out in my second year in order to come to the U.S.,” he said. “I never had an opportunity to resume my studies, because I had to work to support myself. But I quickly found out that I was too opinionated and outspoken to be a good employee. Some may call it annoying, so in order to stay employed I had to become self-employed.”



Chiaberi couldn’t hold a steady job, but instead wound up building several multimillion-dollar enterprises. Eventually as the film bug bit him, he decided to make a documentary.



“A lot of people thought that I was either crazy or that I had hit a premature middle-aged crisis. But I assure you it was neither. I was simply doing what I always had done — pursuing my interests.”



As a practical person and a businessman, Chiaberi knew he was facing steep challenges at every stage — from raising funds, production and post production, to the most difficult part, getting distribution. But being a businessman also means being irrational at times.



“You have to believe that you will succeed, despite all the evidence to the contrary,” Chiaberi said. Otherwise, you will fail. It sounds cliché, but that’s how it really works. And I also knew why I was making this film. It wasn’t because I wanted to become a filmmaker. It was because I had an important story to tell. And as long as I succeeded in doing so I couldn’t possibly fail.”



Filmmaking as social study

Chiaberi’s documentary explores the connections between hostile work environments and trends in violence in the workplace causing disaster. While the film shows the public reaction to the shock of such an event, it also explores how workplace management bent on profit and employee bullying plays a role in these tragedies.



The film’s subtitle is about how the term “going postal” came to be — how an otherwise normal person is driven to mass murder. Chiaberi utilized on-camera interviews to reveal perspectives around the Royal Oak post office shooting Nov, 14 1991, when a dismissed postal worker turned guns on fellow colleagues before turning the gun on himself.



The film’s main character, Charlie Withers, is a postal worker from Royal Oak. He’s featured throughout the film.



“It took about two years to gather all of the footage for this film,” says Chiaberi.  ”I think that the purpose of a documentary is to offer food for thought, not necessarily provide a solution. I tried to do my best to offer people food for thought.”



Bullied worker becomes the bully


”Murder by Proxy” became a feature-length documentary that examples the phenomenon of spree killings in the workplace but also tries to use case history to show the importance of a psychologically healthy workplace.



“To understand what happened in the Postal Service in the past 40 years is to understand how mass murder phenomenon had evolved in our society,” Chiaberi said.



”They took what used to be a government agency performing a valuable public service and turned it into a for-profit corporation,” he said. “They had to dramatically increase productivity.”



“USPS historically relied on a huge work force. Because USPS had massive work force, the only way they could do that is by squeezing more out of their workers. It resulted in dramatically increased stress and endemic workplace bullying throughout the entire organization.”



Chiaberi’s film is most definitely not a scientific study of what causes workplace bullying and how it affects human psyche, but shines a light on what he considers to be a dark room. He and his crew took a large sample of people spread over a huge geographical area and subjected them to the same conditions. As a result they had a workplace bullying epidemic that gave us the so called “going postal” phenomenon.

Chiaberi’s film company is growing and he’s now in a position to pursue more projects. As words of advice for future documentary filmmakers, Chiaberi keeps it simple.



“Don’t do it unless you feel passionate about the story,” he says. “Try to figure out all business aspects, such as who is your audience, who you’re going to sell it to, how, etc., prior to going into production. Once you start filming, don’t think about anything else but staying passionate and honest. You will never fail.”

###

I’m proud to have collaborated on this film along with criminologist James Fox of Northeastern University and psychiatrist Michael Welner. Charlie Withers is an American hero, now retired from the USPS after 40 years of service. I found Emil to believe more deeply in the ideals of America than most Americans. The reason he was so bothered by USPS management’s ability to torment its workers was specifically because this happens in the U.S. For some non-cynical reason, he believed it should not ever be allowed to happen in the ostensibly greatest democracy in the world. The film was a lesson about the real America and what capitalism does when it replaces government service.

By visiting the Murder By Proxy website, you can download or purchase a copy. Do so today.

WE MUST STOP BULLYING. IT STARTS HERE. IT STARTS NOW.

Here is the text of the editorial

Siouxland lost a young life to a senseless, shameful tragedy last week. By all accounts, Kenneth Weishuhn was a kind-hearted, fun-loving teenage boy, always looking to make others smile. But when the South O’Brien High School 14-year-old told friends he was gay, the harassment and bullying began. It didn’t let up until he took his own life.

Sadly, Kenneth’s story is far from unique. Boys and girls across Iowa and beyond are targeted every day. In this case sexual orientation appears to have played a role, but we have learned a bully needs no reason to strike. No sense can be made of these actions.

Now our community and region must face this stark reality: We are all to blame. We have not done enough. Not nearly enough.

This is not a failure of one group of kids, one school, one town, one county or one geographic area. Rather, it exposes a fundamental flaw in our society, one that has deep-seated roots. Until now, it has been too difficult, inconvenient — maybe even painful — to address. But we can’t keep looking away.

In Kenneth’s case, the warnings were everywhere. We saw it happen in other communities, now it has hit home. Undoubtedly, it wasn’t the first life lost to bullying here, but we can strive to make it the last.

The documentary “Bully,” which depicts the bullying of an East Middle School student, opened in Sioux City on Friday. We urge everyone to see it. At its core, it is a heart-breaking tale of how far we have yet to go. Despite its award-winning, proactive policies, we see there is still much work to be done in Sioux City schools.

Superintendent Paul Gausman is absolutely correct when he says “it takes all of us to solve the problem.” But schools must be at the forefront of our battle against bullying.

Sioux City must continue to strengthen its resolve and its policies. Clearly, South O’Brien High School needs to alter its approach. We urge Superintendent Dan Moore to rethink his stance that “we have all the things in place to deal with it.” It should be evident that is simply not the case.

South O’Brien isn’t the only school that needs help. A Journal Des Moines bureau report last year demonstrated that too many schools don’t take bullying seriously. According to that report, Iowa school districts, on average, reported less than 2 percent of their students had been bullied in any given year since the state passed its anti-bullying law in 2007. That statistic belies the actual depth of this problem, and in response the Iowa Department of Education will implement a more comprehensive anti-bullying and harassment policy in the 2012-13 school year.

But as Gausman and Nate Monson, director of Iowa Safe Schools, are quick to remind us, this is more than a school problem. If we want to eradicate bullying in our community, we can’t rely on schools alone.

We need to support local agencies like the Waitt Institute for Violence Prevention and national efforts like the one described at stopbullying.gov. Bullying takes many forms, some of them – Internet, Facebook, cell phone – more subtle than others. Parents should monitor the cell phone and Internet usage of their children. All public and private institutions need to do more to demonstrate that bullying is simply unacceptable in our workplaces and in our homes. We need to educate ourselves and others.

Some in our community will say bullying is simply a part of life. If no one is physically hurt, they will say, what’s the big deal? It’s just boys being boys and girls being girls.

Those people are wrong, and they must be shouted down.

We must make it clear in our actions and our words that bullying will not be tolerated. Those of us in public life must be ever mindful of the words we choose, especially in the contentious political debates that have defined our modern times. More importantly, we must not be afraid to act.

How many times have each of us witnessed an act of bullying and said little or nothing? After all, it wasn’t our responsibility. A teacher or an official of some kind should step in. If our kid wasn’t involved, we figured, it’s none of our business.

Try to imagine explaining that rationale to the mother of Kenneth Weishuhn.

It is the business of all of us. More specifically, it is our responsibility. Our mandate.

If we’re honest with ourselves, we will acknowledge our community has yet to view bullying in quite this way. It’s well past time to do so.

Stand up. Be heard. And don’t back down. Together, we can put a stop to bullying.

###

Next came the news that the Sioux City (anti-bullying) Project is nominated for a United Way international community improvement award.

The town gained incredible notoriety by being featured in the Lee Hirsch/Cynthia Lowen documentary “Bully.”

Kudos to Cindy Waitt and Alan Heisterkamp at the Waitt Institute for Violence Prevention (funders of the first national workplace bullying study in the U.S. in 2007 conducted by WBI). They are doing much in the schools to teach boys to become non-violent men, respectful of women so that domestic violence can be significantly reduced.

Much less well known is the fact that the Sioux City Community Schools was the first school district to implement the WBI Workplace Bullying in Schools program. In fact, that’s how Lee Hirsch met the WIVP and SCCS. It’s great that Superintendent Gausman speaks so eloquently about the need to protect the children. But he has the opportunity make a bigger difference in the schools by fully supporting the adult anti-bullying initiative he backed back in 2009.

When the adults stop tormenting one another, the school is a safer place for the students. Without addressing adult bullying, kids continue to learn how to bully from the adults and can rightly challenge the moral authority of adults telling kids to stop when they themselves do not.

So, we challenge Supt. Gausman and his new HR director to allow the trained peer expert team, the BPA — Bullying Prevention Advocates — to do their work and support the adult worker community within the Sioux City Schools.

Good luck to the SCCS District and the entire community.

Using our Instant Poll capability here at the WBI website, we asked 311 respondents (98% of whom are self-declared targets of bullying):

Does (did) your employer have a specific policy prohibiting workplace bullying? [It can be part of another policy, but there must be protections for everyone, regardless of sex, age, religion, etc.]

In 2010, we asked the national sample of respondents, representing all adult Americans, if their employers had an explicit anti-bullying policy. But based on the response, we were certain that they confused an anti-discrimination policy (written to comply with state and federal laws) with the need for additional protections for workers against abuse in same-gender and same-race situations. So, we asked the question much more specifically for this single-item survey.

We also acknowledge that new policies are springing up called “Respect,” “Respectful Workplace,” and “Civility.” The names indirectly address workplace bullying. However, they may be useful if specific protections against abusive conduct are included, regardless of the title that diminishes the problem.

Policies without enforcement and accountability for all abusers are insufficient. When special people (e.g., high-ranking bullies) are allowed to bully with impunity from punishment, the policy is not worth the paper it’s printed on. So, we offered survey respondents the chance to make a statement about the existence of a policy by any name and to further qualify the breadth of its enforcement.

Of the original 311 respondents, 38 chose the option: “Not sure if policy exists”

We eliminated them, leaving a sample of 273 individuals who were sure about the presence or absence of policies relating to workplace bullying and the quality of enforcement.

Again, the question was:

Does (did) your employer have a specific policy prohibiting workplace bullying? [It can be part of another policy, but there must be protections for everyone, regardless of sex, age, religion, etc.]

The response choices were:

No. There are only anti-harassment or anti-violence policies chosen by 61.9%

Yes. [An anti-bullying] Policy exists, but not applied to everyone (some are immune from enforcement) chosen by 17.9% — this counts as an employer failure to credibly stop abusive conduct.

Sort of. [The policy is] Named Respect or Incivility, too weak to stop bullying chosen by 14.6% — also an employer failure to credibly stop abusive conduct.

Sort of. [The policy is] Named Respect or Incivility but strong enough to stop bullying chosen by 2.9% — this counts as employer success.

Yes. [An anti-bullying] Policy exists, and is applied to everyone (good enforcement) chosen by 2.5% — this counts as employer success.

According to the customers of internal employer anti-bullying protections, approximately only 5% of employers have adequately addressed workplace bullying. Within the good employer group, less than 3% have the courage to call bullying what it is and to craft explicit policies with credible enforcement procedures.

About one-third of employers (32.5%) created something but either the policy or its enforcement is considered by targets to be too weak to prevent or correct workplace bullying.

The majority of employers (61.9%) simply ignore bullying. In a recent survey of HR professionals conducted by the HR trade association SHRM, 44% said they had no plans to create an anti-bullying policy in the future. Until there are laws, myopic employers may believe that bullying costs them nothing. This is a myth. Bullying is very expensive.

WBI Instant Polls rely on self-selected samples. The survey is not “scientific” in that its results can be extrapolated only to describe the perceptions of individuals bullied at work, not the general population.

Download a printable copy of the survey results.

© 2012 Workplace Bullying Institute. Do not cite without crediting the source.

The second point that this clip illustrates are that facts aren’t facts anymore when a rationalist (Maddow) thinks facts are indisuptable and the other side (Castellanos) refuses to acknowledge anything she says. (See Chris Mooney’s new book: The Republican Brain.)

A new longitudinal study published April 24 in Molecular Psychiatry found that children who experienced early-life stressors at age 5 — maternal domestic violence, frequent bullying victimization, or maltreatment by adults — suffered significantly more telomere erosion at age 10 than peers not exposed to stressful violence.

This area of research suggests this demonstrated (not theoretical) causal chain of events:

Chronic (unending, unremitting) exposure to stress LEADS TO the physiological human stress response PART OF WHICH IS the erosion of telomeres THAT CAUSES disruption of cellular replication and LEADS TO acceleration of aging, stress-related disease morbidity (cardiovascular, etc.), mortality (death).

The exact reasons that telomeres erode in response to stress are not known. The two most popular hypotheses are (1) damage by oxidative stress, as demonstrated by experiments showing increased erosion under conditions of high reactive oxygen species in vitro, and (2) inflammation. Inflammation is associated with increased proliferation of immune cells and, as a consequence, with more telomere erosion. In turn, the enzyme, telomerase, can lengthen and restore eroded telomeres.

The new study by Idan Shalev and others at Duke University hypothesized that if cumulative stress in children causes telomere damage, then in future years the prevalence of later-life health problems can be tracked and perhaps attributed to the stress exposure. The researchers also wanted to confirm or deny if the cellular damage occurs during childhood exposure.

Shortened telomeres increase susceptibility to diseases.

Children from a British sample of 1,116 sets of same-sex twins born in 1994-95 had provided DNA samples at age 5 and 10. In addition, from interviews with caregivers, the children’s exposure to violence was assessed at ages 5, 7 and 10. Shalev used 246 children, all identical twins living near London.

The length of telomeres were shorter in all children at age 10. A normal DNA cell divides itself 50-60 times before shutting down because the telomeres are so small. When the cap erodes, the strands of DNA unravel like a frayed shoestring.

Sadly, there were 39 children exposed to two or more types of violence (domestic violence, bullying) in the years since age 5 and they had the shortest telomeres. Researchers controlled for the potentially confounding factors of sex, socioeconomic status and body mass index. Shalev told Los Angeles Times reporter Eryn Brown, that their lives may be shortened by 7 to 10 years.

Thus, the greatest damage occurs when stress has multiple sources and is cumulative — not from a single event.

Here’s the reference for the scientific article:
I Shalev, T E Moffitt, K Sugden, B Williams, R M Houts, A Danese, J Mill, L Arseneault and A Casp. Exposure to violence during childhood is associated with telomere erosion from 5 to 10 years of age: A longitudinal study. Molecular Psychiatry , (24 April 2012) | doi:10.1038/mp.2012.32

Of course, the researchers will want to follow the children into later life, recording telomere lengths and the onset of health problems akin to the famous Whitehall study that tracked job strain and subsequent health impact in British government workers for 40 years.

Bullied targets can certainly sympathize with the experience of chronic stress endured by the most seriously affected children in this new study, as they could understand the unremitting strain associated with raising children with extraordinary demands. To be bullied is to live with chronic stress until the employer or unemployment provides relief. What all people, regardless of age, share when forced to live involuntarily with violence is an undeniable shortening of their lives without having the ability to stop the health-impairing acts by the violent others.

If you are being bullied. Stop ruminating about the bully’s motivation. Stop trying to rehearse cute comeback lines. Get to safety. Seek medical attention for stress. Compel your employer to make you safe or get out. Your life may depend on it. No exaggeration!!

And to all those who tell targets — children and adults — to thicken their skin, suffer in silence, give in to authorities who refuse to provide safety …. I wish they could experience that stress for just 3 months to see how “tough” they are.

Violence and abuse inflicted by humans on humans is inhumane. For God’s sake, NO ONE has the right to shorten another person’s life.

Women can be nastier bullies than men, at the workplace. What’s the best way to deal?

When Lady Gaga declared her hero was Emily-Anne, the 18-year-old pioneer of WeStopHate.org against teen bullying, I could completely identify. I had a flashback to my traumatic adolescent years. The memories alone made me feel like Emily-Anne could be my hero too.

However, I didn’t expect bullying to be so prevalent at the workplace. Adults are facing it pretty tough, with woman-on-woman harassment on the rise. Thirty-five percent of Americans reported being bullied at work, according to a 2010 survey by the Workplace Bullying Institute. Women make much nastier office bullies than men, says psychologist Dr. Gary Namie, co-founder of the Institute.

Workplace bullying is four times more common than sexual harassment and racial discrimination, found the same study. Girls are taught to be critical about each other from adolescence, and it’s particularly vicious among working women; from playing favourites to badmouthing colleagues. Common careers where women face bullying? Law, finance or any other job where “women feel the need to be hyper-aggressive to get ahead in a male-dominated environment,” says Dr. Namie.

Debra Falzoi, a communications coordinator who was terrorized by a female boss at a Boston university, says:

“My female bully lied and gossiped about me and others. She used all indirect tactics. I have seen men also use indirect bullying tactics, but they’re much less frequent, and they have seemed solely to protect their ego rather than proactive moves to sabotage.

Falzoi eventually quit her job after reporting the harassment. Her boss did nothing, despite multiple complaints against the same woman.

Samantha Brick, a British journalist, wrote a story titled: ‘There are downsides to looking this pretty’: Why women hate me for being beautiful. ‘ It went viral, supplemented by comments questioning her beauty. Some readers even called her “ugly as a troll.” I’m not going to debate her story, but I thought the Financial Times Weekend published the best response to the media maelstrom. The controversy showed how women sabotage the careers of other women by being unsupportive, it said. The columnist highlighted “rope ladders,” where women climb to senior positions, then promptly haul up the ladder right behind them. While some tactically avoid helping other women in their careers, others can resort to passive-agressive behavior to protect their interests.

“Women bullies will often befriend you and then air all your secrets later, in boardrooms or at office gatherings. I’ve had patients that just can’t trust again after being humiliated like that at work,” says Dr. Namie. The problem persists, as there are no anti-bullying ethics or law in practice, unlike legal protection against sexual harassment or racial discrimination. Less than one percent of co-workers will stand up when they see their colleagues tormented, fearing their own jobs.

There’s only one truly effective way to report workplace bullying: treat it like a business problem. Dr. Namie says:

“Report to your superiors and make it a business case on how the bully is affecting your productivity and driving up absenteeism. The minute you talk about how emotionally traumatized you are, you’re unlikely to get any help.”

Your managers could brush it off by saying it’s a cultural difference or clash of ideas, he says. Follow your instincts if you think you’re in a hostile work environment, and report it the right way. The only time when you should leave your job without making a case is if you work in a small family-run business, according to him.

Link to the original article.

According to accounts from Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and labor historian Dick Meister, here’s what happened.

On May 1, 1886, the first May Day celebration in history. some workers negotiated, some marched, more than 300,000 struck affecting 13,000 businesses. 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.

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.”

Says the IWW, workers in the 19th century had seen first-hand that Capitalism benefited only their bosses, trading workers’ lives for profit. Thousands of men, women and children were dying needlessly every year in the workplace, with life expectancy as low as their early twenties in some industries, and little hope but death of rising out of their destitution. Socialism offered another option. A variety of socialist organizations sprung up throughout the later half of the 19th century, ranging from political parties to choir groups. In fact, many socialists were elected into governmental office by their constituency. Literally thousands of working people embraced the ideals of anarchism, which sought to put an end to all hierarchical structures (including government), emphasized worker controlled industry, and valued direct action over the bureaucratic political process. It is inaccurate to say that labor unions were “taken over” by anarchists and socialists, but rather anarchists and socialist made up the labor unions.

In Chicago on May 1 1886, the epicenter for the 8-hour day agitators, 40,000 went out on strike with the anarchists in the forefront with their speeches and revolutionary ideology of direct action, and anarchism became respected and embraced by the working people and despised by the capitalists. Yet peace prevailed.

Two days later, May 3, 1886, violence broke out at the McCormick Reaper Works between police and strikers. For six months, armed Pinkerton agents and the police harassed and beat locked-out steelworkers as they picketed. During a speech near the McCormick plant, some two hundred demonstrators joined the steelworkers on the picket line. Beatings with police clubs escalated into rock throwing by the strikers which the police responded to with gunfire. At least two strikers were killed and an unknown number were wounded.

Full of rage, a public meeting was called by some of the anarchists for the following day in Haymarket Square to discuss the police brutality. Due to bad weather and short notice, only about 3000 of the tens of thousands of people showed up from the day before. This affair included families with children and the mayor of Chicago himself. Later, the mayor would testify that the crowd remained calm and orderly and that speaker August Spies made “no suggestion… for immediate use of force or violence toward any person…”

As the speech wound down, two detectives rushed to the main body of police, reporting that a speaker was using inflammatory language, inciting the police to march on the speakers’ wagon. As the police began to disperse the already thinning crowd, a bomb was thrown into the police ranks. No one knows who threw the bomb, but speculations varied from blaming any one of the anarchists, to an agent provocateur working for the police.

Enraged, the police fired into the crowd. The exact number of civilians killed or wounded was never determined, but an estimated seven or eight civilians died, and up to forty were wounded. One officer died immediately and another seven died in the following weeks. Later evidence indicated that only one of the police deaths could be attributed to the bomb and that all the other police fatalities had or could have had been due to their own indiscriminate gun fire.

Aside from the bomb thrower, who was never identified, it was the police, not the anarchists, who perpetrated the violence. 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, who publicly lambasted the judge on a travesty of justice.

The words on the Haymarket Monument: THE DAY WILL COME WHEN OUR SILENCE WILL BE MORE POWERFUL THAN THE VOICES YOU ARE THROTTLING TODAY.

Immediately after the Haymarket Massacre, big business and government conducted what some say was the very first “Red Scare” in this country. Spun by mainstream media, anarchism became synonymous with bomb throwing and socialism became un-American. The common image of an anarchist became a bearded, eastern European immigrant with a bomb in one hand and a dagger in the other.

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.

US President Grover Cleveland feared that commemorating Labor Day on May 1 could become an opportunity to commemorate Haymarket. He moved in 1887 to support Labor Day in September, as the Knights of Labor (an early worker organization that rejected socialism) had wanted.

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.

From the IWW,

When we remember that people were shot so we could have the 8-hour day; if we acknowledge that homes with families in them were burned to the ground so we could have Saturday as part of the weekend; when we recall 8-year old victims of industrial accidents who marched in the streets protesting working conditions and child labor only to be beat down by the police and company thugs, we understand that our current condition cannot be taken for granted – people fought for the rights and dignities we enjoy today, and there is still a lot more to fight for. The sacrifices of so many people can not be forgotten or we’ll end up fighting for those same gains all over again. This is why we celebrate May Day.

And thanks to the 2010 U.S. election, anti-labor forces are more emboldened than ever. The hard-won gains can be stripped away with the simple stroke of a pen in the hands of a malicious governor (Walker in Wisconsin, Kasich in Ohio, Christie in New Jersey, Snyder of Michigan, etc.)

The fight against abusive misconduct in the workplace is a small part of the fight to retain and restore dignity for all workers.

Occupy has called for a “general strike,” harkening back to Chicago 1880′s.

Update: On April 30, the Chicago Tribune ran a good historical review of the city’s role in the May Day tradition.

of the morning news show on KIRO-FM, Seattle,

interviewed Drs. Ruth and Gary Namie and

tips from WBI Coach, Jessi Eden Brown.

Listen to the the April 26 broadcast.

Audio

We at WBI have long recognized that bullied targets cannot even begin to reverse their situation until they acknowledge that their work lives have been severely interrupted by the bullying. They have to name this “thing” that is happening so there is a reason to take action.

Call it workplace bullying or abusive conduct or psychological violence or workplace aggression or mobbing or personal harassment, but call it something other than acceptable behavior (e.g., just management “style” or “personality clash”). Give it a strong name to match the seriousness of the impact on your life.

Bullying triggers many stress-related health problems (cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and immunological disorders and affects the brain with changes in cortical volume that affects all behavior), emotional injuries (clinical depression, PTSD), strain on social relationships (exclusion, estrangement, abandonment), economic damages (demotions, termination), threats to one’s personal identity, as well as a sense of injustice and betrayal.

Bullying of adults in the workplace is NOT about a raised eyebrow or a person’s overreaction to small incidents. The media and anti-anti-bullying drones want to convince the public that the workplace bullying movement is over-hyped.

In reality, the opposite is true. We are outraged that this lone form of abuse is not yet taboo in our society. All forms of abuse are now deemed unacceptable — child abuse, domestic violence, bullying in schools. Bullying of adults by adults is a serious form of non-physical violence considered “normal.”

Workplace incivility and disrespect, like bullying, are negative behaviors. However, they are milder, both in how they manifest themselves and how they affect the recipient’s health. They pale in comparison to bullying, which has more in common with violence than either incivility or disrespect.

We had to laugh when we read the announcement from a training company just entering the business of bullying intervention when it told employers to “Stop Workplace Bullying with Incivility Training.” Oops. A mismatch between problem and solution. Teaching civil actions will not scrape the surface of the root problems that enable bullying to thrive.

So, beware of euphemisms substituted for workplace bullying. Defenders of the status quo hate the term “bully” and “bullying” because both conjure instantly for most people that wrongs have been committed. Conflict resolving types are uncomfortable with blaming anyone or anything for negative events.

The desire to dance around a topic without honestly naming it blocks effective action. The longer bullied targets blame themselves for the pain actually caused by their bullies, the more harm they suffer. The longer an employer toys with incivility when, in fact, bullying is operating, the more employees suffer.

Employers content with “just doing something” postpone the inevitable. Tackle workplace bullying directly or risk erosion of profits, productivity, employee health and the ability to recruit and retain the best talent. We know this sounds blunt, but euphemisms exist to soften the blow to tender sensibilities offended by truth. Don’t buy into the distortions.

How is this done at a global level? Consider the massacre of up to 1.5 million Armenians by the Turks (then called the Ottomans) begun on April 24, 1915, lasting 3 years. Armenians, including women (who were raped) and children, were marched to their deaths in the desert of Syria. Only 21 nations formally recognize the genocide as genocide. It was a holocaust second only to the Jewish Holocaust by the Nazis. The U.S., through the president, officially refers to the genocide as “atrocities,” while 43 states have separately declared it genocide.

Is there power in naming? You bet. Solutions, and in the case of the Armenian genocide, outrage commensurate with the wrongdoing depend on it. To understate denies the affected individuals a legitimate label for what is happening to them, thus delegitimizing (scoffing at) them.

Let’s honestly call things what they truthfully are and get out of the middle of the road!

Their relationship changed significantly when Stevens donated a kidney to specifically save Brucia’s life. Despite being the recipient of this altruistic act, Brucia bullied Stevens and the company fired her shortly after banishing her to an undesirable office far from her home. Talk about thankless! Stevens is now suing.

According to a NY Post account, Stevens worked for Brucia at billion-dollar AAG Jan. 2009-June 2010. Stevens moved out of state but returned in September 2010. At that time, she visited Brucia who told her about her need for a kidney transplant. Brucia’s plan was to have a family friend donate.

Stevens told Brucia that she would be willing to donate. Brucia acknowledged the offer with the statement, according to Stevens, “You never know, I may have to take you up on that offer one day.”

In November 2010, Stevens moved back to Long Island. Brucia got her a job with AAG within two weeks. In January 2011, Brucia told Stevens that her planned donor was not a match. Brucia asked if Stevens’ offer of a donated kidney was real. It was. Brucia’s “backup plan” became real.

Due to incompatibility, Stevens donated her kidney to the national pool (a St. Louis person was recipient) and Brucia got her kidney (from someone in San Francisco). Stop and think about this. A subordinate woman employee donated an organ to her woman boss. This was an act of pure altruism. Though we write often about the power of ingratiation (kissing up), the serious medical risks associated with invasive surgery preclude lumping kidney donation in with false compliments, cutting boss’ lawn, and doing menial tasks to satisfy the boss’ power needs.

After the August 2011 surgeries, both women were at home recuperating — one boss, one subordinate. Stevens, the organ donor, had post-surgical complications but felt compelled to return to work on Sept. 6. After trying to work for three days, she returned home sick.

Brucia, the organ recipient, still at home recuperating on Sept. 9 called Stevens at her home to berate her, “What are you doing? Why aren’t you at work? … You can’t come and go as you please. People are going to think you’re getting special treatment.” Brucia eventually did return to work only to torment Stevens in typical bullying style.

Stevens was denied overtime pay and demoted by banishment to a high-crime dealership 50 miles from her home that coworkers called “Siberia.” For a working mom, 100 miles of commute time means time away from her kids and incredible schedule juggling for doctors’ appointments and attendance at school events.

The effects on Stevens of Brucia’s bullying and subsequent AAG shenanigans caused her “mental anguish.” She sought help from a psychiatrist and lawyers. She was fired when AAG received a letter from one of those lawyers.

Now comes the lawsuit, filed first with the NY State Human Rights Commission, claiming discrimination.

Plaintiff Stevens claims that Brucia “used her power to manipulate me.” But she also said, “I have no regrets [that] I donated a kidney because it saved the life of a man in Missouri.” Stevens says her medical insurance will soon run out and that she may have a hard time finding another insurance company who will cover her since she has donated an organ.

Stevens is represented by lawyers: Lenard Leeds and Jason Barbara

The defendant employer AAG predicts that the case will be “resolved favorably in the legal system.”

Tell the “NY Auto Giant” AAG what you think of them and Jackie Brucia.

This poisonous antediluvian mindset is not only at work in schools, it invaded the Illinois state legislation for the workplace in 2010. Beware of “Concerned Christians” and state “Family Associations.” Their hateful, pro-violence, anti-gay agenda is hidden behind the banner of persecuted Christians.

Could those who worry about the reputations of known adult bullies have a similar motivation? Or are they latent aggressors who root for the powerful to allow their power go unchallenged?

Effective June 1, 2012, Ted Genoways quits as editor of the Virginia Quarterly Review (VQR). He will be free to accept job offers. He will provide his resume, writing samples and glowing recommendation letters from admirers Sid Holt, chief executive of the American Society of Magazine Editors, and John Casteen, former University of Virginia president and his boss.

But before you hire him, here’s some additional information you should know from public files. Be sure to interrogate him thoroughly on each item because each point will affect the success of any work teams to which he will be assigned in your organization. Can you afford to deliberately foster a toxic work environment to be able to claim Genoways on your staff?

Be sure to ask Genoways about the following:

- his rapid spending of the VQR accumulated cash reserves in his short tenure
- disruptive effect on long-tenured staff at VQR, leading to loss of Candice Pugh
- betraying a friendship with his managing editor, Kevin Morrissey, whom he convinced to join him at VQR, only to later accuse of mental problems
- hiring a grad student without state/univ-compliant search processes who just happened to donate millions to VQR
- Genoways spent disproportionate time with the new female donor-employee, excluding staff, and worked off-site disengaged from VQR staff production
- falsely accusing Morrissey of having a conflict with the donor-employee
- Genoways reported to the Univ. President (Genoways’ supervisor) as divisive and abusive by several employees
- campus Ombuds and Human Resources were repeatedly told Genoways was problematic (mistreatment of staff and management style), but HR admitted it did not have the power to sanction Genoways
- banning the managing editor from his office without cause
- the managing editor committed suicide
- Genoways blames the suicide victim in a self-serving e-mail to staff only 2 days later
- Genoways was at center of public relations fiasco for UVa thanks to a Chronicle of Higher Education article and subsequent NBC Today Show feature about him
- entire VQR staff quit, publication suspended, subscriptions plummeted
- Genoways cleared by UVa investigation though stated that he had “questionable” management skills
- VQR moved from President’s office to an academic dept (not the English Dept)
- VQR wins national awards for 2010 issues that were edited by Morrissey — no mention of Morrissey in awards (this is a guy who steals credit for others’ work)
- UVa creates a Respectful Workplace initiative in response to Genoways (which would have led to his termination had it been in place in 2010)

So, if this is the guy you want to hire, think twice. Your current staff beg you to reconsider.

WBI, Headhunter for “star” employees

The problem with those tactics recommended by “workplace experts” is that all demand acquiescence to another person’s control of your worklife — bully, HR, senior management or owners. The single common thread uniting all bullies, regardless of rank or tactic used, is the personal need to control the targeted individual.

For the target, when they are bullied is often the first time they ever operated in situations where someone else called the shots. The most wounded targets are those accustomed to autonomy, controlling what work they do and how they do it. Theft of control over your worklife is what causes so many problems for targets.

Appeasing strategies to get the bullying to stop leaves unaddressed the core issue — someone has control over your life and they have no right to it. Therefore, the hapless strategies that the employer wants you to use all require the surrender of control. That’s why they don’t work for the target.

The Alternative

In 78% of cases, you lose your job. So, control the one thing you can. Control the nature of your exit. We know it’s a dismal job search time, but once the bully’s claws are sunk in, it takes a miracle to extricate yourself by yourself. [As stated completely in our books and on the Work Doctor website, it is the employer's responsibility to stop and prevent bullying. Victims should not have to fix problems they neither invited nor deserved.]

Bullied targets often leave in silence, without higher-ups given notice, and the lies created by the bullies believed by coworkers left behind. The most powerless exit is when HR kicks you out, tells you to gather your personal things in a box, and has security march you out. This disgraceful “exit parade” reinforces your powerlessness. These departures are out of the target’s control.

An exit controlled by bullied targets would include:

- disability leave planned by you and your physician (do not accept HR’s demand that you file a Workers Comp claim — that’s a system where employers are judge and jury)

- use your off time to calculate the fiscal impact (dollars and cents) associated with the bullying
- estimate turnover attributable to the bully (cost is 2x salary of those driven out)
- estimate cost of absenteeism to escape the bully’s wrath on a daily basis
- research how many lawsuits have been threatened or filed and how much was paid in settlements and severance packages to workers tormented before you (there will be gag orders prohibiting disclosure, but guesstimate)

- practice telling your story briefly and WITHOUT EMOTION (this is very hard, given that emotional abuse results in emotional injuries and stress-related physical complications)

- locate someone in the company or agency or ministry with sufficient rank (not HR) who should care about financial losses and who did not hire the bullies and is not related to any of them. Go up the org chart.

- rehearse a 15 min. unemotional report describing the various ways the bully negatively impacts the workplace and how the reality might have been shielded from that executive

- invent a solution. You know the work better than the bully. What could be done differently to reverse the losses if the bully was gone.

[If you work for a small, family-owned firm, you will have to get a new job ASAP. No rational arguments will ever stop the bullying. There is no one to appeal to.]

- report like a dispassionate consultant. Give the solution. Dare the executive to run the business like a business and to not let a personal relationship with one person to undermine the organization’s mission. Ask for personal safety. Do not threaten a lawsuit unless you have been told to do so by an attorney. Be prepared to be fired on the spot or shortly thereafter. Refuse mediation or procedures making you work with the idiot bully.

- if you were not offered relief, leave the meeting, prepared to quit.

At first this may sound like a losing proposition. However, the difference between this strategy and all the others involving begging and groveling is that the process was controlled by you. It is the first step toward reclaiming your personal dignity and mental health. Is it risky? Yes, but every strategy is risky. What more can you afford to lose?

If the executive refuses to make you safe, and you were prepared for this, quit. It’s the signal for you to move out and on with your life. By doing as we suggest, you leave with your head held high and dignity intact.

Leaving under conditions in which your health has been shattered can lead to a 1 yr. healing period before being able to float resumes and to give good job interviews. When you leave knowing that you were too skilled and valuable for a place that would allow a bully to keep you from performing at your optimal level, you leave healthy and ready for the next job.

This is the WBI method that bullied targets should try.

Forget confronting. If you could have, you would have.
Forget comeback lines. You will think of them hours too late anyway.
Forget expecting help from HR. See the WBI Forum and comments to articles at this site. HR will let you down.
Forget trying to convince the bully’s boss that she or he was wrong to hire and encourage the a-hole.

by Jeannette Moninger, iVillage

At first, Deb F. was flattered when a higher-up at a Boston-area university showed an interest in her work. Then things changed. “For no reason, the supervisor badmouthed my work, left me out of important decision-making meetings and assigned my projects to others.” At 31, Deb had become a victim of workplace bullying.

Bullies at work aren’t new, but awareness about the problem is growing thanks in part to the Workplace Bullying Institute’s (WBI) efforts to get states to pass an anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill. “A third of American workers are bullied,” says WBI co-founder Gary Namie, Ph.D., coauthor of The Bully-Free Workplace. Even more unsettling: Workplace bullying is four times more common than sexual harassment or racial discrimination, yet it’s not illegal. For now, the best you can do if you’re targeted by a work bully is to arm yourself with this knowledge.

Distinguish between bullying and harassment. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) prohibits acts of harassment, which typically center on physical traits or characteristics like race, color, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disabilities. “If you’re white, able-bodied, or the same gender as your bully, you really have no legal recourse,” says Namie.

Recognize the problem. Bullying occurs when an employee is repeatedly subjected to verbal abuse; threatening or humiliating offensive behaviors; and/or work sabotage. “We’re talking about mistreatment that happens once a week or more for several months,” says Namie.

Beware of the health effects. Almost half of bullied workers suffer from stress-related health problems like anxiety, depression and high blood pressure. A third develop post-traumatic stress disorder. “My self-esteem took a hit,” says Deb. “I couldn’t sleep. I worked in a constant state of fear.”

Know your limits. Almost three-fourths of instigators are in positions of power. Fear of retribution keeps most coworkers from speaking out (only 1 out of 100 tries to help). Sadly, going to human resources (as Deb did) probably won’t help. “They defended management, and things only got worse for me once the bully found out,” says Deb, who left her job after a year. “The bullying took too much of a toll on my mental and physical health.”

4 Steps for Handling Workplace Bullying

1. Talk to an attorney. Discrimination plays a role in a quarter of bullying cases. A lawyer can help identify whether your employer has violated any laws.
2. Plan a counterattack. “Show higher-ups — not HR — how the bullying negatively affects profitability,” says Namie. This means putting a dollar amount to what it costs the company to recruit and replace employees scared off by the bully, as well as absenteeism and lost productivity.
3. Start a job search. Exposing the bully is cathartic; unfortunately, it’s unlikely to change things. The odds that you’ll quit or be terminated are nearly 70 percent. Get your resume out now.
4. Lobby your state legislators. The Healthy Workplace Bill is currently under consideration in 13 states. Visit HealthyWorkplaceBill.org to learn how you can help get it passed.

Link to the original article

Palm Beach County public school principals are intimidating and harassing teachers in “alarmingly rampant” numbers that pose a serious threat to student achievement, union President Debra Wilhelm says.

The Classroom Teachers Association has learned from its members that workplace intimidation is a “systemic” problem and “nothing seems to be being done to alleviate this behavior,” Wilhelm told the School Board on Wednesday night.

Superintendent Wayne Gent’s administration responded Thursday with a promise to investigate the claims and said it “welcomes any constructive suggestions” to address the matter.

“All complaints will be fully investigated and where evidence of inappropriate behavior exists, such as threats and intimidation, appropriate disciplinary and corrective actions will continue to be taken,” spokesman Nat Harrington said.
Graphic video: Report: Woman charged after driving into Publix

The union wants a new school district task force to work with teachers on developing training for principals, aimed at changing the “culture” that permits some principals to act with an “almost dictatorship attitude.”

“We want to help administrators learn appropriate behaviors to work with their staff so teachers no longer teach each day in an atmosphere of fear and intimidation and bullying directed to them,” Wilhelm said.

The union said “this abhorrent behavior” is widespread but did not offer specifics, because a “pattern of power, domination and fear keeps teachers from speaking out.”

Districts are not required to keep such data. But some of the general examples cited include: teachers being ordered to give up planning time and personal time to cover additional duties or classes or activities beyond what is provided in their contract; and being assigned tasks with “impossible deadlines, or inundated with even more forms to complete.”

“Some teachers are being told, ‘If you can’t put in long hours, weekends and summers, then you should find another school,’” Wilhelm said.

While student bullying usually gets more publicity, cases of adult-to-adult or workplace intimidation in schools are reportedly increasing across the nation. Unions blame pressure from new education laws, including a revamped teacher evaluation system required by the state, and personal financial worries.

Adult bullying usually takes on the same forms of student bullying, with teasing, intimidation, physical violence, and sexual, religious or racial harassment. Yet workplace intimidation of teachers adds the extra danger of affecting students, because unmotivated teachers may not give it their all.

“If a teacher is so demoralized, they might even give up and do their job without motivation,” Wilhelm has said.

In its latest call for action, the union asked the School Board to “publicly condemn” the actions of the principals, which the union states is worse than epidemic.

Harrington said the board already had addressed the issue by adopting “a strong anti-bullying policy that is to be adhered to by all employees.”

All school districts in Florida were required to do so in 2008, under the state Legislature’s Jeffrey Johnston Stand Up for All Students Act. It was named for a 15-year-old Cape Coral teenager who committed suicide in 2005 after years of being bullied.

“The district takes bullying of both students and employees very seriously, and the superintendent will take all steps necessary to correct students bullying other students, and employees, including administrators, bullying employees,” Harrington said.

The Palm Beach County teacher’s contract does not mention worker intimidation, but it does contain a clause about discrimination and harassment that addresses similar issues.

“Employees should be free from unnecessary, spiteful or negative criticism or complaints by management representatives,” it states.

In neighboring Broward County, the teacher’s contract cites “bullying/harassment” and includes an official process for reviewing complaints. There’s also a section that addresses “upbraiding, insults or interference by a parent” against an employee.

Link to the original article

At WBI, we have never advised such actions. Those steps cause greater harm because of the certain retaliation. So, we submitted those suggestions to empirical study. In early 2012, we asked 1,598 individuals personally familiar with workplace bullying what strategies they adopted to get their bullying to stop and if those actions were effective. Here are the results of that survey.

WBI periodically conducts online surveys that rely upon self-selected samples of individuals bullied at work. WBI online surveys accurately depict the perceptions of workers targeted for bullying at work as contrasted with the views of all adult Americans captured in our scientific national surveys.

A total of 1,604 respondents completed this survey. Six individuals claimed to have had no direct or indirect experience with bullying. Their answers were discarded. The final sample size was 1,598 people who know bullying firsthand. The sample was overwhelmingly female (80%).

Prevalence, Gender & Rank

Respondents were asked: What is your experience with mistreatment at work? We define mistreatment as repeated incidents against an individual employee by a person or a group that take the form of verbal abuse, behaviors that are humiliating, threatening, intimidating, or sabotage of the targeted person’s work.

Using that definition, 58% said they were currently bullied, 39% have been bullied but not currently, and 3% had only witnessed it. To illustrate the special nature of this sample, in the 2010 WBI National Survey 9% of adult Americans were currently bullied, 26% had been bullied, and 15% were witnesses only.

Most perpetrators, according to this survey, were women (63% compared to 62% men in the national sample). Women bullies torment women in 89% of cases; men bullies chose women in 63% of cases. Women were 79% of all targets.

Most of the bullies were bosses (75% compared to 72% in the national sample); 18% were coworkers, peers with the same rank (the identical rate in the national sample), and 7% of bullies bullied from a subordinate rank (compared to 10%).

Strategies to Stop Bullying & Their Effectiveness

Effectiveness ratings were limited to only the respondents who answered ‘yes’ to the adoption of a particular strategy.

1. Target seemed to not do anything (In other words, letting time pass hoping matters will improve by themselves) was adopted by 38% of targets. Most (62%) did try something.

Effectiveness of doing nothing: 3.25%

We consider “doing nothing” the baseline to which the effectiveness of all other strategies can be compared.

2. Target directly confronted the perpetrator — 69.5% did so
Effectiveness of confronting: 3.57%

3. Target asked perpetrator’s boss to intervene & stop it — 70.7% did so
Effectiveness of support from bully’s boss: 3.26%

4. Target told senior management/owner expecting support — 73.9% did so
Effectiveness of senior management/owners: 3.69%

5. If union present, asked union to intervene & stop it — 60.3% did so
Effectiveness of union: 8.84%

6. Target filed a formal complaint with HR alleging a policy violation — 42.8% did so
Effectiveness of HR: 4.7%

7. Target filed a complaint with an external state or federal agency — 18.7%
Effectiveness of EEOC, etc.: 11.9%

8. Target tried to find an attorney to file a lawsuit — 33.7%
Effectiveness of finding an attorney: 11.2%

9. Target did file a lawsuit — 8.9% (n=379)
Effectiveness of filing a lawsuit: 16.4%

The purpose of this study was to have individuals intimately familiar with bullying (those directly experiencing it or witnessing it) describe the effectiveness of various adopted tactics or strategies to stop the bullying.

The results are clear. Letting time pass (doing nothing) stopped bullying 3% of the time, an obviously ineffective tactic. However the other tactics — confronting, imploring the bully’s boss, filing an HR complaint, or telling senior management — were as ineffective as doing nothing. When discrimination is part of the bullying, it does pay to use current laws (the effectiveness rises to double digits).

For the few unionized respondents, the rate was double HR’s effectiveness. The most realistic conclusion from these findings is that whatever individuals try, the chances of success are miniscule with failure hovering around 97% for most strategies.

Stopping the Mistreatment

For 54% of all respondents, the bullying was ongoing. It had not stopped.

For those who reported that the bullying ended, the target suffered negative consequences to make it stop.

Targets
- Voluntarily quit — 28%
- Were forced out (constructive discharge) — 25%
- Were terminated — 25%
- Transferred jobs — 11%

In this 2012 study, 77.7% of bullied targets were no longer employed where they were bullied as the result of the bullying. An alternative way to report this is to say that once targeted for bullying an individual faced a 78% probability of losing the job he or she once loved.

In the 2010 WBI National Survey, 41% of women targets quit and another 25% were terminated. For men the quit rate was 36% and 13% were terminated. Unfortunately quitting includes voluntary action plus being constructively discharged, forced out. In this 2012 survey we were able to separate the reasons for quitting. Transfer rates in 2010 were 14% for women and 8% for men.

The punishment rate for bullies seems to be rising slowly through the years; having 11% of perpetrators (5% terminated, 6% punished) experience negative consequences is at an all-time high. The impunity, no consequences, rate for bullies is still 89%.

A Flubbed Policy Question

In a prior 2010 WBI Instant Poll, respondents said that only 3% of employers had a policy to specifically address workplace bullying. In this 2012 survey,

Respondents were asked: Harassment is illegal if based on discrimination (membership in a protected class, such as gender, disability, religion, age or veteran status). Did the employer have a policy to address workplace mistreatment separate from discrimination?

30.4% said “Yes”

It appears that respondents to this 2012 survey allowed the word “harassment” as it appeared in the question to influence their overestimation of the percentage of employers with a policy. Every employer has an anti- harassment policy to comply with laws. The question was intended to separate discrimination and harassment from mistreatment that met the definition of bullying. Obviously the respondents interpreted the question differently.

Download a copy of the complete report.

###

Support with SPSS analyses, graphics, online data collection & survey design from Daniel Christensen, David Phillips & Sean Lunsford

© 2012 Workplace Bullying Institute, All Rights Reserved, Citations must credit the source — WBI.

WBI was born out of Ruth Namie’s bullying experiences in a psychiatry clinic in California. Ever since, we have striven to help others like her. Bullying of adults is a bewildering, humbling, and sometimes traumatizing series of events — none of them good — spread over time, sometimes months, most often years. One of our fundamental goals is to prevent people from giving up on themselves before the bullying subsides. We conduct research by and about bullied targets (as most of the scientific work is done using targets as sources of information). We write books for targets. We fill this website with free information for targets. Our work is humanitarian aid for those whose dignity has been trampled or denied. We train others to master all aspects of the phenomenon. We stand against abuse in the workplace.

When we are called upon to help employers, we rely on our 27 years consulting experience as the Work Doctor, now informed by our focus on workplace bullying. However, even our employer solutions are target-centric. That means employee health comes first, bottom-line benefits follow. We show employers how expensive it is to keep bullies on staff, but we recognize that economic arguments pale in comparison to bonds established by bullies with allies.

With our target-centric approach, we do not coddle accused perpetrators. We know they cannot be permanently rehabilitated without significant interventions outside the workplace. The only hope is for employers to constrain their misconduct during work hours to allow everyone else to do their work free from abuse. Most offenders then behave according to the new rules. The chronic abusers quit rather than be controlled.

Our most important task is to identify the deleterious consequences of, the havoc wreaked by, these super-destructive individuals. If harm has resulted, then it must be stopped. Without harm, no bullying probably occurred. We first identify bullying (the phenomenon and process sustained systemically that can be stopped) and subordinate any dealings with bullies (individuals). This runs counter to the American way of doing business. Employers tend to ignore psychosocial stressors that poison a work environment because those factors are rarely tangible. Instead, society and the media are stuck on individuals (witness the obsession with celebrities and celebrity criminals). In bullying situations, perpetrators give face to the system that fosters and sustains bullying, but it is that system that must be changed.

When on-site as consultants, we give the bullies the chance to change (no zero tolerance approach works) in a new system where the aggression is no longer rewarded. Most will stop their counterproductive ways when rewards stop. But we are not out to “get” the bullies. They are sad, incompletely developed (with respect to moral development, not intellect) human beings. Neither do we excuse or accept bullies’ excuses for their conduct (the target made me do it, I’m misunderstood, I’m a perfectionist and the only one who demands it from others). They either cooperate with the changed rules or they will be identified and ousted.

To summarize, bullying cannot be stopped with a focus on bullies. It’s a fool’s errand. We advise our employer clients to end their fixation on individual perpetrators. We also advise bullied targets in the tutorials at this website to not ruminate about their bullies’ motivation. It does no good to brand every bully a psychopath when, in fact, most are normal folks responding to cues in the work environment that make bullying not only possible, but rewarding. The bullying will stop only when the employer agrees to make bullying unacceptable and mean it.

WBI is anti-abuse in the workplace. We are not anti-bully, anti-corporate or anti-business. Not everyone in corporate media or the blogosphere cares about abused individuals.

The Pathetic Glorification of Bullies

Even though the anti-bullying movement for adults is in its nascent stages, there is a backlash against the call for compassion for individuals who suffer at the hands of bullies. In our war-embracing, hyper-aggressive society, it is chic to deny compassion for bullied targets while lavishing sympathy on those accused of harming those targets. It is fashionable to be hard-hearted and call the abused “thin-skinned.” We know what it must have been like for advocates of battered wives in their early years.

WBI is target-focused and driven to foster compassion for the underpowered underdog. Bully apologists, on the other hand, excuse and rationalize misconduct by muddying the moral waters. The bully’s morality is not equivalent to that of the target’s.

Certainly there is one side with a morally defensible position (having never invited nor deserved assaults directed at them) and another side that simply needs to react defensively (the abuse has to be justified so the employer doesn’t appear to condone abuse and abusers).

There are NOT “two sides to the story” that deserve equal moral weight. That’s why conflict resolution tools are not appropriate for serious bullying situations. Cruelty or inhumanity, the non-physical violence that bullying is, serves no business purpose. Bully apologists seem to believe that perpetrators never be held accountable.

Remarkably, many people feel comfortable arguing for the rights of the abuser. Critics of the anti-bullying movement claim that the label “bully” is perjorative. Maybe in court. But on the street and in the media, it offers an instantly recognizable shortcut to an identity, albeit a negative one. Those same critics vehemently want to fight to not demonize bullies more than they want to fight to help targets equalize their power so as to enjoy equal footing with their abusers. Ironically, they call the original bullybusters bullies.

The logical extension of the anti-anti-bullying movement is a pro-bully movement. Do bullies need advocates to strengthen their status? That is the status quo in organizations. Bullies with power always get their way. A certain proportion of people with power are prone to abuse it and harm others. They have operated like this since the Industrial Revolution when factories and offices first appeared.

So, with a 250 year history against equality, the anti-abuse movement faces tremendous resistance. Power is not voluntarily given up. Feigning outrage that bullies are picked on or victimized is disingenuous and ignores history.

Bullies have had their way for generations! Tough guys and gals have dominated and subordinated others in social hierarchies as if natural law demanded it. They operate with a sense of entitlement that power bestows. When power stems from wealth, the media fawn over them as if they are wise sages. Jack Welch tells corporations to pit worker against worker to thin the herd and let cream rise to the top.

Naming Them

So, for those who sympathize with bullies, while excusing or ignoring the consequences of their actions, here are some synonyms to make you more comfortable about what to call “them”:

- asshole (hey the book became a NY Times bestseller with one powerful cuss word)
- jerk (kinda friendly, don’t you agree)
- creep (infrequently used but a variant of jerk)
- thief (yes, many steal funds)
- extortionist (experts in making threats to accomplish their personal agenda)
- communication-challenged person (very skilled communicator, just not for positive effect)
- unskilled supervisor/manager/executive (maybe very right, but cruel nature has to be added to inept)
- aggressor (best for academics and ex-academics)
- psychopath (what distraught targets think they all are, but actually are not)
- hyper-aggressive individual (accurate, but long)
- bitch (forbidden to be uttered by men, but evidently OK for TV show title)
- tormentor (very accurate)
- organizational terrorist (risky, TSA might hear)

our favorites
- abuser (the most accurate, culls accurate association with domestic violence)
- perpetrator (ideal for academics but with a law enforcement slant)
- offender (used only after a policy violation is possible)

There is power in naming. Perps have to be called something! The are the ones who initiate the aggression. To address only the effects of bullies and acting as if no person ever did anything negative would be ridiculous. Yes, we blame the system, but someone personalizes the aggression and acts (either on orders or voluntarily). That someone deserves a label. Choose one. The “B” word has an agreed-upon societal meaning and it’s not bullies.

Even South Park, the TV show, has joined the anti-anti-bullying movement. South Park misses the mark in a recent episode attacking Lee Hirsch’s documentary, “Bully” and other anti-bullying programs in schools. Mocking the anti-bullying movement does a disservice to targets by attempting to marginalize or impugn the motives of those who help them.

WBI challenges the pro-bully apologists who worry about the demonization of those who harm others to ask themselves why they stand with the powerful against the powerless. America has lost its compassion-based moral compass. We need more compassion, not less. Social darwinists like bully apologists have had their say for too long.

On behalf of the 54 million Americans bullied at work, WBI asks pro-bully advocates to switch sides. You’re on the wrong side of this moral issue. Come join the good guys and gals. Altruism is good for the soul. Help those who need it, not the ones who didn’t ask for help and do not need it. Employers give all the support required. Bullies (or whatever you want to call them) are the antithesis of bullied targets.

The worldview through the lens of a bullied target is optimistic and life-affirming. It is not cynical. It is honest and ethical. It trusts never expecting betrayal. It takes pride from doing authentic, quality work. It values learning. It values collaboration and shares credit for accomplishments. It balances life, subordinating work to love, family and leisure. It seeks and revels in strength in others without feeling threatened. It wants autonomy and prizes being left alone to achieve.

How can you not want to help people like these? Put your emotional stock in the good ones. We hope you now understand why WBI does what we do (if you didn’t know already).

The next University is June 15-17 for general professional audiences.

WBI’s University has been compared to graduate-level seminars. Participants receive an extensive set of supplementary resources: a set of discs containing more than 40 hours of audio and video to supplement ongoing education and material necessary to enhance graduates’ presentations, ready-to-go slideshows, audio CDs of seminars, webinars, interviews, educational podcasts, advice from guest experts, bullying-related songs, audio training, and video DVDs, and a collection of research articles upon which the University is based.

Graduates typically rave about University, “This is the best training I have attended in my 22 years of being a union advocate.” “I can’t say enough about the level of expertise that Gary and Ruth possess. They are on top of the latest legal, organizational, and psychological information….For mental health professionals: You owe it to yourself and your clients to attend this training.” “This was a unique and remarkable intellectual and personal experience … a jam-packed, soup-to-nuts curriculum … a very, very substantive program… extensive research and commentary … plenty of time for discussion … with a chance to share our interests, stories, and experiences … bonds form quickly and ideas begin to hatch” “They have it all: academic expertise, practical experience, warm and engaging conversational style and that indefinable sense of grace. Quite simply Gary & Ruth are the Fred Astaire & Ginger Rogers of workplace bullying!”

Registration for Workplace Bullying University is limited to small numbers. Contact 360-656-6630 for details or visit the University website.

Note: This is NOT an introduction to the topic or simple overview. It is an in-depth exploration of a very complex phenomenon taught by scientists using scientific evidence as the basis for understanding.

Read the April 18 Associated Press story.

The Ramsey Board of Education said the insurance carrier wanted to settle, not the district. In fact, the District claims that its anti-bullying initiative is world class. I guess the one exception was an isolated event.

It seems the military psychologists and psychiatrists blame the women for their plight (as the Medical Corps has done to troops suffering from PTSD). They use the technique of deliberately mis-applying the psychiatric diagnosis of personality disorder to rape victims. This labels the women with a “pre-existing condition” because the diagnosis requires onset of conditions during adolescence. Being branded with a PD renders the women ineligible for post-discharge medical, military and education benefits.

It’s double jeopardy for the women — employer puts you in harm’s way, gets you raped, then the employer ends your employment while promoting rapists. Sound familiar? It’s the same paradigm experienced by bullied targets who lose their jobs.

Unforgivable Employer Responses

Marine Stephanie Schroeder reported her rape and was told, “Don’t come bitching to me because you had sex and changed your mind.”

Army soldier Anna Moore completed a written report of an attempted rape to her sergeant only to be told, “Forget about it. It never happened,” and then the tore up the paperwork.

Then the diagnosis is affixed, often without a reasonable examination. Women are considered trouble and separated from the service. Careers are ruined by involuntary discharge.

The Yale Law School’s Veterans Legal Services Clinic discovered a disturbing pattern. The abuse of the PD diagnosis by military “mental health professionals” was disproportionately used against women in the services.

The audacious military has also billed rape victims for their enlistment bonuses. Moore was given a $2,800 bonus when she enlisted patriotically after 9/11, planning a lifetime career. When she was discharged for daring to resist rape, she owed the military $6,000!

When Panayiota Bertzikis of the Coast Guard reported her attack, the station chief ordered her and her attacker to clean out an attic on base together and told to “work out” their differences.

Celeste Santana, a former Navy lieutenant commander, lost her pension when she was involuntarily separated from the military in 2011 after 17 years of active duty — three years short of being eligible to retire. Santana says the Navy gave her an adjustment disorder after she reported being sexual assaulted in the middle of the night at a forward operating base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. She says no medical evaluation ever took place.

Read the full story at CNN. Below are audio clips from four women telling their stories.

L to R: Stephanie Schroeder, Anna Moore, Jenny McClendon, Panayiota Bertzikis

First story
Second story
Third story
Fourth story

Our society’s widespread adoption of the rape myth is sickening. When coupled with abuses of the system by military hacks pretending to be mental health practitioners, it is doubly atrocious. Have they no shame?

The New Berlin Wisconsin school district administration, led by superintendent Joe Garza, was swift to promulgate new rules without the collaboration with the teachers union. Employers like Garza and his Board have no limits. So, they beat up their teachers to show who is in charge. Here are some examples of the changes imposed on the teachers (New Berlin Education Association).

From an NBEA document to union members, here are some of the changes, some draconian, all mean-spirited.

Punitive, Humiliating Rules

- Dress code: Skirts below knees, no sweatshirts, no jeans, no large logos, no open shirts
- Must report all traffic incidents or any tickets received within 3 days or be fired, even if incidents occurred during non-work hours
- No microwaves, refrigerators or coffeemakers except at offices for school administrators and District administrators
- Termination if students “friend” you on Facebook
- Jury duty, pay depends on providing proof that you tried to change jury duty time to July or August
- Teacher evaluations done yearly without notice
- Cannot drop licensure without superintendent approval

More Work Time for Less Pay

- New hours may start as early as 6:15 am and end as late as 5:00 pm
- No set pay for overtime, only stipends
- Workdays increase by 60 min.
- Must be available to students before and after student schedules for at least 30 min.
- No pay for subbing during preps; Principals can assign teachers to sub
- Inservice or other training attendance required outside regular work hours

Health Insurance changes

- $4,000 deductible for prescription
- Reduced deductible if employee AND spouse fully participate in Wellness Program
[Health risk assessment, biometric registration, no illegal drugs, must participate in program to reduce risk factors (diet, smoking cessation, follow-up appointments to verify) false reporting leads to dismissal]
- Insurance offered is 80/20 vs. employer paid
- Sick days reduced to 4 per year, can earn 1/2 day per month with good attendance
- Long term disability reduced from 90% to 60% of pay (and employee must pay insurance premium during disability leave)

Retirement changes

- No payout at age 55 retirement
- Retire by 2016 at age 57 with 20 yr. career, receive insurance until age 65
- Retire by 2021 at age 57 with 20 yr. career, receive 3 years insurance
- Retire after 2021, no benefits

Note: Teachers accept their low pay on the promise of a fixed pension to allow them to stave off hunger and loss of shelter in their old age. Now, the states are not only asking teachers to work for pay at a relatively lower rate than other trained professionals but denying them promised pensions. The social contract has been broken.

Want to leave this humiliating District? Penalties for Resigning

- Resign before the first day of school, pay $200 plus employer contribution to health insurance
- Resign after the first day of school, pay $2,000 plus benefit payments

Think about these rules when applied to a bullied teacher. Not only is it nearly impossible to extricate herself from her situation, the District who supports the bully now wants to financially penalize her for having no alternative but to leave. The target has to pay the enabling employer!!!!

This pattern of bullying teachers institutionally is what inspired Podcast 26.

Read an Education Week essay by Diane Ravitch about Michelle Rhee, notorious teacher hater.

Teachers, as public sector workers with pensions, are under attack in the U.S. The attacks need to stop for two reasons: (1) student bullying can never stop until the adult bullying stops, and (2) the best teachers inspired me to become a professor, they are among the most memorable people in our lives.

Download Podcast 26 (in .mp3 format)

WBEZ

The article that goes with it.

The movie Bully, now playing in theaters, follows a group of kids who face mistreatment and abuse from their peers. Filmmaker Lee Hirsch says he was inspired to make the film after hearing the story of two young boys who took their own lives after experiencing bullying. Hirsch says the issue was personal for him, too, because he suffered bullying as an adolescent.

But it doesn’t always stop once we leave the classroom or school bus.

Workplace bullying–by both superiors and co-workers-is prevalent in America, and can take significant tolls on the target’s physical and psychological health. But there are currently no laws on the books to prevent bullying in the workplace. Other countries are more advanced than us on quelling this behavior. In June, the University of Copenhagen will host the 8th biennial International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment. And, countries like Sweden and France have workplace anti-bullying laws.

Dr. Gary Namie of Bellingham, Washington, founded the Workplace Bullying Institute after his wife and Institute co-founder Dr. Ruth Namie personally experienced bullying in her office. After struggling for years to end the situation, the couple founded a hotline where bullying targets could call in and seek advice. Today, the institute provides legal counsel, coaching on coping, research and surveys and has published two books. Dr. Namie joined Tony Sarabia Friday on Eight Forty-Eight to discuss methods for dealing with workplace bullying.

The Workplace Bullying Institute generally advocates an approach that helps targets (they don’t call them victims) of bullying build a “business case” against aggressors. The goal is to prove to higher-ups that the company can’t afford to keep the bully in the work environment in terms of productivity. Most targets of bullying are good at their jobs, which is why they’re being targeted, says Dr. Namie, but absenteeism and illness prevent those employees from producing at their highest capacity. Unfortunately, even in the best case scenario, the target will usually end up leaving their job. Leaving with dignity and self-respect, however, is important because it makes it easier to get a new job quickly.

The rough economy can make it difficult for targets of workplace bullying to walk away from a position, even if they are being harassed. Some, like caller Camille, feel that walking away from a salary is too much of a risk.

Aggressive behavior is not tied to race, sex or sexuality so it cannot legally be called harassment. Workplace bullying is not technically illegal in the United States, which is why it is usually the target and not the bully that ends up quitting. To make bullying illegal, says Dr. Namie, there needs to be conclusive proof that that it can have significant negative effects on employee health, from depression to cardiovascular disease. A number of states, including Illinois, have introduced anti-bullying bills, but none have passed.

There are similarities between the case for criminalizing workplace bullying and the case for criminalizing domestic violence in that what was once thought of as merely human nature is now widely seen to be a form of violent crime. That is the kind of mindset shift that Dr. Namie is seeking to achieve for workplace bullying. Until then, however, he encourages targets of bullying to realize that they did not bring the behavior on themselves and that, even in this economy, in the long run it is usually best to walk away.

Link to original article

The rank order and percentages for each response option were:

1    .21    Bullies are not punished & thrive

2    .15    Laws to stop it are either absent or too weak to be useful

3    .13    No one in the company/agency has the will to stop it

4    .13    Coworkers stand idly by & fail to stop it

5    .10    The workplace culture rewards cutthroat behaviors

6    .10    A few hyper-aggressive individuals have psychological & social problems

7    .06    Executives/owners/senior managers are the bullies

8    .05    Bullying is part of the larger society & culture

9    .03    Bullies follow orders from the top

10    .03    No one in the company/agency has the power to stop it

11    .01    We humans are aggressive by nature; it is inevitable

12    .007    Targeted workers somehow invite their fate [only 7/10 ths of 1%]

The top three reasons from the target’s perspective are employer-focused. The absence of negative consequences (punishment) for bullies and lacking the will to stop it both reflect employer mishandling of bullying. Employers establish and maintain the work environment.

The absence, or weakness, of laws also contributes to employers’ ability to ignore bullying. No policies are necessary in the absence of laws. That’s why so few are created voluntarily.

Coworker failure to help is ranked fourth. At WBI we assert that no policies or laws would be required if witnesses did not shirk from their social responsibility to help their colleagues. The multiple reasons for bystander not intervening are built on decades of social psychological research. Simply put, coworkers fear for their own survival. Bullied targets understand this on some level even when they suffer consequences from the inaction.

Reason 5 is again work environment related. Reward theory explains most bullying. It brings positive outcomes for bullies. Observers of the work environment, which includes most employees who bother to pay attention, learn quickly that aggression pays in a bullying-prone workplace culture. Bullies act accordingly and personally benefit from the misconduct. Look no further for a rationale.

The bully’s flawed personality is reason 6 (actually tied) with bullying’s reward. Targets are more realistic than the naïve public. It is too easy to blame bullying on the aggressor’s anti-social personality (bordering on psychopathic). In fact, bullying is a complex behavioral pattern that requires both a willingness to exploit and harm another person (that does not require psychopathology any more than an affinity for reality TV shows that use humiliation for entertainment) and a place where exploitation can happen (which is the work environment).

The lowest rank reason is that targets somehow invite the misery inflicted on them. It seems obvious that no one would welcome nearly daily intimidation and humiliation. Yet, the public view is that victims of any misfortune must have wanted to experience their fate. This is the core of rape myths (her skirts were too short), domestic violence myths (he’s a great guy, she must do something to set him off), and bullying (you just have to learn to work with him and grow a thicker skin). This survey shows that bullied targets know they did nothing wrong. Their view is the accurate one.

Causes — Work Environment: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 7, 9 & 10; Societal: 2 & 8; People: 4, 6, 11 & 12

Here is a graphical summary.

Download a copy of these results.

The filmmakers behind “Bully” — the lauded documentary about the national bullying epidemic — stood up to the system and won.

The Weinstein Co. said Thursday that after cutting a few F-bombs from the piece, they got its R rating reduced to a PG-13.

The Motion Picture Association of America’s ruling means the flick’s target audience can now get in without dragging mom and dad to it. The original R-rating met anyone under 17 couldn’t get in solo.

The one crucial scene on a bus where a 12-year-old is tormented is left in, F-bombs and all. A few curses in other scenes were cut.

“This was the scene that carried all of the emotional weight of the movie, the language was so representative of the experience of bullying and I would not budge,” director Lee Hirsch told the Daily News.

Despite the appearance of a compromise, the MPAA did not actually relent in its arbitrary decision – Lee Hirsch still had to alter the contents of his documentary. Ultimately, the ratings change will mean that students can now see the film on school campuses, which is where it is most needed.

But in many ways this incident paints the MPAA in a bad light. The Chicago Tribune’s Michael Phillips asks a great question, “How can ‘Bully’s’ profanity equal ‘Saw’-type violence?” For those who are not familiar, the ‘Saw’ movie series depicts graphic scenes of violence and torture. It has lead to a string of copycat films of varying grotesquery, each trying to out-shock the next. Yet all of ‘Saw’s’ six installments (and the copycat films that followed) were given an ‘R’ rating by the MPAA.

‘Bully’ is a perfect film to contrast with the ‘Saw’ series. The violence which Alex Libby faces every day is real, not an act, and the dialogue isn’t scripted. The swearing actually means something because it’s not fiction. But worst of all: the subjects are children.

The MPAA has said, effectively, that depictions of real violence and bad language by children is worse for American audiences to see than are fake scenes of violent, torturous murders involving young men and women. Shouldn’t they at least be judged equally? This is a problem that has everything to do with an arbitrary ratings system – where only a small minority of powerful individuals – get to define morality for everyone else. The end result is truly warped by their narrow, ideologically driven, personal points of view. But maybe now, especially after ‘Bully,’ people are finally beginning to take notice and ask questions.

Do you believe that the controversy over ‘Bully’ will change the way films are rated in America?

Kids can be cruel, but so can adults.

Bullying – certainly the buzzword of the moment—happens not only to students at school but to adults at work.

In fact, bullying in all its forms has become a flashpoint in the national conversation. There are now human resource managers conducting seminars on the issue across the country. The “It Gets Better” video project to prevent gay bullying has resulted in more than 3.3 million page views since its 2010 launch. Meanwhile, the documentary film”Bully,”due out Friday, garnered national media attention as producers fought to get its R rating changed toPG-13so it could be shown in schools. The movie, which was slightly edited, now will open in theaters with a PG-13 rating.

A CareerBuilder survey last year showed 29 percent of American workers ages 24 or younger said they were bullied at work. CareerBuilder is partly owned by the Tribune Company, which publishes RedEye. Another survey, which was commissioned by the Workplace Bullying Institute in 2010, put the number even higher among adults, with 35 percent saying they have been bullied on the job.

“We are where we were with sexual harassment 10 to 15 years ago,” said Judy Skorek, associate professor of counselor education and director of clinical training at Concordia University Chicago. “We know it’s wrong. We know we need to address it, and it’s been out there for a long time.”

But bullying at work isn’t illegal. There’s no federal or state law against it.

While there’s no universal definition of workplace bullying, experts say it generally involves repeated abusive treatment by one or more employees against a co-worker. The behavior is intended to harm that person and results in a hostile work environment. The harm can be done economically, psychologically or physically. Methods can include behaviors such as excluding a target from meetings, yelling at the person, sabotaging his or her work or threatening him or her.

“It breaks people and for some people, it destroys their careers,” Skorek said.

For those bullied, the tormenting, teasing and taunting can feel like torture. They can suffer health problems such as high blood pressure and depression, experts said. Bullying also can lead to workplace violence, loss of income and even suicide, they said. It can cross lines of gender, age, seniority or profession.

The problem doesn’t seem to be getting better given the challenging economy, said Suzy Fox, a professor at Loyola University Chicago’s Institute of Human Resources and Employment Relations.

“Companies are less likely to put in resources that are healthy workplace employee benefit-type policies because no one has any money and people are really stressed and fearful for their job,” she said. “This kind of environment is really fertile for bullying behavior.”

Without a law banning it, those being bullied have little recourse. Illinois lawmakers have proposed a healthy workplace bill, but it has been stuck in a House committee for a year. The bill would provide legal relief to an employee subjected to an abusive work environment and incentive for employers to prevent and respond to such hostile work behavior. It also would hold the employer and employee as defendants liable for damages.

“In absence of a law, employers don’t have to do anything and they prefer not to,” said Gary Namie, founder of the Workplace Bullying Institute in Washington state and director of the Healthy Workplace Campaign. “It’s a form of harassment invisible in the eyes of the law.”

Without legislation, it’s up to each company to come up with an anti-bullying policy or unions to include anti-bullying language in their contracts, Fox said. Some companies think bullying, though the term isn’t explicitly used, is covered generally in codes of conduct and employee ethics codes under harassment, she said.

“But the problem is when it’s not specifically called bullying, the actual protection in many cases don’t take place,” Fox said.

Kristen Prinz, a business and employment law attorney, said her Chicago firm gets calls from various people about workplace bullying, sometimes including reports that people are feeling pressured to quit their jobs.

“In this market, [the employees who call] just want to protect their jobs,” she said.

She suggests employees document the occurrences, just as an employer would record a worker’s bad behavior.

Those targeted may have a legal claim if they believe they have been bullied because of race, gender or any other legally protected class. Claims may also be warranted if the bullying is done in retaliation for reporting violations of company policies, she said.

The workplace itself can foster the bullying culture. If the bully is productive and meets goals, the bully may even be rewarded with a promotion or impunity, Namie said. As such, sending the bully to a program like anger management is only a Band-Aid approach because the work environment has to change, he said.

Workplace experts say employers need to issue corporate statements against bullying, define it as unacceptable, and create a policy for reporting it and a system to prevent it.

There is no easy way to deal with an office bully, experts said. Retaliation is not a good idea because it could make the situation worse. Generally, targets of bullying have the options of reporting it, ignoring it or seeking counseling outside the office or leaving the job.

In the meantime, they can make a “strictly business-based fiscal argument” to a superior that the bully is costing the company money, Namie said. Tolerating a bully can cost a company money in the way of turnover, absenteeism, legal action and other factors.

The bottom line on workplace bullying, Namie said, is “it’s inexcusable.”

Link to the original article

KPCC-FM, Los Angeles

Note: WBI believes bullied targets commit murder only if they are bullied for years and frustrated by institutional representatives who ignored their genuine pleas for relief from abusive conduct. It must be said that bullied targets seem more likely to commit suicide in silence and disappear from situations without anyone ever hearing those pleas.

“Stupid old woman.”
“Too old to keep up.”
“You should just retire.”

Taunts like these, aimed at the growing number of employees over age 50, are coming from bullies in the workplace. It may be the boss, it may be a coworker or even a customer who’s hurling the invective.

How bad is the problem? In 2007, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received 5,181 claims of age-based harassment. By 2011, that number had gone up to 6,406.

“It’s definitely something we’re seeing more of,” said Raymond Peeler, senior attorney-advisor in EEOC’s Office of Legal Counsel.

What is bullying?

The Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI), a Bellingham, Wash., nonprofit organization, defines bullying as repeated health-harming mistreatment of a target by one or more perpetrators, including verbal abuse and offensive nonverbal conduct.

Gary Namie, WBI’s director, sees a cold logic at work when bosses are the bullies. “Employers often want to drive out the more experienced, typically higher paid, workers,” he writes in a 2010 report on age and workplace bullying. “Though discrimination based on age is technically illegal, illegalities do not frighten employers. Their attitude is ‘so, sue us.’ Unemployed workers don’t have the money to launch a legal battle.”
Related

Bullying at Work. Listen

Great work-at-home jobs for retirees. Read

5 ways to prove your worth. Read

Join AARP today – Receive access to exclusive information, benefits and discounts.

A 2011 survey by CareerBuilder similarly found that 29 percent of workers age 55 and older said they’d been bullied on the job, compared with 25 percent for the 35-44 group.

That the statistics show disproportionate numbers of older workers reporting the problem comes as no surprise to Rosemary Haefner, vice president of human resources at CareerBuilder. “Mature workers are more likely to have an expertise, and more likely to have the confidence to come forward with their views.”

What does bullying look like?

Consider these recent stories from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

Robert Coffman, a heating and air conditioning technician for the city of North Richland Hills, Texas, was 56 when hired. During his six-year employment, he endured taunts from his supervisors that he was too old to keep up, was too old to do his job and was earning too much money. When he complained, management did nothing. The bullying continued until Coffman felt forced to leave the job at age 62. In 2009 the city settled his claim of age-based harassment and paid him $75,000.

Mary Bassi, a waitress at a Houston strip club, was in her 50s in the summer of 2005 when 30-something managers started referring to her as “old,” making negative comments about her age and hiring younger women to work her shifts. She was fired without explanation at 56. In January 2011, an EEOC case was resolved and the club was forced to pay her $60,000 for age discrimination and wrongful discharge.

Feeling bullied?

Here is how experts say you can fight back against workplace abuse:

Take care of you. Check and protect your physical and mental health first. Seek medical help if necessary.

Write it down. “Keep track of what was said or done and who was present,” Haefner says. “The more specifics you can provide, the stronger the case you can make for yourself when confronting the bully head on or reporting the bully to a company authority.”

Do your homework. Research state and federal legal options.

Talk to an attorney. Look for internal company policies (for example, zero tolerance of harassment or violence) that may have been violated.

Compile numbers. Gather data about the economic impact that the bullying behavior has on the company, putting dollars and cents to each instance of turnover and replacement that bullying causes.

Brace yourself. There may be retaliation ahead and you should be prepared for it.

Update your résumé. You may have to find a new job. It can’t hurt to start searching.

Read the original article here.

Read the accompanying online article here.

Wave number two is the degradation and character assassination targets face at the hands of the institution to which they turned for protection and relief. Instead of honestly investigating bullies’ actions (lord knows targets have volumes of evidence documented), employers prefer to circle the wagons, to get defensive, and to protect the bully at the expense of reasonableness, responsible fiscal accounting, and productivity. As if defending the bully is not wrong enough, apologists for the bully tear into the reputation and character of the bullied (now complaining) individual. It is certainly retaliation. No laws are violated unless the narrow definition of membership in a protected status (grounds) group is enjoyed by the target and not by the bully.

This besmurching of a murder victim is playing out in the Trayvon Martin case. Proponents for justice for the assassinated youth got the message of righteous indignation out first. Now come the murderer’s apologists (Limbaugh saying Zimmerman “overreacted”) discovering a school suspension on Martin’s record. Are they crazy? Because he was suspended for having a bag with possible marijuana residue, he deserved to die at the hands of the zealot vigilante Zimmerman?

This is the same societal madness faced by bullied targets at work. Defamation is designed to undermine target credibility and sympathy for her or him, as if she or he invited the harm suffered (death for Martin, psychological violence for bullied workers). A person dare not challenge institutions, however corrupt or inept they may be. We speak about American individualism as if rebellion against tyrannical institutions is in our lifeblood. It’s a myth. We turn on anyone who actually challenges the status quo. In reality, we obligingly defer to authority of all kinds, whether legitimate or not. Some examples: police do no wrong (a dubious worldview held only by whites in an increasingly militarized police state); and employers ensure that the best interests of employees are met because it is good business to do so (so that powerless workers are duped to believe collective strength – unions – are not necessary).

Martin’s “crime” was wanting to get something from the 7-11 store during halftime. Zimmerman fans say that Martin should have stayed in the house. Why? Because walking while black could attract lethal attention from self-anointed “captain” of the watch? Expect nothing rational to justify irrational and unwarranted murder.

Second wave character assassinations are tools used by desperate people who have no moral standing when their misdeeds are exposed. Employers try extremely hard to cover up all bullying cases so they never see the light of day. But any incidents in the workplace investigated by internal agents (e.g., HR or legal counsel hired by employers) are never made public even to other workers, shrouded in mystery by the stifling blanket of “confidentiality” demanded by the employer. It is all done for the employer’s sake. Targets did not ask for it. They want accountability and exposure of wrongdoing.

File a formal complaint or lawsuit against your employer and prepare for an incredible assault on who you are. By the time your employer gets done with you, you will doubt you ever were the competent, exemplary worker you were before the bullying invaded your life.

Everything Trayvon Martin’s parents will experience in the future, bullied targets also suffer. It’s an unjust, inverted world where doing the right thing matters too little, if at all.

Hence the fight for justice for Trayvon Martin mirrors the ongoing struggle for justice for abused workers. Good luck to us all.

Florida: get fired for wearing orange, get killed for walking from 7-11 while black

Why does bullying in the workplace happen?
• Bullies are not punished & thrive
• Laws to stop it are either absent or too weak to be useful
• Coworkers stand idly by & fail to stop it
• No one in the company/agency has the will to stop it
• The workplace culture rewards cutthroat behaviors
• A few hyper-aggressive individuals have psychological & social problems
• Executives/owners/senior mgrs are the bullies
• Bullying is part of the larger society & culture
• No one in the company/agency has the power to stop it
• Bullies follow orders from the top
• Targeted workers somehow invite their fate
• We humans are aggressive by nature; it is inevitable

Let us know your experience and see what other people had to say.

Denial that bullying happens has stopped since our founding of the U.S. movement 15 years ago. In the SHRM survey, bullying was reported by 51% of respondents. They have seen incidents. It is most prevalent in large organizations (>500 employees) at 71%; reported by 42% of respondents in firms with 100-199 employees; and the lowest in small organizations (1 to 99 employees) at 38%.

A remarkable 34% of respondents answered that bullying has decreased in frequency over the last two years. Only 18% believe it has increased.

Three (3) percent of organizations claim to have a separate workplace bullying policy. Others (40%) say workplace bullying is combined with another workplace policy. Nearly half (44%) defiantly said their organization has no policy and has no plans to put one in place.

The SHRM 3% matches one of our online 2011 Instant Poll surveys of WBI website visitors (who are primarily bullied individuals) that asked what employers have in place. Bullied targets reported that 3% of employers have a workplace bullying policy and faithfully enforce it. Targets say that 46% of employers are resistant. This matches the SHRM 44% of employers who have no intention of addressing bullying through a policy.

Prevention and/or awareness training is provided in 28% of organizations according to the SHRM 2012 survey. It looks like HR staff receive the majority of training (35%), with managers coming in second at 34%.

SHRM asked a question about how organizations respond to alleged perpetrators of bullying. The most frequent response chosen (76%) was “depends on specific circumstances.” This means that HR prefers to deal with bullying on a “case-by-case” basis. Unfortunately, this allows HR staff to ignore bullying when committed by perpetrators they are powerless to stop, and hammer lowly employees who themselves are powerless to stop a bullying manager. Specific circumstances and case-by-case are troublesome for bullied targets because there is rarely consistency, fairness, or justice.

SHRM members say most bullying is between coworkers or peers (82%) with 56% being top-down with supervisors as perpetrators. This finding contradicts the large national surveys in the U.S. Whereas according to the WBI U.S. survey, 72% of perpetrators are bosses, 18% are coworkers.

Finally, a quarter (27%) of HR survey respondents said they were bullied themselves.

You can download a copy of the SHRM slide show depicting results of the survey conducted in May 2011.

Two current stories illustrate the vast gulf between American and Canadian approaches to this mental health dilemma.

The U.S.

In America, employers, insurers and bully apologists resist granting the diagnosis of PTSD lest it imply an admission of guilt for inflicting such serious psychological harm on an undeserving person. Psychiatrists and psychologists may want to diagnose PTSD when they see it, but it is made more difficult by the DSM, the bible of psychological diagnoses published by the American Psychiatric Association. Insurance reimbursement for treatment is limited to DSM-approved diagnoses. Though the newest DSM will be published in 2013, it still limits PTSD to a single triggering event. The DSM ignores the cumulative nature of stress and damage from repeated exposure.

The American military perhaps is the employer most knowledgeable about PTSD. It injures its employees more than any other employer. The Veterans Administration (VA) is expert at treating military veterans. However, soon after it became apparent that the never-ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan required that soldiers be deployed several times, the prevalence of PTSD skyrocketed. The military’s response was to deny the diagnosis since it reflected accurately what the employer had done to its employees.

Unscrupulous military psychologists abandoned principles of their profession to treat injury in favor of denying PTSD in order to save the Dept. of Defense money. They invented false diagnoses, primarily that soldiers had personality disorders. The PD label demonized soldiers and led to personal destitution — no medical benefits, no pay, an unceremonious dumping. Joshua Kors, Pulitzer Prize winner, documented this pathetic, dishonest tactic.

Today, comes a report of an Army Medical Command scheme that reversed 40% of original PTSD diagnoses at Madigan Army Medical Center at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Tacoma, WA. U.S. Senator Patty Murray commissioned the report. The reversals were done by a “screening team” that intervened after VA or other doctors had diagnosed PTSD and had recommended treatment.

Untreated PTSD is responsible for a ten-fold increase in domestic violence among military veterans. It is a blight on society. And veteran reservists who return to the workplace with untreated PTSD may find it impossible to cope, placing coworkers at risk, as well as the individual him- or herself.

Rather than focus on the well being of veterans, one Madigan Army psychiatrist, a member of the screening team, emphasized that PTSD treatment costs taxpayers $1.5 million over the soldier’s lifetime. What price will be paid for Lewis-McChord soldier Staff Sgt. Robert Bales accused of killing 16 Afghan civilians, including nine children, during a nighttime rampage through two rural villages March 11?

From the March 20 Hal Bernton Seattle Times article about the Army report:

The financial stakes of PTSD screening dramatically increased after Congress in 2008 authorized a 50 percent disability rating for anyone leaving military service with that diagnosis. That rating is well above the threshold required for an Army medical retirement. After the law changed, several soldiers attempted to make false or exaggerated claims of PTSD for personal financial gain, according to a Feb. 16 memorandum by Dr. Paul Whittaker, a Madigan physician who serves on the medical board that examines soldiers under consideration for medical retirement.

Whittaker wrote that Madigan psychiatrists used objective testing to determine which soldiers had “significant mental illness that was compensable.” One of those tests the Madigan forensic team used is called the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI).

Whittaker’s stance is wrong in two ways. First, he assumes that injured warriors lie. If this is so, then stop accepting soldiers into the military without better screening at recruitment. The second flaw is well recognized by individuals traumatized at work. Using a static personality assessment tool like the MMPI gives a false result during acute phases of PTSD. The test falsely suggests that he or she has a personality disorder. But PDs have to develop during childhood or adolescence. They do not suddenly spring in adulthood without precedent. Clinical psychologist and workplace bullying researcher Stale Einarsen warns against use of the MMPI with PTSD.

I suggest the Army consider using the newest (2010) technology that can accurately diagnose PTSD, the MEG (magnetoencephalography). It takes the guesswork out of subjective and bottom-line-driven denials of injuries.

According to the Seattle Times piece, the Madigan screening team has been disbanded for now. But the record of psychologists helping the military, even with torture, and not helping soldiers is disgusting.

Canada and PTSD

In the province of British Columbia, Minister of Labour Margaret Macdiarmid introduced Bill 14. Dr. Macdiarmid was a family physician for 23 years. The bill, sure to pass because it was proposed by the government, amends Workers Compensation in a way radical even for progressive Canada.

Claims for “mental stress” will continue to be based on one or more traumatic events but now also allow “a significant work-related stressor, or a cumulative series of significant work-related stressors, arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment to be identified as the cause of PTSD.” This is a loosening of the required standard.

It also reflects the reality experienced by thousands of BC workers bullied at work. In most cases, single incidents rarely rise to the level of outrage or significance. It is the cumulative nature, the repeated exposure that creates the harm. This WCB revision is a step in the right direction.

Despite the conservative (in American lingo) orientation of the Liberal (the name of the party in power) approach to lawmaking, extending workers’ rights is still possible. Currently the BC premier is a former politician turned radio talk show host turned politician again, Christy Clark. I guested on her show before as we discussed workplace bullying. She was instrumental in launching the Wear Pink anti-bullying initiative in BC for kids. So, regardless of political party, in Canada, some semblance of dignity can still be granted for workers.

Canadians (some, not all) are dignitarians valuing the inherent worth of every person, while Americans are rambo-like, pseudo-frontiersman individualists who believe everything, including personal dignity and respect, must be earned. The difference in societies is apparent when considering how to treat its traumatized citizens.

A little background: I answer the phone here at WBI and talk with many Targets about their experiences. Early in our conversations I usually hear questions and hypotheses about the bullies motives. Its easy to see that Targets spend many hours trying to dissect and understand how their own behavior triggers the attacks and plays into the bullies motivation.  After being under the thumb of a bully, thoughts and self-doubting like this is completely understandable.

This is when I break the news, explaining the reason, the real reason, you are being bullied.

Because the bully is irrational. He or she has chosen to torment you. The bully needs control.

That’s it.

Since the behavior itself is irrational, you will not be able to flesh-out a reason for the mistreatment. Don’t beat yourself up because an unrepentant aggressor is threatened by you.

Targets dare to be independent, they are more competent , they are well liked, they are ethical, honest, not political in the workplace. All these qualities make you a great employee and a great person.

Emotional intelligence and empathy are also characteristics of a Target. You try to understand what the bully goes through. It makes you willing to change yourself and be more accommodating. Don’t try to change yourself in order to appease the bully — it will not work.

Be selfish. Make your health the priority and enjoy the support of your family and friends while working towards a place that appreciates and protects you.

Hope you have a great weekend.

I do commend UVa for defining unacceptable conduct beyond the narrow confines of illegal mistreatment of members of protected status groups only. The program is introduced with lovely words from the cheery president. She has my sympathy since Kevin killed himself on her first day of duty. She was not to blame, but solution efficacy will be her legacy.

Since Kevin’s suicide, Ted Genoways, Kevin’s boss, has been depicted as the victim by some. In many ways, the injustice of spinning Genoways as victim is echoed by the unbearable lightness of the UVa approach to its solution. I’m not surprised. We wrote in our book, The Bully-Free Workplace: Stop Jerks, Weasels & Snakes from Killing Your Organization, about this tendency to name workplace initiatives “Civility” and “Respect” in the U.S. It dodges accountability for enabling a much darker, more insidious form of negative conduct on campus. For the book, we created a continuum showing the severity and impact of bullying subsumes incivility and disrespect. Though the words bullying and abuse do appear on descriptions buried in the UVa program details, neither Abuse nor Bullying is in the title of the initiative.

The institution’s reaction to the simple term “workplace bullying” in their post-Morrissey “investigation” spoke volumes — denials, blaming victims, harping about no formal complaints having been filed, the absence of punishment for Genoways, etc. Genoways’ attorney was pushing to rid the bully label from his client. UVa couldn’t have been happier.

My major problems with the respectful workplace program are:

1) the first statement implores all employees to be responsible to effect a caring community — not leadership, not the President’s office, which should have borne primary responsibility for failing to protect Kevin,

2) informal solutions seem to revolve around reporting to supervisors and managers as if the majority of “disrespect” is among non-supervisory peers (not so, statistics exist that tell a different story),

3) they chose to focus on the positive aspects of a work culture, but employers cannot mandate niceness or politeness or courtesy (which is what respect and civility entail), instead the employer should have narrowly defined outrageous, unacceptable conduct and stuck to defining and eliminating that so that a positive, abuse-free culture could flourish (The choice of eliminating negatives or encouraging positives is one of the first decisions we lead our organizational clients through when crafting solutions. Choosing positivity is the cowardly path. When clients go positive and pollyanna, we know they are too timid to eradicate bullying.),

4) all solutions are housed in HR. This makes it a low-level problem. (In my expert witness work, I’ve been involved in university lawsuits. When faculty are involved, HR is powerless (see the admission in the e-mail story posted here that HR could not stop Genoways). Without significant investment of Administrator’s time in the program, it will never impact abusive faculty. Junior faculty will never be safe.), and

5) a clause buried deep in procedures that just talking to HR about a possible complaint will trigger one (and the inevitable, but unwanted retaliation), just as now happens only in cases of illegal harassment and discrimination. With no law pushing this voluntary program, the institution just took away a major protection for complainants. If you want confidentiality, then nothing can be done by the two outlets (Ombuds and FEAP). You might as well file an anonymous complaint that compels nothing. This will stifle formal complaint filing and the institution will have its low use stats claiming the rarity of negative conduct when in fact the stat is confounded by fear by, and compromised safety of, complainants. In our book, we clearly define new roles for HR. They must not be at the center of solutions.

6) the entire program should report to the Office of the President just like Genoways and the VQR used to. Genoways had his sponsor, the campus president. It is only justice that the program designed to snare and prevent the Genoways of the future enjoy the same status, not be shoved into obscurity as an HR program, fad-of-the-month.

Wait until there is a shooting ON campus, suicide or homicide, Pres. Sullivan will wish she had attacked problems directly and honestly.

– GN

Bully buster? VQR spurs UVA launch of ‘respectful workplace’
By David McNair, The Hook February 22, 2012

A year-and-a-half after the suicide of the Virginia Quarterly Review’s managing editor Kevin Morrissey launched a national debate about whether it was the scene of workplace bullying, UVA President Teresa A. Sullivan has launched the Respect@UVA program, a comprehensive workplace initiative designed to promote “kindness, dignity and respect.”



But one workplace bullying expert thinks the reforms announced February 15 don’t go far enough.



Gary Namie, director of the Workplace Bullying Institute, contends that bullying should be put in the context of real violence to avoid letting programs like this get “shackled by all its shortcomings.”

In addition to educational resources, the UVA program includes a new complaint reporting system designed to allow employees to air grievances without fear of retaliation from their superiors, as well as a commitment to follow up within two business days.



”As president, I will hold myself accountable to the Commitment to a Caring Community,” Sullivan says in statement, “and I will expect all leaders at all levels of the University to do the same. We will not tolerate retaliation against an employee who reports an incident.”

As the Hook recently revealed, Morrissey expressed frustration about an alleged lack of oversight over his boss, VQR editor Ted Genoways, and reached out several times to UVA officials, including those in the President’s office.

“In every instance,” Morrissey wrote in one of his leaked emails, “either through advice given or interaction, the onus was placed on me to deal with the issue.”

“It’s very upsetting for me to have to think about how valiantly and doggedly Kevin struggled to be heard,” says Morrissey’s sister, Maria, “only to have everyone he spoke to ultimately say there was nothing they could do without the bully’s cooperation.”



Shortly after taking office in 2010, Sullivan established a Respectful Workplace Task Force, a group of 26 faculty and staff volunteers that, along with Human Resources vice president Susan Carkeek, created the new initiative.

“The task force members believe that to become best in class as a respectful workplace, we will need commitment from everyone working at all levels of the University,” said Sullivan.

The program comes down particularly hard on managers, calling on them to serve as “role models of respectful behavior,” bans retaliating in anger to complaints, and it even includes a questionnaire for managers to self-examine their management style entitled, “Could you be the bully?”

While Namie thinks the program is a step in the right direction, alleged shortcomings include the softer term “disrespect” to describe what is happening in an abusive workplace.



”Calling the problem what it is– psychological violence, abusive conduct, or bullying– fosters real outrage and systemic solutions,” asserts Namie, claiming that while incivility and disrespect can cause stress and health problems, moderate to severe bullying has been linked to abusive conduct, deep despair, and even suicide.

“If they don’t get it right the first time,”says Namie, “the program will not be re-visited and revised unless there’s an on-campus murder or suicide, with notes left clearly indicating that abusive mistreatment was the root cause.”

Maria Morrissey says she was struck by the fact that the program’s examples of retaliation don’t include abrasive emails or unjustified accusations of bad behavior against whistle-blowers, both of which were alleged aspects of the VQR situation.

“How will UVA deal with the supervisor who prefers to deal in less obvious forms of bullying and retaliation?” asks Morrissey.

She also wonders how the university– which now promises to ferret out bullying “regardless of position or status”– will deal with potentially untouchable supervisors such as big money fundraisers, literary and academic stars, or– in the case of VQR– a boss who formerly answered only to a busy university president.

“‘Regardless of position or status’ sounds lovely on paper,” says Morrissey,” but how will that really work in a hierarchy like a university?”

See original article.

Final days – Emails show VQR’s ‘awkward workplace scenario’

By David McNair, The Hook, February 2, 2012

“At this point, frankly, I feel I have little protection offered by the University, and I see little or no evidence of any oversight of Ted [Genoways] by the University.” – Kevin Morrissey in an email to officials in the UVA President’s office, July 21, 2010.

“There were reports through the years of the Editor not being courteous or respectful with some contributors and colleagues, as well as problems with certain employees, but none ever seemed to rise to the level of a serious, on-going concern.” –UVA investigation of VQR operations, October 20, 2010

Just days after a new publisher and deputy editor joined the staff of the Virginia Quarterly Review, emails between former VQR managing editor Kevin Morrissey–- who took his life on July 30, 2010–- and high-level UVA officials arrived in the Hook office in an unmarked envelope.

Until now, accounts of the events that unfolded that summer came not from Morrissey, but from co-workers, UVA officials, enterprising journalists, and even VQR editor Ted Genoways himself, whose email just two days after Morrissey’s death characterized Morrissey as someone whose work was suffering because of internal demons and defended himself against accusations of being a “workplace bully.”

While the 52-year old Morrissey’s suicide note was too brief to provide much insight into reasons, the leaked emails show he had plenty to say as his life careened toward its tragic end.

With former UVA President John Casteen’s tenure coming to a close at the end of the month, July 2010 was a tense time at VQR. The award-winning literary journal had, for decades, operated under the supervision of the President’s Office, but with new president Teresa Sullivan’s impending arrival, a plan was hatched by Genoways and Casteen to move the operation to the Office of the Vice President of Research.

Away on a fellowship in July, Genoways had recently promoted a 24-year old VQR intern to Assistant Editor/Development Manager, getting her a $38,000 per year position without a formal search. Alana Levinson-LaBrosse was also a major donor, having pledged $1.5 million to UVA’s Young Writer’s Program; and her father, a Silicon Valley business titan, had committed $20 million to UVA a decade earlier.

During a July 14 meeting between Levinson-LaBrosse, Morrissey, and former Web Editor Waldo Jaquith, the value that Genoways and the President’s Office placed on the former intern would be revealed. These emails were exchanged that summer.

July 6:

“If Ted [Genoways] has no desire to improve his skills as a manger,” Morrissey writes to UVA human resources manager Angelee Godbold, asking why Genoways has been allowed to avoid all training classes– even mandatory ones– for managers “and if his current or future supervisor places no importance on his abilities as a manger, what reasonable expectations can I have that HR can bring any weight to bear?

“Sorry to be blunt about this,” Morrissey continues, “but I’m feeling little optimism that the situation will improve.”

“Know that I appreciate your bluntness,” Godbold responds, “you’ve earned the right to be direct as your work experience has been trying.”

Godbold promises to involve Alan Cohn, director of Faculty and Staff Employee Relations, who is cc’d on all her emails.

July 19:

Genoways writes a 2:30am email banning both Morrissey and former Web Editor Waldo Jaquith from the office for a week because he had received reports of “unacceptable workplace behavior.” Genoways forbids them from representing the VQR, limits their work duties, and tells them not to communicate with the rest of the staff until he has a chance to gather more information. Genoways does not tell them what specifically they had done.

July 20:

“The longer I remain banned from working, the worse it seems for me,” Morrissey tells Godbold. “How can I understand how I’m protected given the lack of information I have available? From my perspective, this sounds very troubling.”

Unbeknownst to Morrissey at this time, the alleged “unacceptable workplace behavior” stemmed from the July 14 meeting with Levinson-Labrosse, during which, she would later allege, that Morrissey and Jaquith were “rude.”

“Their pattern of unprofessional and, at times, explicitly rude behavior toward me in the office was preventing us, as a staff, from getting the transition materials together,” Levinson-Labrosse told C-Ville Weekly.

That was a charge that upset the rest of the close-knit VQR staff.

“Waldo and Kevin were never rude and unprofessional to Alana,” former circulation manger Shelia McMillen countered in a Hook story, adding that Morrissey and Jaquith hadn’t hindered the compilation of transition materials but that Levinson-Labrosse was “just very offended that they asked whether Kevin ought not to be at some of the meetings about the future of the magazine.”

HR’s Godbold advises Morrissey to comply with the unusual ban “because we do not want you or Waldo to be labeled as insubordinate. Alan [Cohn] and I have a strategy and do not want either of you adversely impacted in any way.”

“Does Ted have the authority to do this?” responds Morrissey. “Am I understanding correctly that my ban from the office and some of my job responsibilities is continuing for the remainder of the week?”

“Clearly, this is a very painful situation for you and your staff,” responds Godbold. “Truthfully, it has been for a long time. Admittedly, this is one of the most awkward workplace scenarios in which I’ve been involved for awhile.”

July 21:

Morrissey emails Casteen’s special assistant Joan Fry and his finance and administration director Lynda Birckhead to request a confab ahead of a July 26 meeting arranged to discuss the Genoways accusations.

“I have still not been informed what these specific charges are,” writes Morrissey, “and Ted’s directive not to report to the office, to restrict my work, and have little or no communication with my colleagues, implies these allegations are quite serious.”

Morrissey then says he would like to meet to discuss the “ramifications and procedures for filing a grievance” against Genoways.

“I am concerned that Ted at this time is, in his own words, “conducting an investigation with no oversight,” writes Morrissey. “I have concerns that Ted cannot conduct an impartial investigation into an incident to which he was not a witness.”

“To be very direct,” Morrissey says, “I’m beginning to wonder if I’m in a similar position to what Candace Pugh faced five years ago.”

As the Hook would later reveal, Candace Pugh was a former VQR employee who worked for the magazine for 32 years, and who says she was “forced out” by Genoways in 2005.

Like Morrissey, Pugh contacted officials in the President’s office (“The President’s office just stood by and let it happen,” Pugh said in an interview) and went on to file a harassment complaint against Genoways, who allegedly ordered her out of the office she had occupied for three decades. In the end, after Pugh hired a lawyer, the University offered her a one-year severance package under condition that no lawsuit would be filed.

“At this point, frankly, I feel I have little protection offered by the University,” Morrissey tells Fry and Birckhead, “and I see little or no evidence of any oversight of Ted by the University.”

Fry responds by saying she doesn’t know how exactly the “grievance procedures to protect employees from abusive supervisors” works, and suggests he contact Godbold. Morrissey quickly writes back.

“My concern is that, as Angelee [Godbold] has expressed to me, that HR has no power over Ted,” writes Morrissey. “I would prefer to discuss this issue with someone from the President’s Office.”

July 22:

“I don’t take the possible filing of a grievance lightly,” says Morrissey in an email to Godbold. “I’m well aware that doing so would make matters even worse than they already are, but given the lack of oversight of Ted in the past, I was concerned as to what a reasonable expectation would be for me to have in regard to any relief.”

Morrissey also apologizes for contacting officials above her.

July 23:

“All is well between us, Kevin,” writes Godbold. “I support whatever route you choose to take to help bring about resolve in your workplace. It has been rough for you and your staff, and I understand.”

July 26:

On Monday morning, President Casteen’s chief of staff, Nancy Rivers, with Genoways in the room, meets separately with Morrissey and Jaquith. A source says Jaquith asked Genoways to explain why he instituted the week-long ban. Unsatisfied with Genoways’ answer, which included the accusation of “behaving in a unprofessional manner” toward Levinson-LaBrosse, Jaquith tenders his resignation.

July 27:

In a 6am email, Morrissey thanks Rivers for attending the meeting, but says he still found things unresolved.

“Waldo and myself have still not been told what specific ‘unacceptable workplace behavior’ we were alleged to have committed,” writes Morrissey, complaining that too much time was spent talking about the transition to the VPR office.

“Ted has continually used the dire state of the VQR and our move out of the President’s Office to deflect any meaningful discussion about the specific workplace issues our office has,” he writes.

Again, Morrissey asks what relief he might receive if he were to file a grievance.

“The communication difficulties between Ted and myself have been going on for over three years at this point,” Morrissey writes, “and I feel I have made a concerted and conscientious effort to follow through on all UVA prescribed methods for dealing with the issue. I’ve spoken numerous times to Ted, without gaining a satisfactory response; I’ve spoken to Lynda and Joan a number of times; I’ve gone to the Faculty and Employee Assistance Program twice; I’ve gone to the Office of the Ombudsman; and I have gone to the HR department.

“In every instance,” Morrissey continues, “either through advice given or interaction, the onus was placed on me to deal with the issue. At this point, there seems to be only 2 options: the formal mediation process you have proposed or my filing a grievance.

“In my opinion, two of the major issues of this incident are Ted’s actions in dealing with Waldo and me and Ted’s preferential treatment of Alana, and neither were ever addressed at the meeting. When I asked Ted why he didn’t contact me to get my version of events of the 7/14 incident, he said he wanted to talk to everyone face-to-face. But he himself said he spoke to Alana prior to sending me the 7/19 email.”

Morrissey also wonders why there were no criticism or suggestions offered for his handling of that meeting with Levinson-Labrosse, and how freely he can “speak about these incidents without suffering retaliation, or if Alana quits, of being blamed for jeopardizing a relationship with a major donor?”

“You said you wanted the entire department to “move forward, not look back,” Morrissey tells Rivers. “While I understand the sentiment, my concern is that if Ted’s past behavior and his supervision of the staff is not addressed, there will be no incentive for him to make any meaningful changes to improve the situation. And there is a strong likelihood that the rest of the staff, all good employees who have done little or nothing wrong, will follow Waldo’s lead.”

July 29:

Morrissey sends a late-day email to Rivers, whose boss was preparing for his last official day in the university’s highest office. Morrissey says he was having trouble contacting Genoways about work issues that week, and wants to know if he has the authority to make decisions. Morrissey also asks when the mediation meetings would begin. He ends by apologizing for the “VQR troubles taking up her time.”

“I think they are trying to get the meeting set up, but Ted’s schedule is the challenge,” Rivers responds. “You should handle any editing assignments, and I will back you up. Ted has conveyed to me that he will not micromanage the office and wants you to make independent decisions when possible. Thanks, write anytime!”

July 30:

Genoways would, however, attempt to micromanage, sending curt, early morning emails to Morrissey and VQR staffer Molly Minturn reprimanding them for work-related issues.

Three days after Morrissey asked Genoways if he wanted to respond to an email by a Mexican journalist covering that nation’s deadly drug wars, Genoways accuses Morrissey, by not forwarding the email to Genoways sooner, of endangering the journalist’s life.

“I found that email open on Kevin’s iPhone,” Morrissey’s sister, Maria Morrissey, told the Hook. “It was sent from Ted at 9:47am. Kevin wrote his suicide note about an hour later.”

As Casteen began wrapping up his last official day in office, Morrissey calmly called 911 to report his own shooting.

“Please tell Gwenyth [Swain, an old friend] I’m sorry,” Morrissey’s suicide note read. “I know she won’t understand, but I can’t bear it anymore.”

He also asked that his body be cremated, that there be no ceremony, and he left his work contact as Nancy Rivers. Ted Genoways did not return a reporter’s contacts for comment on this story.

View the original article at The Hook.

Employers nationwide increasingly have had to implement policies to handle concerns beyond typical workplace dilemmas –– or what’s now called workplace bullying.

This week, the University of Minnesota’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action held a session about the issue to ensure staff and faculty know how to recognize and address it.

The University’s Office of Human Resources defines bullying as an imbalance of power and the intent to cause harm and repetition. It is not outlined in Minnesota state laws like harassment or discrimination.

Acts of bullying are specific to each case, but scenarios could include spreading rumors, undermining the work a person does or giving a poor evaluation to put an employee’s job at risk.

“Most people put up with it, and many of the people who are bullied think that they deserve it,” said Sean Lunsford a consultant at the Workplace Bullying Institute.

During Tuesday morning’s workshop “Addressing Bullying Behavior in the Workplace,” EOAA presented scenarios that could happen in the workplace at the University.

“Like, if you are dealing with a long-time faculty member who is well respected but displays curt behavior in the workplace,” said Kimberly Hewitt, EOAA director.

After the presentation, the floor was opened up for discussion among attendees to respond to each scenario.

When EOAA receives a complaint, it becomes their responsibility to investigate the accused and to carry out a source of action.

Sometimes victims of bullying are reluctant to come forward, but someone from the same office can file a complaint on the victim’s behalf, which the EOAA would investigate.

This can result in a recommendation letter sent to the place of business or various training sessions addressing the situation for both office bullies and their targets.

“We have obligations to take action but again, it depends on the situation,” said Hewitt.

Beyond the campus, workplace bullying is fairly common.

A national 2010 survey conducted by the Workplace Bullying Institute found more than one-third of employees have experienced some kind of bullying behavior while at work. The majority of bullies are men, but most of it is same-gender harassment. Female bullies target other women in 80 percent of cases.

Ruth Namie, a psychologist for WBI, works closely with victims of workplace bullying.

“Many people don’t realize what is happening to them … they can’t put a name to it,” she said. “When people can finally figure out what exactly is happening to them, it provides some relief. That’s where we come in.”

WBI, founded in 1998, travels around the country giving seminars and speeches to provide employees the tools to identify and address this kind of behavior.

While laws remain nonexistent, companies are being urged to create their own protocol and possible resolution.

“Being aware of this behavior helps people get back to living their lives,” Lunsford said.

“Sadly, most people who are affected usually end up leaving their jobs or being fired.”

By Mary Elizabeth Williams
Wednesday, Mar 7 2012
Salon.com

My friend Dennis* remembers the exact moment he knew he’d had enough. Enough of the “nonstop nagging and ostracizing and accusing” that had become his weekday routine. He was standing on the platform of the subway station at Union Square, leaning out toward the tracks to see if the train was approaching. “And I thought, if I don’t pull back, if I stay here like this, so many problems will be solved.” Dennis’ tormenter? Not a schoolyard thug shaking him down for lunch money, but a high-ranking executive in one of the largest financial institutions in the country. When the mean kids of your childhood grow up, they don’t all evolve into self-aware, contrite adults. Sometimes, they just move from the playground to the corner office.

Dennis says that his problems began the day he dared to point out a flaw in his supervisor’s report during a meeting. From there, he was swiftly taken off a project he’d been immersed in and moved to one “I literally didn’t know anything about.” He was also, unlike the other members of his team, billed for taking the company’s car service after working late one night. “They told me I didn’t have to work overtime and accused me of malingering,” he says. But what sticks with him now, long after he’s left, are the sly humiliations and social ostracizations. Like when he broke a toe and couldn’t wear business shoes, he was sent up to the vice president’s office and made to show him his swollen, purple foot. “They’d call meetings and not tell me,” he says. “I’d see them going into the conference room without me. They’d go out for lunch afterward and not include me.” His department abruptly banished office birthday parties in March, and resumed them in May. “My birthday is in April,” he explains. Unlike the guy in his department who a year earlier leaped to his death out a window, Dennis, fortunately, got out in time. By then his hair was turning gray. He was having self-destructive thoughts on the subway platform. And so even though it was the height of a recession, “I went in and I quit without having another job,” he says.

“There’s exclusion, there’s cliques — the same as school bullying,” says Cheryl Dellasega, a relational aggression expert who’s written “Mean Girls Grown Up” and “When Nurses Hurt Nurses.” But unlike school bullying, she says, the issue is still not widely addressed. “There’s a definite lack of awareness. People are very surprised when they think about these things happening in the workplace.” Yet it’s all around us – a 2010 workplace bullying study found that 35 percent of workers say they have experienced bullying firsthand, and another 15 percent report witnessing it.

It happened to Nicole, who worked for two years in the marketing division of a fashion company. She sensed the organization might be a less than great fit when she didn’t wear makeup to work one day “and someone said to me, ‘What’s wrong with your face?’” Before long, she says her boss would “wait till I left the office, ask for changes on work, and expect them before I’d returned.” And when she returned to the office after several days off, she says, “Then my boss really started turning on me, not giving me work. I got a written warning about my attitude. My boss would litter her emails with smiley faces, and I’d get called into the office and told that my emails were too ‘frosty.’ I was in complete shock. I’m a really tough cookie,” Nicole says. “I went to school for business. And I started to have panic attacks at work.”

For Beth, who worked for a cosmetics company, bullying stress hit her in the gut. She got off on the wrong foot when her aunt died on her first day at the job. “I told my boss I had to leave and she said, ‘Well what other days are you taking off?’” After that, she says, it got worse. “If I was leaving at 5:45, she’d say, ‘Just because I leave at 5:45, that’s not a green light for you to leave.” And when she had to take time off for surgery, her boss asked, “Can you change it? We have all these conferences calls coming up; you’re going to have to do this from home.” Beth says, “When HR put me on disability, she went ballistic.” After that, “She would yell at me in front of other people. Having worked on Wall Street, I’ve been yelled at and screamed at, but this was bullying like I’ve never seen. I got yelled at in the hallway one day and almost threw up at work.” And when Beth complained to HR, she says she was told, “Isn’t it a little early to not be getting along with your co-workers?” Beth was able to set up a safety net consulting gig and jumped ship, but the scars of the experience run deep. “I felt so rejected,” she says. “I have yet to update my LinkedIn profile because I’m so terrified of the idea of those people looking at it.”

Dennis, Nicole and Beth worked in different industries in different parts of the country. Yet in many ways they all fit the profile of a workplace target. Dellasega says office bullies tend to have an “inner lack of confidence that causes them to lash out” – something a competitive workplace feeds on exquisitely. So who do they look for in the pecking order? “The most thoroughly competent person,” says Dr. Gary Namie of the Workplace Bullying Institute. “The person is well-liked, has empathy, is ethical, and so has whistle-blower potential, and doesn’t want to get involved in office politics. They all say, ‘I loved my job. I just wanted to be left alone to do it.’ They can’t believe this happened to them. What distinguishes a target from a bully-proof person is the target thinks, it must be me.”

Part of what makes workplace bullying so insidious is that it’s so deeply entrenched in the corporate cultures where it flourishes. It’s not just one jerk — it’s a whole department of sycophants and terrorized underlings. As Liza, who works in graphic design, says, “One of my bosses likes to throw paperwork on the floor so we have to get on our knees. I commonly see a reaction of, ‘That’s just how he is,’ or ‘He’s just having a bad day,’ when an incident occurs.” Namie says this is common. “The whole group adopts the practice out of survival and fear, and over time it becomes the norm and the bullying becomes institutionalized. It’s about loyalty,” he says. “Once you start promoting people for that kind of behavior, you’ve sent the message.”

The stigma of being the unpopular kid in the lunchroom, of playing what Nicole calls the “emotional Russian roulette” of the workweek can wear a person down and wreak havoc on a person’s health. Unlike bullied kids, Namie says, “Adults are not nearly as resilient. When they’re devastated, recovery is so hard.” If you love what you do and you take pride in it, it’s traumatic to spend your days among people who undermine your confidence and tell you you’re bad at it. “Throughout every single week — sometimes every day — they would point out something wrong I’d done. And the constant phrase was, ‘You should have known,’” says Dennis. “It bothers me to this day.”

In a brutal economy, the options aren’t always as easy as simply walking out and going somewhere nicer. And the toxic workplace has been around since long before the first scribes got their butts chewed out for sloppy papyrus work. But it’s heartening that we’re beginning to make strides to raise awareness and make the workplace less toxic. “We’re focusing on prevention; we’re doing seminars on civility,” Cheryl Dellasega says. “Employers have to be more proactive now,” because “bullying impacts on productivity.” Statistics are hard to come by because targets themselves don’t always connect the dots between their absenteeism-causing migraines and ulcers and their aggressive colleagues, but Dellasega says at least 5 percent of workers say they’ve deliberately not gone in to work because of stress there.

Work can be stressful. Colleagues can be difficult. It’s sometimes easy to chalk it up to a high-pressure business or a prickly supervisory style, to suffer in silence and chalk it up to the nature of the industry. But just like school or family, your job isn’t supposed to give you headaches or high blood pressure or anxiety attacks or suicidal thoughts. If it is, there’s something seriously wrong. As Namie says, “Did you ever wake up on a weekday and say, ‘Today’s the day I deserve to be humiliated?’” And if you didn’t in grade school, why would you believe it now?

* Some names and identifying details have been changed

Original at Salon.com

The Maryland ACLU is taking Collins’ case because the MD state policy might violate federal law. The ACLU posted this tape of Collins describing his situation.

Another wild inexcusable invasion of your lives by employers was barely thwarted in the U.S. Senate on March 1, 2012. Sen. Blunt (MO) and 19 other Senators proposed an amendment (SA 1520) attached to bill S. 1813 reauthorizing Federal-aid highway construction projects. The amendment had nothing to do with road building.

The SA 1520 amendment — named Respect for Rights of Conscience – made news for enabling “bosses to determine whether or not employees’ health insurance would pay for contraception.” That’s how the media portrayed the story. The stated purpose actually read as follows: “to ensure that health care stakeholders retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions, without fear of being penalized or discriminated against under PPACA” (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148).

Blunt, an opponent of “Obamacare,” the PPACA the law, wrote in his amendment that the new nationwide requirement for health plans to cover “essential health benefits” and “preventive services” (including a distinct set of “preventive services for women”) did not allow for moral objections to some services to be rendered.

Of course, he and the other 19 male sponsors of the amendment meant Men’s objections to providing some services to Women.

SA 1520 stated that those “paying for coverage” (insurers & employers) were granted stakeholder status equivalent to that of health care providers (docs, hospitals, etc.). As stakeholders, they had the right to provide or not provide specific items or services contrary to the “religious beliefs or moral convictions” of the sponsor. Individual purchasers of health care coverage could also pick and choose services based on the same criteria.

The motion to table (kill) the amendment was a narrow favorable 51-48 vote. There are many views about the intersection of religion and contraception. The lines of division are clearer when men demand the right to dictate the rights of women.

At WBI, the concern is that employers would have their decision-making status regarding healthcare insurance elevated. Now, someone in the Benefits department, or the owner in a small business, chooses which insurance plan to offer to employees. They do not meddle in the details of services provided. Insurers decide (and that triggers a whole other argument against the presence of insurers at all) coverage details.

The Blunt amendment treats employers as the sole payers of coverage. That used to be true. Employers who offered healthcare insurance as a benefit used to pay 100% of the monthly premiums. In 2011, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, workers contributed 131% more to premiums than they did in 2001. Only 60% of employers offer health benefits at all. Only 59% of small firms (under 200 employees) offer health benefits. With each renegotiation of union contracts, employers attempt to transfer more of the burden for insurance premiums to the workers.

Blunt and his cohorts, in their moralistic zeal, wanted to grant great power to employers to interfere with women’s health. The sole reference to employers was as “payers for coverage.” The sloppy media spoke of having your “boss” make healthcare decisions. In a small business where the owner is also the boss, that would be true. In all larger firms, there would a fight over whose “religious beliefs and moral convictions” would prevail. The morals of the benefits manager? the HR director? the VP? the CEO? What a mess!

Since corporations are not individuals (that they are considered people by the US Supreme Court is repulsive enough), there is no single site where moral convictions reside. Based on our work dwelling solely with the dark side of the world of work, we would have to say that it is easier to identify an evil core within organizations than to stumble upon a pile of exemplary morals.

One of the oldest maxims is that morality cannot be legislated. Tell that to the old men who want their “morals” to dominate women’s rights by using employers as their messengers.

Our “Employers Gone Wild” series will explore madness by employers over time.

A helpful manual for U.S. workers to understand the extent that employers can freely invade your lives simply because they give you a paycheck is Can They Do That? by Lewis Maltby. The book is eye-opening.

You can listen to an interview with author Maltby here.

Klein herself wrote the following in an article for CNN, referring to a “culture of misery” found in so many schools:

“Kids routinely speak about one another with racist, classist, and other forms of prejudice that objectify others. Girls get called “slut” and “whore,” boys get called “gay,” white poor people are called “white trash” and the list goes on. Increasing one’s social status by putting others down is par for the course. Broadcasting secrets or sexual images of each other is common and part of the culture of deceit, mistrust and cold clawing for recognition that students learn is necessary for social survival … But individualizing the problem is just another way of avoiding it.“

She is SOOOOOO right! Individualizing bullying is the wrong focus. The fact that the shootings and suicides keep repeating begs for systemic (read societal) solutions. Comprehensive solutions are what we need, not piecemeal or expedient or “small first steps in the right direction” approaches. Yet we continue to say we don’t have the time, budget, resources when it is the commitment to end abuse of entire populations that is lacking. We’ve grown into an uncompassionate, Ayn Rand-like greed-worshipping society.

Her feminist roots show as she sensitively picks up the destructive attitudes toward masculinity and women in America. Heard any women called a “slut” and “prostitute” lately in a very public arena? “Feminazis” sure is an entertaining, and innocent non-mysogynistic, way to characterize women who care about women’s issues, isn’t it? Or have we grown so accustomed to radio talk show hosts bloviating that we are numb to the consequences?

Kids who haven’t heard the messages of hate for so long might interpret adult indifference as approval. So, the worst among us become the role models. Klein writes through the sociological lens. She decries blaming victims and fixing broken individuals as isolated defective beings.

Klein did the unthinkable. In 2007, she wrote an Op-Ed about the Virginia Tech massacre with the incredible title: “If Cho had not been bullied…The Virginia Tech shootings remind us that troubled students need help and support building relationships.”

In 2011, we included a similar analysis of the “story behind the mass media story of the crazed shooter” in our book The Bully-Free Workplace. It is relevant to workplace bullying because it has been shown that many workplace massacres also have roots in mistreatment of workers followed by years of indifference shown to those who complain about their loss of dignity.

Thomas Rogers, writing in Salon about Jessie Klein and The Bully Society, said:

“She first lays out the scope of the problem, before explaining how kids’ changing attitudes towards masculinity, the birth of child-targeted consumerism and the erosion of our compassionate society have all helped to create a culture in which children are increasingly feeling overwhelmed and helpless, and, in some cases, prone to violence. Most provocatively, she ties the rise of bullying behavior to America’s economic move to the right.”

The extrapolation to adult bullying and the workplace takes little imagination. Workplaces have become politicized with social darwinists in charge and the majority of people wanting participative democracy operating in the trenches. Corporations want to magnify the differences and social distance between the executive/owner class and the non-supervisory worker class. Corporate leaders have all the power and never want to share it. The desire to dominate workers as if they were the enemy drives the owners to use the legislative process to create laws preventing any organized rebellions at the worksite. Hence the explosion of right-to-work laws and all manner of resisting workers uniting under a union banner for collective bargaining strength.

I’m getting a copy of The Bully Society today and suggest you do, too.

How bad labor practices led to “going postal.”

At one point in his documentary Murder By Proxy, director Emil Chiaberi attempts to advance the theory that school shootings like the one this week in Chardon, Ohio, have roots dating back much further than just the Columbine massacre of 1999. In revisiting some of the workplace shootings that inspired the term “going postal” during the 1980s, Chiaberi argues that each set of killings was spurred on by similar motives – most specifically institutionalized harassment and alienation of “undesirables.”

Produced by Michael Rosen and Oscar-winner James Moll (The Last Days), Proxy’s strongest moments occur when it zeroes in on one particular case: postal worker Thomas McIlvane’s rampage in Royal Oak, Mich., in 1991. Besides showing news footage from the day of McIlvane’s attack, that left three people dead and six others wounded, though, Chiaberi follows one survivor, Charlie Withers, who becomes the viewer’s primary guide into a culture he says bullied McIlvane and others into retaliating in the most extreme way possible.

Withers’ experiences, it turns out, led him to become a crusader for his fellow employees; as the film opens, we see him arrive in 2008 to testify to Washington state legislators on behalf of the proposed Healthy Workplace Bill. Supporters of the bill point out that the U.S. is the only Western industrial nation to lack this kind of protection for its’ workers, and in the film, the Postal Service is name-checked early on as “a great case study” for the consequences of that lack of support.

During his testimony, Withers says of McIlvane, “He loved his job. They ruin people, and that’s what they do.” And astonishingly, several more of Withers’ co-workers express a measure of empathy for the man who tried to kill them.

“It’s complicated,” one says. “he took mothers away from their children, fathers away from their children. On the other hand, I understand why he did it.” Later, when a former postal worker, seemingly well-adjusted and all smiles, calmly lays out how easy it would be for her to walk into the office and “throw a Molotov” if she had been pushed far enough, it’s a chilling affirmation of Withers’ concerns.

But the problem is, these statements are largely left alone. There’s virtually no representation from people higher up the corporate ladder. Sure, OSHA might advise employers to “establish a zero-tolerance policy toward workplace violence,” but without a statement from a government official as to why these kinds of incidents keep happening—there were 506 reportedly workplace killings as recently as two years ago—there’s moments when Proxy suffers from having too many experts on the same side of the argument.

It’s also problematic that the only USPS official interviewed for the film in the present day, former Postmaster General William J. Henderson, appears very briefly to offer two conflicting statements: in the first, he cites a USPS study from August 2000 that concluded that postal workers “are only a third as likely as other individuals in the workforce to be victims of homicide at work.”

Henderson blithely says the study proved “going postal” was a myth. But what isn’t mentioned—either by him or worse, by Chiaberi—is that Henderson set up that report. It’s also left unsaid that the study found that 14 percent of postal workers identified as victims of sexual harassment, and that one third of the 15,000 respondents said they had been verbally abused at work.

In other words, some of the root causes of workplace violence cited by Withers and other postal workers were plainly identified in the study. No one challenges Henderson directly on his statement, nor is he given time to offer any statement on the study’s methodology, or to provide his own defense against allegations by Withers, or the experts Chiaberi consulted.

Which makes his only other appearance – toward the end of the film, when he says, “The Postal Service is an absolute mirror of society. Nothing protects you from violence” – seem incongruous. If the USPS’ study proved its’ postal workers weren’t in any more danger of being attacked than anybody else, why would he make such a somber statement? And if Chiaberi omitted Henderson’s responses – or, worse, didn’t even push him to talk about these issues – that mistake plays out glaringly in the film.

Proxy’s narrative also stumbles when it tries to explicitly link workplace shootings with school shootings. It’s a potentially compelling argument, but one left under-developed, since it’s only brought up towards the end of the film. But it’s certainly the kind of subject that Chiaberi – an otherwise effective storyteller – will hopefully consider tackling in more depth in the future. Especially if he can push back on the people who should be held accountable.

At press time, the film is set to screen in Royal Oak on March 13, before showing in one-night engagements at the E Street Cinema in Washington D.C. on March 20 and New York’s Landmark Street Theatre on March 27.

< a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/154399/shots_in_the_dark_murder_by_proxy_takes_on_the_history_of_workplace_violence">Link to original article

Fox’s advice is the same tired “you’re the target, so you have to fix it” approach.

He tells targets to start with talking to the offending manager, adding the warning to not start with an accusation implying the bully’s intention to humiliate or belittle (you cannot know the motivation).

Then, Fox says to stick to the facts with a bunch of “I” statements — “when you raised your voice, I was bothered.” This is such lame stuff. Fox has no idea how deliberate most bullies are and making yourself vulnerable to them magnifies the impact and stress for the target.

Next, Fox tells targets to stay “positive.” Tell ‘em that when they behave people are happier and able to work better. See, it’s all bundled in a package with bows and ribbons for the bully. Think she or he will like it?

Keeping in the same b.s. unrealistic line of reasoning, Fox states, “You may be pleasantly surprised by your manager’s reaction.” Really????

Fox hits more highlights that any bullied target can tell him don’t work: get advice from HR, file a formal complaint, talk to the bully’s boss. All dead-ends.

His big ending is clear: “Finally, if you find your boss is beyond repair and higher level management is disinclined to take action, you may need to consider looking for a new job.”

Funny, how none of this class of advisers ever suggests any role played by management in establishing and sustaining the bullying. Solutions always revolve around the beleaguered individuals subjected to unwanted assaults.

For alternative views, read our books and everything at this website.

The Bully At Work: What You Can Do to Stop the Hurt and Reclaim Your Dignity on the Job

The Bully-Free Workplace: Stop Jerks, Weasels & Snakes from Killing Your Organization

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Back in February of last year, South Charleston Middle School’s Tolerance Club put on an emotional assembly that focused on what can happen when bullying reaches the level where the victim commits suicide. It’s something that’s become so prevalent among teenagers a new term has been coined to more aptly describe it: bullycide.

Even though bullying is hardly new, technology has enabled the ugliness to reach new levels of cruelty. Embarrassing photographs and videos enter cyberspace at warp speed. Gossip no longer depends on whispers and phone calls to spread now that it has reply all.

The sad part is that bullying doesn’t end with the distribution of diplomas.

Turns out there are just as many bullies in the workplace as there are in the schools. According to a 2010 survey conducted by the Workplace Bullying Institute, “35 percent of the U.S. workforce (an estimated 53.5 million Americans) report being bullied at work.” An additional 15 percent have witnessed abuse.

Tactics of the workplace bully include verbal, psychological, physical abuse and humiliation. Unlike school bullies, those in the workplace often operate within the established rules and policies of their organization, with the majority of reported cases being perpetrated by management.

“You’re put in such an awkward position when it happens right in front of you, especially when you know the abuse is thoroughly unwarranted,” said an emailer, who asked to remain anonymous. “When I tried to intervene in the past, all it served to do was to focus the attention my direction.”

Clinical psychologist Gary Namie, co-founder of the Workplace Bullying Institute, defines bullying as being “the domestic violence of the workplace.”

“Humiliation is frequently used by bullies as a means of controlling the targeted victim to keep them off-balance and insecure,” reports the Workplace Bullying Institute. Other tactics include discounting the victim’s opinions or making false accusations about mistakes while in front of others; using the silent treatment to freeze out the target, and making up rules on the fly that apply only to the person who is being singled out.

It has only been in the past few years that companies have begun to recognize bullying’s financial costs on the workplace. According to scholars at The Project for Wellness and Work-Life at Arizona State University, “workplace bullying is linked to a host of physical, psychological, organizational and social costs.”

Leaving the place of employment is often the only option for the victim of bullying because there are few laws that protect against it, yet those who attempt to endure are often under so much stress that it has significant negative effects on both mental and physical health.

“The effects of bullying are often so severe that posttraumatic stress disorder and even suicide are not uncommon,” wrote assessment and rehabilitation consultant Noreen Tehrani. The physical and mental damage left from bullying is similar to that of battered women and victims of child abuse.

Organizations need to recognize the costs involved with keeping a bully on staff. There’s a loss of productivity for the victim and other staff members who are also affected. There are medical and sick leave expenses from stress-related health issues. According to the American City Business Journal, a survey of 9,000 federal employees indicated that 42 percent of female and 15 percent of male employees reported being harassed within a two-year period, resulting in a cost of more than $180 million in lost time and productivity.

Nobody likes a bully, but what can be done? Suggestions for how to deal with them are all over the board — and often not realistic. With a job market like the one we have now, making a change isn’t something most bullying targets are able to do.

Which makes words like “bullycide” one we grow more accustomed to hearing.

Original article

Ani Chopourian told of sexually inappropriate conduct, bullying and retaliation at a Sacramento hospital. The award is believed to be the largest for a single victim of workplace harassment in U.S. history.

Ani Chopourian lost track of how many complaints she filed during the two years she worked as a physician assistant at Sacramento’s Mercy General Hospital.

There were at least 18, she recalled, many having to do with the bullying surgeon who once stabbed her with a needle and broke the ribs of an anesthetized heart patient in a fit of rage. Another surgeon, she said, would greet her each morning with “I’m horny” and slap her bottom. Yet another called her “stupid chick” in the operating room and made disparaging remarks about her Armenian heritage, asking if she had joined Al Qaeda.

Managers from Mercy General, a unit of Catholic Healthcare West, told a Sacramento trial court that it was Chopourian who was guilty of professional misconduct, which was why they fired her and tried to deny her unemployment benefits.

But in a stunning rebuke of the hospital’s side of the story, a jury Wednesday awarded Chopourian $168 million in damages, believed to be the largest judgment for a single victim of workplace harassment in U.S. history.

“They were just shocked by the whole workplace environment,” said Lawrance Bohm, Chopourian’s attorney during the three-week trial in which witness after witness depicted a culture of vulgarity and arrogance they said humiliated female employees and put patients at risk.

Chopourian, 45, worked at four other hospitals in New England and California before joining the cardiovascular surgical team at Mercy General in August 2006. Two years later, she was fired days after filing the last of her complaints about patient care and the doctors’ demeaning behavior.

Preening cardiac surgeons and locker-room humor weren’t unique to the Sacramento hospital’s operating rooms or those at another Catholic Healthcare West facility where she occasionally worked, Chopourian said in an interview.

“But the environment at Mercy General, the sexually inappropriate conduct and the patient care issues being ignored, the bullying and intimidation and retaliation —– I have never seen an environment so hostile and pervasive,” said the Los Angeles native, who earned her physician assistant credentials at the Yale School of Medicine in 1999.

The jurors in U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller’s courtroom heard hospital administrators defend their management practices and attest to unwavering commitment to quality patient care.

But the litany of abuses detailed by current and former employees apparently swayed the jury to accept Chopourian’s allegations that administrators put up with gross misbehavior in the cardiac unit to stroke the surgeons’ outsize egos.

“Cardiac surgery brings in the most money for any hospital facility, which is why they are willing to turn a blind eye to illegal and inappropriate behavior,” Chopourian said. “We had four very strong witnesses who were frightened to speak out but did so because they felt it was important that someone put a stop to this.”

Bohm conceded that the record judgment — $125 million in punitive damages and $42.7 million for lost wages and mental anguish — could be reduced on appeal or in settlement talks to avoid what would probably be a protracted challenge to the generous award. But he said he was confident the jury’s judgment against the hospital chain would survive appellate review.

Mercy General President Denny Powell said the hospital stood by its decision to fire Chopourian and would appeal the verdict.

“We are disappointed by the jury’s decision. We are committed to providing a safe working environment, free from sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior,” Powell said in a statement issued Thursday. “Any complaint is thoroughly investigated and prompt action is taken. We do not believe that the facts support this verdict or judgment.”

Catholic Healthcare West, which recently changed its name to Dignity Health, operates 40 hospitals and care centers in California, Arizona and Nevada.

Link to original article

Too often people who have never been bullied at work suggest that clever, pithy comeback lines are effective defenses against bullies. But targets are targets — if they could have, they would have used them. Then, targets unnecessarily feel guilty if they don’t use. The simplest of all lines is offered here. Finally, employers have to stop the bullying, not the people victimized by it!

Download Podcast 25 (in .mp3 format)

Director Emil Chiaberi and Dr. Gary Namie will attend the Seattle screening and take questions (date not yet confirmed). MBP tells the ‘story behind the story.’ Its hero is real-life 40 yr. veteran mail carrier, Charlie Withers. Charlie’s insistence on telling the truth about conditions behind the Royal Oak Michigan massacre in 1991 has been the center of his life’s work ever since.

Here are Emil, the director, and Charlie.

Charlie came to Washington State to testify on behalf of our Healthy Workplace Bill in Feb. 2008. His testimony is captured in the documentary. Charlie is incomparable, the real deal, and a hero to Ruth and me.

Bully, the documentary, is the result of Hirsch and Lowen’s focus on children, not the adults. The Weinstein Company (the Miramax founders and producers of The Artist, and My Week with Marilyn) saw the film at the 2011 Tribeca Film Festival and will distribute it.

Today, the MPAA (the film rating board of dubious integrity and questionable purpose, see the film This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated to understand MPAA arbitrary, outrageous hypocrisy) assigned Bully an “R” rating. The film chronicles stories about five bullied students all under 17 and two families touched by suicide. The R rating — based on a single bullying sprinkled with the bully’s profanity — could prevent bullied kids from seeing the film.

Paul Gausman, superintendent of Sioux City Schools, where the film project began, told the Sioux City Journal that the district does not show movies with foul language or graphic material and with a running time of 94 minutes, the film is also too long to show. So no education for district kids with friends featured in the film.

Hirsch told Adam Chandler writing for Salon, “For me, when it comes to bullying, people are always minimizing the experience, they’re whitewashing it. The tendency is to say it’s a rite of passage or it’s just kids being kids, but it matters because the honesty and the brutality and the truth of those scenes are important and relevant. They aren’t thrown in there or scripted — this is what happens.”

We agree with Hirsch. Old enough to be humiliated under the watchful gaze of indifferent administrators, but too sensitive to actually see their reality on the screen! Outrageous!

“the BCGEU is a strong advocate of respect in the workplace and we’re continuing to put mechanisms in place to address the problem. We’ve organized member and public awareness campaigns, and held workshops to ensure our members are knowledgeable about workplace bullying and the steps they can take when they encounter it… We’ve also negotiated anti-bullying language into collective agreements.”

WBI’s Gary Namie addresses a BCGEU workplace bullying event on March 9.

BCGEU Component 17 shows off its Anti-Bullying Scarf. On the left in the picture is Mike Schmidt, graduate of Workplace Bullying University, and now union expert, accompanied by Beverly Beaurone, and Gayle Furgala.

The BCGEU-designed Workplace Bullying information flyer.

“This isn’t a case of “there are two sides to every argument.” There’s only one side to this conflict, and we all know who starts it.”

In other words, by making the bully’s needs equivalent to those of the target, to treat the bully’s lies as having as much credibility as the truth that belongs to targets, targets’ power is compromised. It creates the power imbalance needed for bullying to be effective, especially among coworkers who presumably have equal status at work.

Cortisol, an important hormone secreted by the adrenal gland during the stress response, can now be measured easily in saliva samples. Its primary function is to raise blood sugar by converting stored glucose in the liver. There are new studies linking workplace bullying and stress using corisol measures.

We know stress increases cortisol levels. Levels that remain too high damage the hippocampus, the part of the brain involved in sending new information to long-term memory storage and retrieval of that info from long-term when necessary. Hippocampus damage (shrinkage that results from prolonged exposure to stress) can explain why a hyper-stressed person has such trouble with remembering. He or she is not stupid. It is just that the stress has caused a real impairment in the ability to generate new memories and to find old ones.

When the bully calls a target stupid (a lie), and repeats it frequently over a long period of time, the target is actually, objectively less competent than before, in part because of underlying brain tissue damage. This is only controllable by the target if she or he removes the stressor. The bullying has to stop. But targets by themselves are not capable of changing the complete system that first fostered, then enabled, the bullying. Only the employer can stop it.

I was looking up cortisol facts when I found this amazing factoid. To lighten the burden suffered by targets exposed to non-stop stress from work, the internets tell us that research done somewhere by someone found that dancing the Argentinian Tango reduces cortisol levels. Here are a couple minutes of cortisol reduction music. Move those feet!

Take a listen:

http://www.workplacebullying.org/2012/02/24/psac-2/ http://www.workplacebullying.org/2012/02/24/psac-2/#comments Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:13:37 +0000 Dr. Gary Namie http://www.workplacebullying.org/?p=7932 Gary Namie addresses the PSAC/AFPC
2012 B.C. Regional Health and Safety Conference
“Health and Safety – Our Power Our Responsibility”
Vancouver, BC, Feb. 26

It’s explained by the stark contrast in worldviews and developed personalities of the two, bully and target.

Most bullies are verbal jousters, on the attack and aggressive by nature. This comes from a lifetime of rewards for “beating the other guy” in a myriad of ways. They have learned that a “winning” strategy is to strike first, to verbally pounce so the other person is on the defensive. It’s not about giving people choices or inviting participation. Rather, it’s about boxing them in with no options.

Sometimes, we think they have to rehearse the nastiest thing to say that instantly destabilizes another person. With practice and age, we think it comes spontaneously to them. The only time they act in a deferential way to others is when those others have more power than them or model aggression so that they are the bully’s idols. Otherwise, everyone else is beneath their station in life.

On the other hand, targets were socialized to be more genteel and polite. They are “nice.” Interactions, they were taught, should begin with “icebreakers” and niceties, chit-chat to warm up before diving into discussions over serious matters. They consider it rude to move too quickly or too bluntly to an important point.

So, when the blustering, bold, arrogant, aggressive bully plows into a target with opening line attacks, neglecting any semblance of respectful interactions, targets are taken aback. Nasty comeback lines are beyond their grasp, and that is what is required to put bullies back on their heels.

Unfortunately, while backing up, bullies figuratively steadily invade the target’s world. Targets ruminate about the motivation for what, to them, is shocking behavior. While the cognitive wheels are turning, they are frozen into a “deer in the headlight” numb mask. The bully reads correctly that no counter-attack is forthcoming, and the toxic exploitative relationship begins with the target always one step behind.

Surprises are what give magic its entertainment value. Surprises are for birthdays, and then only positive ones.

But surprises of unrelenting incidents that trigger stress levels beyond a person’s coping ability are the antithesis of fun. They are horror. They create terror. In so many ways, bullies are organizational terrorists generating fear that ruins health, careers and families.

Trauma-inducing environments have three properties — the deprivation of control over situations, denial of security and safety, and unpredictable onset of negative events. That is why work trauma from severe bullying can generate PTSD (posttraumatic stress disorder). The element of surprise, unpredictability coupled with an absence of control, is an important element in PTSD, whether the source is familial violence between spouses, siblings, at war, or at work. The traumatic experience is similar.

Because the perpetrating aggressor is in charge of the timing and location of her or his assaults as well as who will be targeted, the target should never feel responsible. Society harps about “there are two sides” and everyone has to take “personal responsibility.”

Balderdash! The responsibility is the bully’s alone. If you are a target, stop blaming yourself for the very natural and scary reaction to surprising assaults. You didn’t ask for it. And unless you possess your own ability to bury the bully in a matched counterattack, you could not defend yourself.

Don’t beat yourself up or feel guilty for being surprised. You are the better person.

The major difference in suicide cases is whether they leave behind a note to loved ones specifying why they made the choice they did. Some do. Most do not. Sadly, without a note, it becomes hard to do the post-mortem detective work that connects workplace factors to the suicide decision. We at WBI can make that inferential leap, but without our experience, it is too hard for legal professionals and the general public to agree to see the role played by repeated exposure to unfathomably stressful work.

Employers are mired in a state of deliberate denial about their contribution to an individual’s demise. The argument is that the person was taking anti-depressants (no duh) and therefore mentally unstable (having been driven to that state). They brand the poor soul — “disgruntled.” They say in the context of all potential contributors to stress, work is but a minor factor (not for those for whom their work is everything). Employers want to erase memories of the departed employee — to duck responsibility, to assuage guilt from not having given the oft-requested protection, and to undermine that person’s legacy by not allowing new employees learn about what happened long ago, to put a bright shiny face on a dark chapter of life and death at the organization.

Kevin Morrissey

A new president, Teresa Sullivan, started the day after Kevin’s suicide. A radio reporter who interviewed me at the time spoke highly of her and how different she would be from the tyrannical Casteen. Sullivan canceled VQR’s next edition and commissioned an investigation. However, the report was a typical whitewash. The fact finding focused on perceptions about Genoways style, but omitted references to Kevin Morrissey’s suicide and the accusations about Genoways’ “unacceptable workplace behavior” as the impetus for change. Thus, erasing Morrissey had begun shortly after the suicide. The conclusion from the report simply changed the people to whom VQR would report. Genoways kept his job and his six-figure salary and faced no consequences.

Sullivan then responded with a new policy with polite, positive words. My review of that project can be read in a separate blog.

VQR staff fled because of editor Genoways. In a way, he never lived to see, Kevin was vindicated. Five years earlier a 32-yr. VQR veteran filed a harassment suit against Genoways and accepted a severance package. She told The Hook’s David McNair, “I can understand why Kevin did what he did.” Other staffers moved to other positions on campus. Genoways characterized the moves as a protest against the university’s half-hearted investigation, but Molly Minturn told the Hook, “”It’s quite simple: I changed jobs within the University because I did not want to work for Ted Genoways anymore.” Said Sheila McMillen, the last employee to leave, “We all left because of the editor.” Earlier, Genoways had sought tenure as an English professor but had been rebuffed. It’s important to remember that Genoways operated under the protective umbrella of Casteen, the campus president which made him untouchable. The numerous complaints to HR by Morrissey, which triggered sympathy from HR staff according to discovered e-mails, could not be acted on because HR had no power to confront senior administrators, especially Casteen, the president.

The final erasure of Kevin’s life at VQR, the place to which he reportedly devoted all of his attention, talent, and love came when the delayed winter 2010 issue was published. Morrissey was reportedly very involved in all of the editing of all materials for 2010 publications, the year of his death, though he died in the summer. In 2011, VQR won National Magazine Awards for three 2010 issues. The Hook reported in April that the University press releases announcing the awards had omitted Morrissey’s name despite his role in winning the prizes. Worse still, as of the date of this essay, the archived press releases for VQR issued by UVa show no 2011 references to the National Magazine Awards. The links redirect to old 2006, 2009 releases instead. Talk about a cover up!

The final insults to Kevin’s legacy came Genoways sympathizers, who must include UVa Sullivan and a commenter to an April 2011 article in The Hook, named “that guy,” wrote, Is Ted Genoways a bully? I know him on a personal level, and I have a hard time believing it. That said, of course, it’s possible that he harbors a Jekyll/Hyde management style–except that I’ve seen him at work, and he’s been nothing but professional. I admit that he is rather direct and expects a high standard from his staff, but I do not see how that makes him a bully. I didn’t know Kevin Morrissey except through your reporting. He sounded like a pretty lonely guy who felt entirely misunderstood, as though he didn’t quite fit in with the rest of the world. I’m going to say something now that sounds harsh, but isn’t: congratulations on your death, Kevin–you finally managed to do the thing you thought would bring you the greatest relief. I sincerely hope it has. I’m sorry nobody has said that until now.“

Thank goodness, another commenter, “formersubscriber,” replied with my exact feelings. “Whoa–that guy–congratulating someone on his death! How very kind of you. Now I know why you and Genoways are friends–you’re both heartless a-holes without an ounce of empathy or compassion for anyone else. You two deserve each other. Hang out together and spare the rest of us your soulless snakelike company.”

Many of the facts for this article are based on McNair’s April 2011 article for The Hook.

Dear Kevin, you are not forgotten. Requiescat in pace.

Adults who thought their days of dealing with bullies were left behind on the schoolyard better think again.

A 2011 CareerBuilder study shows that 27% of U.S. workers have felt bullied in the workplace with the majority not confronting or reporting the bully.

Workplace bullying is defined as repeated mistreatment of an individual employee by a person or group that takes the form of verbal abuse, behavior that is humiliating, threatening, intimidating or sabotages the targeted person’s work, according to the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI).

Bullying typically involves a misuse of power, leaving the target defenseless: 11% of respondents say they felt bullied by a coworker, and 14% say they felt bullied by their immediate supervisor. Another 7% say the bully was not their boss, but someone higher up in the organization.

Bullying plays out in the workplace in many ways, according to the survey:

43% of workers say their comments were dismissed or not acknowledged
40% claim they were falsely accused of mistakes
38% say they were harshly criticized
38% report they were forced into doing work that really wasn’t their job
37% claim standards and policies applied to them were not used on others

A little more than 30% say they were given “mean looks” and 27% report colleagues gossiped about them. Still others, 24%, say their bosses yelled at them in front of coworkers.

Gary Namie, WBI co-founder, senior consultant at Work Doctor Inc. and author of The Bully-FreeWorkplace, claims that as many as 72% of bullies are bosses with a misconception about what it takes to be a good leader.

Experts say “tough” managers are not necessarily bullies if they are respectful, fair and set high, yet reasonable, work expectations. But, says Namie, tough and effective can turn into bullying if a manager exhibits a need to control; repeatedly humiliates through unwarranted criticism rather than constructively corrects; and levels a mix of verbal and strategic assaults that affect the employee’s health and prevent him or her from performing well.

Bullying bosses lack vision, says Traciana Graves, CEO of Project Bully Free Zone. They hold a “myopic we-want-to-have-the-best-quarter” mentality without any forethought of what happens to the employee—or the corporation—two-or-three years down the road.

The Bullied

For a targeted employee, bullying can cause stress and physical and mental ailments like high blood pressure, heart disease, post traumatic stress syndrome, and in its worst-case scenario, violence or suicide. The bullying also detracts from overall quality of life for the target and his or her family.

Yet, experts say, there is no easy fix. Namie says while “protected status” classes are safeguarded by Federal civil liberties and harassment laws, only 20% of workplace mistreatment incidents involve such illegal discrimination that enables victims to sue.

Namie says while 58% of targets are women compared to 42% of men, same-gender bullying is prevalent with 80% of women perpetrators bullying other women.

“Same gender, same race. There’s the rub, says Namie. “If you complain about misconduct that is “technically legal,” you are most likely to be labeled thin-skinned or a trouble maker.”

In fact, according to the CareerBuilder survey, 28% of employees took their concerns to a higher authority and reported the bully to their human resources department. While 38% of those workers say measures were taken to investigate and reach resolution, 62% say no action was taken.

Without protocols or consequential actions in place, HR becomes complicit and unaccountable for bad behavior, Graves says. This is not only harmful to employees, but also to corporations in which the diminished productivity of targeted individuals, their increased absenteeism and decreased employee retention affects the bottom line.

Still, targets often remain under a bully’s control for as long as 22 months, according to Namie in

The Bully at Work.

Expert tips to help employees cope:

Don’t be ashamed. Don’t keep your targeted status a “dirty secret,” says Graves. Derive sanity from people you can trust, and the naming stems your own self-doubt.
Keep a written record. Start a your-eyes-only journal to blow off steam, and keep a log of all incidents. The log will be a helpful tool if you should decide to fight back.
Stay centered amid repeated attacks. Adopt a mantra like “ignore the anger” and concentrate on the most humorous aspect of the bully’s physical appearance while under an attack. Or, use your own wit and sarcasm to create protective resistance in a safe and unspoken way, Namie says.
Get a second opinion. Speak to a trusted friend or work ally to evaluate a bully’s constant criticism. Identify useful points and also what’s incorrect.
Resist lowering yourself into a nasty fight. Personalized, emotional speak will be discounted and discredited, Namie says. Ask “Why are you talking to or treating me this way?”
Take time off. Sick leave or short-term disability will allow you to assess and restore your physical and mental health; you can regain well-being and develop strength to plan for your next job.

Since 2003, law professor David Yamada’s Healthy Workplace Bill has been proposed in 16 states, and 11 states have adopted variations of the bill, yet no bill has been written into law.

Namie says 64% of bullied targets lose their jobs whether they do or don’t launch a counterattack.

At some point, you may decide to fight back. “Be forewarned, says Namie. “The fight is uphill.”

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/02/21/adults-bully-adults-in-workplace-what-to-do/#ixzz1n2l47Mdy

Westhues wrote the Foreword to this new 2012 Oxford University Press book — Mobbing: Causes, Consequences and Solutions — by Duffy and Sperry. So, between the covers of a remarkable book, is found an incomparable compilation of research, clinical and practical information.

I stand by my comment for the book’s cover. “A fantastic, mesmerizing encyclopedic narrative jammed between two covers touching on every aspect of the phenomenon of mobbing like no other single volume in the literature. The authors clearly have been in the trenches helping abused workers. Their advice is spot on and keenly oriented toward improving the individual victim’s health and recovery from the mobbing assaults.”

My full review.

“A fantastic, mesmerizing encyclopedic narrative jammed between two covers touching on every aspect of the phenomenon of mobbing like no other single volume in the literature. The authors bridge the gulf between academic research and the lives of suffering victims to responders in organizations and clinicians.

“The authors make an undeniable case for the role of organizational and systems factors in mobbing which are nearly always undetectable in real time and by key players responsible for fostering and enabling the destructive conduct. The inclusion of case illustrations makes this work more engaging than the ordinary treatment just for academics.

“Practitioners have much to learn from a careful read. Especially critical is the authors’ explanation of how ordinary business processes can render an organization prone to abusing its employees.

“The authors clearly have been in the trenches helping abused workers. They show their acumen when describing the “freeze” response, an attempt to avoid dealing with the problem, by victims and the deleterious effects of taking it home. It resonates with our anecdotal evidence.

“Few academicians venture into the territory of sharing advice for victims of abuse at work like the authors do. Their advice is spot on and keenly oriented toward improving the individual victim’s health and recovery from the mobbing assaults.

“I love the practical advice to mental health professionals since so many do not understand or value the role of organizational dynamics and oppression that accounts for the health harm experienced by their clients. The authors clarify the need to know more than individual approaches to psychotherapy. They show they have been there with real mobbed clients.

“The authors accomplished the stated goal of shedding additional light on the topic. They crossed several disciplinary boundaries to model for others how complex is the phenomenon and why it is so resistant to extinction. Only by adopting this Renaissance perspective and stepping out of professional cubbyholes can someone truly understand what is required to effect change. The authors have done a thorough and complete job to help others with less breadth and experience know how destructive, yet preventable, is mobbing.”

Gary Namie

The book is proudly included in our Recommended Books list.

Thanks to callers, Brenda (call the office for a gift), Sandra brave advocate for those bullied by another manager, Linda whose personal life lessons inspired us, and Mary.

The informative longitudinal Whitehall studies that track coronary health, including ambulatory BP of British government workers for 40 years, reliably find that workdays differ from weekends and vacation days. Metabolism differs. Just showing up for work carries a set of health risks.

I say all this to point out that contemporary work is an unnatural biological experience for our bodies. Of course, over the years, we adjust and accommodate in ways paid for by our bodies. Most of us have to work for someone else to survive. Self-sustenance is denied most of us.

Regarding bullying at work, the experience of undesirable and uninvited psychological violence, we hear frequently that aggression like bullying is “inevitable,” that it is part of “human nature.” There is a kernel of truth to the belief. However, to say aggression at work is inevitable, is used to justify doing nothing. That is unacceptable.

That reasoning exonerates individuals of responsibility. It assumes that humans can never use their advanced cognitive capacity to overcome more primitive biological impulses. If that were true, men would be mounting females whenever they chose at work, regardless of marital status, laws, morals, or codes of civil behavior. But even the worst animals among us men know how to behave better. We non-psychopaths are capable of responding to social norms, of behaving within limits.

Decades of stress research prove that hierarchies create divisions into the higher ups (dominant creatures in animal troops and herds, executive levels in human social systems) and subordinates (the dominated ones) that lead to health harm. Higher-ups enjoy a relatively stress-free life with lower levels of stress hormones circulating in their systems, fewer glucocorticoids rinsing their brains creating stress, lower blood pressure, less coronary disease. Subordinates, the ones on the receiving end of orders and commands, with little control over their workloads and the nature of the work they are assigned to do, tend to suffer from stress-related diseases.

One could argue that hierarchies appear throughout the animal kingdom and are simply replicated naturally in workplaces. That would be wrong. Workplaces are social systems designed by humans with deliberate intent and not natural. Workplaces are not reflective of “human nature.”

The contemporary design of work began in the industrial revolution. It yoked demands for human production to machines. Machines were elevated to coming first, humans second. Workers worked in dangerous, toxic factories around molten steel and climbed into coal mines using primitive machines that did little to make workers safe. Technology, the third wave of human evolution (agrarian, industrial, technological eras) brought keyboards that introduced repetitive strain injuries, non-stop hours of glaring at screens, a clock that measures productivity in nanoseconds creating an undoable work pace, and allows surveillance by employers of every aspect of worklife. There’s nothing natural about technology.

Enter into our technology-driven, hierarchical work world some people who know no other way to resolve their personal existential crises than to control others. When they are allowed to supervise colleagues, they discover cruelly innovative ways to generate unrealistic deadlines for an array of dehumanizing tasks. This is what they dump on beleaguered subordinates or coworkers. They become the bullies.

Because “leaders” pay no attention to the effect of work conditions on workers (and have no idea what occupational health and social epidemiological researchers could tell them to improve conditions, worker health, and productivity all at the same time), bullies are allowed to flourish with impunity. In some countries, not the U.S., impact on workers is anticipated because a burnt out, injured workforce does the employer no good. Consideration is given to the impact of work on concepts such as “psychological integrity,” “self-esteem,” and “personal dignity.” This is foreign to American thought about work except in the remotest halls of the academe.

This so-called Dignitarian approach assumes workers want to be optimally productive. Work design should deliberately take into account human factors, since work is done by humans. Employers and employees both win. There need not be an adversarial relationship between those at the top of the hierarchy and those at the bottom. Dignitarianism is the opposite of the cutthroat Social Darwinism uncritically accepted by American business.

To conclude, it seems obvious that if business leaders challenge the automatic assumption that organizations design themselves and that the destructive behavior elicited by perpetrators of bullying is natural and inevitable, then leaders could deliberately design safer, healthier, more productive, less hazardous organizations. Bullying would be treated as unacceptable, unnatural and deviant. Bullying could be rendered nearly extinct. The few disturbed individuals who still insisted on terrorizing peers despite the new norms would reveal themselves and could be terminated.

Let’s deliberately engineer our workplaces for good outcomes and stop being lazy as we write off bullying as an “inevitable part of human nature.” It ain’t necessarily so.

Lessons learned from a disaster that dramatically changed a baboon troop’s social culture from cutthroat to kinder comes from the work of Robert Sapolsky (author of Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers). From this there is reason for optimism that our social system of work can be re-engineeered to be kinder and less war-like. We just have to want to do it!

Download Podcast 24 (in .mp3 format)

The phrase “going postal” has become part of American culture since those awful days in the early to mid-80s when there were news accounts of mass murders at American post offices — murders usually committed by employees or former employees. Wikipedia even has an entry on the expression “going postal” — which explains:

“The expression derives from a series of incidents from 1983 onward in which United States Postal Service (USPS) workers shot and killed managers, fellow workers, and members of the police or general public in acts of mass murder. Between 1986 and 1997, more than forty people were gunned down by spree killers in at least twenty incidents of workplace rage.”

Now the phrase has gone beyond referring to postal workers. Kids who murder their teachers and fellow students? Going postal. On a recent radio talk show aired on XM a caller referred to Josh Powell’s unspeakable evil act of blowing up his house, killing himself and his two young sons (who he chopped with hatchets after saying “I have a surprise for you” as they entered the door and a social worker was locked out) as “going postal.”

But it does refer to the 80s when murder seemed to undergo a shift: yes, there been assassinations, murders, mass murderers and serial killers from time to time, and state sanctioned mass murder in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union — but this seemed to be the beginning of the lash-out workplace mass murders. Each murder got tons of publicity and — to use the accurate cliche — gave other rage-filled or unstable potential killers ideas on how they, too, could get back at their perceived enemies and the world by creating a big body count.

“Murder by Proxy: How America Went Postal” is a masterful documentary examining not just the string of postal mass murders starting with one of the first in Edmond, Oklahoma on August 20, 1986 when 14 employees were shot and killed at the post office by postman Patrick Sherrill, who took his own life with a shot to the forehead. It also puts it in a larger context.

Context: most of the people involved had no criminal records. Context: some of those who became killers had faced what some co-workers later insisted was bullying, targeting, harassment and abuses by management. “Murder By Proxy” at no time condones the killers, but it seeks to find the “why” underneath the “how shocking.”

Though superb use of archival and some rarely seen footage, top rate editing, and expert interviews, “Murder by Proxy” traces how these killings that seemed to inspire later mass killings in other areas of American life seemingly reflected a major shift in the relationship between individuals and society as well a between workers, management and government. These changes are political and economic: the film traces some of the shift to the Ronald Reagan era, with Reagan’s firing of air traffic controllers, which many experts believe ushered in a decline in labor union power and accentuated management workplace power.

But “Murder By Proxy” is not a partisan political film.

It answers some of the questions of what led up to someone walking into a post office and tossing aside all standards of humanity and empathy would wipe out not just people the killer had clashed with but virtually anyone nearby who breathed. It’s like the workplace became one big, shooting gallery video game rage-filled employees used to vent.

“”Murder by Proxy” answers the question: what can bring a person who seems totally normal to the point of becoming a mass murderer? But, even more importantly, some interviews explore efforts to try and rectify at least part of the problem.

PERSONAL NOTE: I know the impact of this kind of tragedy a too well. On July 18, 1984, James Huberty, an unemployed security guard and survivalist, walked into a high traffic McDonald’s restaurant on San Ysidro Boulevard in the San Ysidro section of San Diego, California and opened fire. His shootings resulted in 22 deaths (including his own via police sniper). He snuffed out the lives of innocent men, women and children (including a boy outside riding his bike). Nineteen others were injured. I was interviewing the Consul General of Mexico in downtown San Diego in my job as staff reporter on the San Diego Union when I got the page (before cell phones) from the city desk.

Then San Diego Union City Editor Marsha McQuern (one of the very best journalists and editors I worked with in my career) called in everyone and their mothers to report and edit this major story (I did some reporting and was drafted to work on the desk). And here is what stays with me forever:

“Murder by Proxy” communicates the grief and tragedies such as this. These aren’t just numbers. These are lives. And when each life is obliterated, several linked lives are changed forever. It was wrenching enough covering “The San Ysidro Massacre.” But it was not much better a year later when the paper assigned yours truly and other reporters to go back and talk to victim’s relatives and see how they were doing. The answer? Not well at all. Part of their lives were brutally murdered as well the same day Huberty butchered the men, women and children in the McDonald’s (which McDonald’s Corporation quickly tore down, donated the land and rebuilt up the street — fearing a copy cat massacre one day).

In the case of Huberty, books have been written to try and find out the why (unemployed, couldn’t get an appointment at a mental health center) he did what he did.

“Murder by Proxy: How America Went Postal” provides a good explanation of why some things that happened provided a trigger for tragic postal massacres that happened — and what legislators can do about it. But politics nixes needed solutions.

Writer-Director Emil Chiaberi’s “Murder by Proxy: How America Went Postal” is required viewing as a vital history of the chain of massacres that inspired other massacres in non-postal areas of American life, a chronicle of the conditions that fostered some of the workplace conditions that seemingly set off employees, and a film that explores ways to try and change some of conditions that could contribute to workplace massacres.

From The Moderate Voice

Vancouver (03 Feb 2012) – Respect in the workplace is a cornerstone of the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union’s (BCGEU/NUPGE) work and it is taken very seriously.

Over the years, BCGEU/NUPGE has taken on the issue in numerous ways. Campaigns to educate members and management in workplaces made negotiated collective agreement language a reality in a number of agreements.

“We’re trying to get anti-bullying language in ALL our collective agreements. In 2010, we negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding (#13) in our master agreement. It outlines the process for handling bullying complaints in the B.C. Government. This year, we’re back at the bargaining table determined to strengthen this anti–bullying language,” says BCGEU president Darryl Walker in a recent blog post.

Right now, the union is working to resolve a number of member complaints involving the public service. Twenty-three complaints involve misuse of authority, where a boss misuses authority and three involve worker-to-worker bullying.

Bullying in the workplace is a difficult and complex issue that requires constant attention and a workplace culture that encourages our members to speak out. The premier has indicated bullying is a serious matter.

February 29, 2012 is Pink Shirt Day (anti-bullying awareness campaign). The BCGEU/NUPGE has updated its fact sheet about workplace bullying.

NUPGE

The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) is one of Canada’s largest labour organizations with over 340,000 members. Our mission is to improve the lives of working families and to build a stronger Canada by ensuring our common wealth is used for the common good. NUPGE

via BCGEU fights for bully-free workplaces | National Union of Public and General Employees.

TOKYO (Kyodo) — A government panel studying measures to combat bullying at work recommended Monday that harassment by peers and subordinates be included in definitions of power harassment in the workplace.

In the government’s first proposal to define power harassment, often associated with abuse of power by bosses, the panel said in its report that power harassment could occur not only between people in different hierarchical positions but when there are gaps in expertise in specialized fields such as information technology.

The report, compiled by a working group of the labor ministry’s round-table conference, which was launched last July amid increased reports of harassment in the workplace, said power harassment is an “act that goes beyond the appropriate scope of work and inflicts mental/physical suffering or deteriorates the work environment.”

The Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry plans to reinforce measures against power harassment at work in fiscal 2012 starting April, including conducting a survey on the matter.

The number of consultations related to bullying or harassment at work brought to the attention of the ministry’s regional labor departments across the country has increased from about 6,600 cases in fiscal 2002 to around 40,000 in fiscal 2010.

The report said there are six types of power harassment — physical attacks such as assault, mental attacks such as threats, ignoring or leaving someone out of the loop, burdening someone with excessive work, deliberately giving someone very little work to do and prying into someone’s personal affairs.

The working group determined there is a need to expand the definition of power harassment as it found from interviews with companies and the examination of litigation that there are a growing number of cases in which workers are continually ignored by peers and where younger employees well-versed in IT harass people in more senior positions who are less knowledgeable.

But it also recommended that each workplace discuss problems because the definitions may not apply across the board.

Based on the working group’s report, the round-table conference, which also includes the participation of experts, is scheduled to compile a final report around the end of March.

via Panel says bullying by peers, subordinates also power harassment – The Mainichi Daily News.

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.

Past marches have attracted a diverse crowd. “It’s black, it’s white, it’s Baptist, Jewish, Christian, Catholic and Muslim. We all come out and march in unity,” said Teresa Haley, president of the local NAACP branch. “We try to keep the dream alive.” After the march, there will a program at Pleasant Grove, “What would Dr. King Say About Bullying Today?”

Haley said bullying is a problem that elementary school students through high schoolers can face, and it is also seen in the workplace. If King were alive today and saw the bullying problem, Haley said he would probably ask, “How far have we really come?”"He would remind people of what he stood for, what he fought for and what he died for,” she said. “He would try to encourage people to get back on the right track. I think we’re getting lost.” There will also be a voter-registration drive at the church.

If you spend your workday avoiding an abusive boss, tiptoeing around co-workers who talk behind your back, or eating lunch alone because you’ve been ostracized from your cubicle mates, you may be the victim of workplace bullying. New research suggests that you’re not alone, especially if you’re struggling to cope.

Employees with abusive bosses often deal with the situation in ways that inadvertently make them feel worse, according to a new study published in the International Journal of Stress Management. That’s bad news, as research suggests that workplace abuse is linked to stress — and stress is linked to a laundry list of mental and physical ailments, including higher body weight and heart disease.

In at least one extreme case, workplace bullying has even been linked to suicide, much as schoolyard bullying has been linked to a rash of suicides among young people.

Bullying is “a form of abuse which carries tremendous health harm,” said Gary Namie, a social psychologist who directs the Workplace Bullying Institute. “That’s how you distinguish it from tough management or any of the other cutesy ways people use to diminish it.”

Struggle to cope

Namie was not involved in the new study, which surveyed nearly 500 employees about how they dealt with abusive supervision. Abusive supervisors are bosses who humiliate and insult their employees, never let them forget their mistakes, break promises and isolate employees from other co-workers, study author Dana Yagil of the University of Haifa in Israel told LiveScience.

About 13 to 14 percent of Americans work under an abusive supervisor, Yagil said. Her study on Israeli workers found that abused employees tend to cope by avoiding their bosses, seeking support from co-workers and trying to reassure themselves. As useful as those strategies might sound, however, they actually made employees feel worse. [7 Thoughts That Are Bad For You]

“It is understandable that employees wish to reduce the amount of their contact with an abusive boss to the minimum, but the strategies they use actually further increase their stress instead of reducing it,” Yagil said. “This may happen because these strategies are associated with a sense of weakness and perpetuate the employee’s fear of the supervisor.”

Tragic consequences

Avoiding a workplace bully might seem easier than avoiding a school bully, given that employees can quit their jobs. But workers get caught in a cycle of stress, Namie said. An online survey of targeted workers by the WBI found that they put up with the abuse for an average of 22 months.

The stress of the bullying may itself lead to bad decision-making, Namie said. A 2009 study in the journal Science found that stressed-out rats fail to adapt to changes in their environment. A portion of the stressed rats’ brains, the dorsomedial striatum, actually shrunk compared with that region in relaxed rats. The findings suggest that stress may actually re-wire the brain, creating a decision-making rut. The same may occur in bullied workers, Namie said.

“This is why a person can’t make quality decisions,” he said. “They can’t even consider alternatives. Just like a battered spouse, they don’t even perceive alternatives to their situations when they’re stressed and depressed and under attack.”

Sometimes this cycle ends with tragedy. Namie works as an expert legal witness on bullying. In one upcoming case, he said, a woman put up with daily barrages of screaming abuse from her boss for a year. By the end, she was working 18-hour days, trying to shield the employees under her from her boss’ tyranny, Namie said. Finally, she and several of her co-workers put together a 25-page complaint to human resources. Nothing happened, until she was called in for a meeting with senior management. The woman knew she would be fired for making the complaint, Namie said.

“Rather than allowing herself to be terminated, she bought a pistol, went to work, left three suicide notes, and she took her own life at work,” he said.

“She was like that rat stuck in a rut,” he added. “She didn’t see any alternative at that point.”

Why bullying happens

While all workplace-bullying cases are not so extreme, it does seem to be a common problem, said Sandy Herschcovis, a professor of business administration at the University of Manitoba who studies workplace aggression. Between 70 and 80 percent of Americans report rudeness and incivility at work, Herschcovis told LiveScience. Fewer are systematically bullied, she said, but the best estimate puts the number at about 41 percent of American workers having been psychologically harassed at work at some point.

Hierarchical organizations such as the military tend to have higher rates of bullying, Herschcovis said, as do places where the environment is highly competitive.

“Definitely the organizational context contributes,” Herschcovis said.

The personality of the bully is often key, with some research suggesting that childhood bullies become bullies as adults, she said. Targets of bullying are often socially anxious, have low self-esteem, or have personality traits such as narcissism, Herschcovis said. “We don’t want to blame the victim, but we recognize this more and more as a relationship” between the bully and the target, she said.

Little research has been done on how to deal with abusive bosses or bullying co-workers. In mild cases, where a boss may not realize how their behavior is coming across, direct confrontation might work, Yagil said. One research-based program that seems to have potential is called the Civility, Respect and Engagement at Work project, Herschcovis said. That program has been shown to improve workplace civility, reduce cynicism and improve job satisfaction and trust among employees, she said. The program has employees discuss rudeness and incivility in their workplace and make plans to improve. [8 Tactics to Bust the Office Bully]

For workers experiencing bullying, Herschcovis recommended reporting specific behavior to higher-ups, as well as examining one’s own behavior. Sometimes victims inadvertently contribute to the bullying relationship, she said. Namie cautioned that victims should proceed with care, however, as there are no anti-bullying workplace laws on the books in the U.S.

“HR [human resources] has no power or clout to make senior management stop,” Namie said. “Without the laws, they’re not mandated to make policies, and without the mandate, they don’t know what to do.”

Since 2003, 21 states have introduced some version of anti-bullying bills, but none have yet passed. Twelve states have legislation pending in 2012, according to healthyworkplacebill.org.

In the meantime, Herschcovis and her colleagues have found that bystanders in the workplace are usually sympathetic to the victim rather than the bully.

“Outside parties are most likely to want to intervene, and to be in a position to intervene,” Herschcovis said. The trick, she added, will be to find ways to encourage co-workers to stand up for one another.

View the original article at Live Science

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.

EVERYTHING we accomplished in 2011 was because of our talented staff, allied professionals and volunteers who loaned us their particular expertise.

No one at WBI does just one thing; all of us have multiple roles. New hires, Sean Lunsford and Daniel Christensen, the comforting voice callers to WBI first hear, joined Dave Phillips, our technical guru, and Jessi Eden Brown, the WBI professional coach. Sean is a techie himself, with a degree in computer science, but will serve primarily as the newest consultant on our team, with training and certification in workplace bullying from us.

The WBI technical trio — Dave, Daniel, Sean:

• redesigned, modernized and consolidated our family of 7 principal websites in 2011 with WBI as the portal site

• programmed our own online survey data collection website so that bullying prevalence can be gathered for any organization

• posted several Instant Polls and their results throughout the year

• produced training DVDs for employers (one 2 hr. video for managers, one 1 hr. video to show to employees)

• produced a DVD for bullied individuals chock full of advice from the team of WBI experts

• maintained two interactive forum websites, one of which relies on our volunteer administrator, C.A.

• maintained private websites for legislative campaign Coordinators and alumni of Workplace Bullying University

Thanks to allied professionals, Dr. Matt Spencer and Greg Sorozan, we were able to:

• design and deliver the first Workplace Bullying University (Sept) solely for Union officers (Greg Sorozan, LCSW, NAGE national officer, was co-faculty)

• educate K-12-related associations and organizations with the help of consultant Matt Spencer, Ed.D. as part of our Workplace Bullying in Schools project

Our marvelous network of volunteer State Coordinators working to enact the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill:

• grew to a group of over 70 nationwide, covering nearly 40 states

• garnered publicity for the HWB via TV appearances in New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Massachusetts, and Virginia (watch on the WBI YouTube channel, Legislative Campaign playlist)

• were able to have 12 states carry 18 versions of the HWB simultaneously

• engineered co-sponsorship of the Assembly bill in New York by 74 Assemblymembers!

• staged a compelling committee hearing for the Massachusetts bills in July

Thanks to tireless wordsmithing help from Jessi Brown, Ruth and Gary finished their third book:

• this one for employers — The Bully-Free Workplace: Stop Jerks, Weasels & Snakes from Killing Your Organization — published in May by Wiley.

Finally, thanks to too much time in airports with our groping TSA (now unionized, go AFGE) friends:

• we reached several audiences with speeches and workshops at employer, government agency, hospital, university and union meetings with the introductory message about workplace bullying

• we went on-site at more employers than ever with our industry-defining process to prevent and correct workplace bullying

• Dr. Gary met an increased demand for expert witness services in litigation by both defense and plaintiff attorneys seeking accountability for bullying.

The new year of helping people begins Tues. Jan. 3

First, let me say Dr. Harper, an anthropologist by training, and I, a social psychologist, probably have much in common. The difference is that she came through a horrific academic experience personally. Dr. Ruth Namie bore the brunt of that direct experience for our family; my experience was vicarious. For that reason, I am unwounded have necessarily been the spokesperson. Second, when unhealed wounded veterans of the bullying wars go public (as some of the more brazen critics of WBI do frequently), they can set back the movement with agendas narrowly focused on themselves. Harper’s injuries may not yet be resolved. She makes some silly and downright incorrect claims. I will reply to her Dec. 15 essay in italics.

Top Ten Reasons to Rethink Anti-Bully Hysteria

by Janice Harper

In previous essays I’ve discussed some of my concerns with the use of the bully label, the failure to distinguish between workplace and schoolyard bullying, and the need to distinguish workplace bullying from workplace mobbing. Now, as the year comes to a close and top ten lists rise like hit songs on a pop chart, I’d like to provide my own top ten reasons for rethinking the current anti-bully hysteria.

1. In the understandable rush to eradicate mean-spirited and aggressive people in the workplace, there is a tendency to move from anti-bully to pro-mobbing and encourage people to gang up and eliminate anyone labeled a bully.

Eradication of bullying is the goal, not of bullies. Targets do not suddenly convert to revenge-seekers who team up to bring down those who attacked them. Most individuals skulk away quietly shrouded in shame and secrecy just hoping to move on. Not sure who advises this. Certainly not us at WBI.

2. As awareness about bullying behavior grows, so too does the hysteria surrounding it, so that once a person is accused they are assumed to be guilty and vilified, regardless of their actual behavior or intent.

In the absence of company policies with full enforcement provisions and laws that would indict people in a criminal manner, there is no official sanctioning forum that labels people as “bullies.” In the American society where we are co-located, only child abusers (think Jerry Sandusky) are guilty and vilified without regard to due process. Business frauds who cheat old ladies are forgiven. Jack Abramoff writes a book on how to buy lawmakers. Sports heroes go to prison and return to contracts worth millions. Exactly what “bullies” are vilified? Steve Jobs, the deity? What you say, Janice, does not currently happen.

3. Even if a person does exhibit “bullying” behaviors, they are operating in the context of a specific organizational culture; the anti-bully focus is on the individual, not the organizational dynamics that might foster it.

Couldn’t agree more. We have tried unsuccessfully with two publishers have our book titles include “bullying” rather than “bully,” but neither cooperated. Our book for organizations to read about bullying decries the focus on the individual. This again is the experience in individualistic societies — anthropology told me so.

4. By failing to distinguish interpersonal bullying from collective mobbing, much of the advice given to targets of workplace aggression may escalate their suffering by provoking management’s retaliation and transforming bullying to mobbing.

The canard of mobbing vs. bullying was old 15 years ago when we started, and newcomers to the field like yourself seem to have to rediscover it and share the learning as if it’s new. Though Heinz Leymann died before he could attend our first and only US conference back in 2000, his representative did. She had no qualms about using the term bullying. She was a patient of his in Violen. As the leading proponent of the phrase workplace bullying in the U.S., it is safe to say that WBI has always said that bullying is a multiple-perpetrator phenomenon. End of “dispute.” We defer to Ken Westhues’ materials and arguments about the distinctions. When you use mobbing, you sound paranoid.

As for a focus on bullying (the systemic reinforcement of negative conduct) vs. bullies (the individualistic personality approach), that is another false accusation about the movement (hysteria, as you deem it). The press focuses on bullies. Book publishers fight the term “bullying” in book titles. But smart researchers and practitioners all focus on the former. You need to read the pages in the books, and not stop at perusal of just the covers.

5. Workplace bullying includes a power dynamic that is absent in schoolyard bullying, and although the processes are very similar, their differences are significant. The two forms of interpersonal aggression should be discussed with different terminology, strategies and objectives.

6. The “bully” focus tends to minimize group psychology, looking for convenient scapegoats and exempting others from responsibility when their aggression is collective.

RE: Points 5 & 6. I resent an anthropologist calling the extensive work done in this country by social psychologists on the topic to be somehow devoid of group dynamics. Colleagues Loraleigh Keashly and Joel Neuman were the only two brave souls doing this work back in 1997 (and before). And if you more carefully read what proponents in the movement say you would see it is well grounded in organizational models and processes. Those of us actually working with employers do much more than is known by the press. However, we have written books about it. So, you need to read more.

7. Just as “bullies” are viewed as inherently volatile and bad, targets are viewed as inherently passive and good, and typically advised they are morally superior and did nothing to contribute to the aggression. Such views preclude any possibility of behavioral changes for anyone involved, and flies in the face of human psychology.

You disqualify yourself as an outside observer of the phenomenon when you copy the provocative victim theory, commit the fundamental attribution error, and blame abuse victims for their own fate. Keep your academic perspective on this one. You may have been mobbed, but presumably not abused.


There is a morality play afoot. Don’t make the mistake of siding with the ones who initiate abuse. The parallel is to domestic violence. If one equivocates and stands equally with the abuser and abused, that person has lost her moral compass and right to distinguish right from wrong. Not ALL targets are saints, but if you worked with nearly 7,000 of them as we have at WBI, you wouldn’t perpetuate gibberish about them being equal to their assailants.

8. Too much of the focus on bullies has become associated with a single political perspective, namely liberal Democrats, even though interpersonal aggression affects a diversity of political interests.

Again read, read, read. Visit the national site for the Healthy Workplace Bill. There you can see the political party affiliation of legislators brave enough to sponsor an anti-bullying bill. At least three parties are represented. Republicans are not a itsy bitsy minority, either. As far as labeling, I’m not sure liberal democrats exist today.


However, your point is important in another, more profound perhaps unintended, way. Abuse in organizations is political. It derives its support from those in power. Rather, than dem vs. repub, it’s executives and bullies vs. those who came to their jobs to work. There is a partition, just not along the lines you describe so glibly.

9. Aggressive behavior in the workplace does indeed damage people’s lives and livelihoods, yet by calling for the elimination of workers labeled bullies, encouraging gossip and sabotage of anyone accused of bullying, and making anonymous reports against alleged “bullies,” workplace aggression has the potential to increase.

Who calls for the elimination of the bullies? Most of them will stop when their employers dare to challenge and expose them. They keep their jobs and move on. Who would ever call for anonymous reports against others? You must be reading the work of HR and “career” experts. We see you are associated with some newcomers to the field who profess an “expertise” but know little more than a bullied target. Just living the experience does not make one an expert, nor does publishing an academic journal article, or training in an academic field related tangentially to the topic. But it’s America. If you say you are an expert, you are treated that way by a lazy media.

10. The rhetoric is very negative and exclusionary, rather than focusing on how workplaces and other organizations can become more compassionate and humane toward others.

Interpersonal aggression is indeed a serious problem, and any form of aggression in our workplaces, schools and other organizations merits attention and remedies. But how we view the problem will shape how we address it. And as we move closer to ideological orthodoxy in how we approach it, all I see is an even bigger problem in the making.

You are a naive angel to think that eradication of truly destructive behavior begins with a focus on the positive through HR-type fads of the month: “employee engagement” “visionary management” “purposeful work” “ethical behavior” etc. You haven’t worked either as a consultant or manager enough to know what it takes to right a large ship sinking from destructive action by the few. Take the high road. You are young. But eventually you will learn how organizational default to the lowest ethical level, not aspire to the highest. And certainly not in the contemporary world of multinational for-profit firms that universities (like the host of your personal misery) emulate.

###


My post-article observations:

We all await the publication of your own book, which your series of articles is no doubt meant to pre-promote. But we expect more than tales from the trenches by a wounded warrior whose perceptions have been distorted by horrific experiences. Too many newcomers to the field are so wounded they cannot separate their own injuries and resentments from them to see clearly what needs to be done.

Methinks that you will be a positivist, pollyanna, equivocator. You could use the moniker “Dr. FeelGood.” HR will love you. But your work will not help those abused at work. And your insistence on some of the principles you have espoused above will get you press coverage because you pose no threat to organizations that actually originate and sustain the conduct to which you were subjected. You will be seen as reasonable and corporate-friendly — the goal of all newcomers. You will be very TV-friendly. But will you be intellectually honest to audiences (and more importantly, to yourself, true to your self-perception)?

As for us, we choose to tell truths, side with the abused, and risk not doing business with those too frightened to do what it really takes to change their toxic organizations.

Janice, you live 100 miles from us. Come visit. We’d love to convert you to a champion for the cause rather than an apologist for abusers (part of the hysteria machine). Come see the world through the WBI perspective. Our door is open.

Gary Namie
WBI Director

We have lost our minds, but we may also be losing our hearts. Lamenting the ease with which we tear into others. Borrowing a verse from the song “My Grown-Up Christmas List” to fit the theme.

Download Podcast 23 (in .mp3 format)

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?

Players are labor. Owners are capital.

Sports columnist Dave Zirin describes the heart of the blocked trade perfectly.

By not resolving the question of power, the CBA also didn’t resolve the critical issue at the heart of lockout: the zeal of small market owners— in the wake of Lebron and Chris Bosh joining the Miami Heat—to restrict, own and distribute the talents of their employees. It’s a question at the heart of sports labor conflicts: whether the “talent” on the court is labor, or a product of labor and owned by others. This is why players, always to media outrage, turn at times to the metaphor of slavery and a plantation to explain their predicament. Not because they are comparing themselves to those who suffered under bondage but because owners constantly contest whether they are in fact the masters of their own talents.

This past week marked the 150th anniversary of a speech Lincoln made to Congress. I’ve always included a snippet from that speech in my talks to unions. Thanks to former Rep. Alan Grayson, here is the full text of that speech.

“It is not needed, nor fitting here [in discussing the Civil War] that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions; but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effect to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor, in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded thus far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

“Now, there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.”

For America to ever approximate social justice again, priorities must be rearranged. Valuing workers is a good start.

"Yes" says Dr. George Guiliani, professor of Special Education at Hofstra University

"No" says Dr. Paul Friday, head of Shadyside Psychological Services, Pittsburgh

You decide.

Phew! They fixed the bill, first in the House, then the Senate thanks to Sen. Gretchen Whitmer leading the way.

The goofy provision was originally inserted to appease the Michigan branch of the radical hate group American Family Association. That group’s agenda is anti-homosexual.

Let’s hope for the best. The Governor promised to sign the revised bill into law in 2011.

These radical hate groups, masquerading as “conservative” “Christian” groups invaded our anti-bullying legislation for adults (the Healthy Workplace Bill) in Illinois in 2009. They are tricky, but hateful nevertheless.

Workplace bullying has become rampant because it is driven by a buyer’s market in jobs.

In my professional practice of supporting clients in planning their retirement, I am increasingly experiencing clients and prospects who talk about workplace bullying scenarios. When I ask whether they are referring to sexual harassment, age discrimination or cause-based performance issues, they more frequently refer to being abused by practical jokes, harassment, intimidation and threats of job loss and downsizing. I have clients who have lost their jobs or have been forced to quit due to a narcissistic manager who has enjoyed virtually unrestricted rein in threatening job loss or career damage.

Gary Namie, director of the Workplace Bullying Institute in Bellingham, Wash., contrasted the difference between tough, accountable management and bullying by defining it as “… bullying is a level of misery that falls on disproportionately few.” Certainly, none of us have to be sociologists and economists to understand the harm that workplace bullying can cause. Morale issues, organizational sabotage and productivity declines would be a good start for a list of rational reasons to support a call for legislation to curb this serious problem.

In Massachusetts, the issue of infringement on dignity by employers is coming to a head with legislation written by Suffolk University Law professor David Yamada. House Bill 2310 and Senate Bill 916 — The Healthy Workplace Bill — was the subject of a Statehouse hearing by members of the Committee on Labor and Workforce Development this past summer.

The basic premise of the bill is to create a legal claim for bullying victims who can establish that they were subjected to malicious, health-harming behavior. It also provides defenses for employers who act preventively and responsively with regard to bullying.

Considering that this nation endured hard fought conditions that ushered in one of the greatest surges in human dignity legislation starting with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I think it is time for employers and business owners, empowered with the economic leverage of job rationing, to be held accountable for their transgressions.

Joe D’Amore

Groveland

A manager calls an important meeting with no time to prepare, making co-worker appear incompetent. She ridicules him in front of his peers and jumps at the chance to criticize his work. She’s a bully. And she’s setting up a co-worker to fail.

For all the publicity surrounding schoolyard bullying, and the impact it can have on a child’s emotional well being, there’s precious little discourse about the equally pervasive problem of bullies in the workplace. Often, it’s in the exit interview where employers get their first hint that something is wrong, since that’s the first time many feel emboldened enough to speak freely. At that point, it’s often too late to save that employee, but it does give employers a chance to turn things around for the rest of their workforce.

Managers who seek to sabotage or humiliate their underlings are a challenge to any organization, but their impact is disproportionate for small businesses, which can ill afford the costly turnover associated with a toxic culture — much less the loss of staff buy-in so critical to an upstart’s survival.

“In a larger corporation, the bully only reaches a small proportion of people, but the effect is magnified in a small company because they touch everyone,” says Gary Namie, president of The Work Doctor in Bellingham, Wash., a consulting firm that helps companies develop anti-bullying policies. “There’s no escape from them and when the target wants to asks for relief there’s no one to go to, so they are much more vulnerable.”

Workplace bullying is a bigger issue than most employers think.

A 2010 survey by Zogby International for the Workplace Bullying Institute found that 35 percent of U.S. workers (an estimated 54 million Americans) have been bullied at some point in their career.

The survey, which notes bullying can occur between co-workers or between a boss and a subordinate, found that 62 percent of bullies were men and 58 percent of targets were women.

The majority (68 percent) of bullying is same-gender harassment, the survey found, noting women bullies target women 80 percent of the time.

“Bullying at work is a widespread problem,” says Joel Neuman, professor of management and organizational behavior at the State University of New York at New Paltz. “It’s not just physical aggression. More often than not it’s psychological or verbal aggression.”

Indeed, workplace bullying takes many forms.

According to Neuman, it is generally defined as any persistent form of aggressive behavior, particularly verbal abuse, which seeks to humiliate, undermine or ostracize another.

Many bullies, for example, take credit for their target’s work, pepper them with trivial tasks, or criticize their performance in front of their peers, making the target appear incompetent.

The Workplace Bullying Institute notes that victims tend not to be the weakest member of the team, but the most veteran and competent person in the workgroup because they are viewed as a perceived threat.

“A very common bullying tactic is social isolation or marginalizing their target by withholding information they need, treating them as a social pariah, or excluding them from social events or work-related functions,” says Neuman.

Eventually, he notes, such behavior creates health problems.

According to the Zogby survey, 45 percent of those who have been bullied at work say they suffer stress-related health problems, including panic attacks, clinical depression, anxiety, and even post-traumatic stress. And they use paid time off frequently for “mental health breaks,” creating a heightened burden for smaller companies that need all hands on deck.

For small business owners, the first step to ferreting out a bully in your office is to recognize the signs. Don’t be fooled, says Namie. Bullies are masters at “managing their impression upwards” and making themselves appear indispensible.

If you notice that one or more of your employees has shifted from enthusiastic and confident to woeful and tentative, it’s time to intervene.

“In a small business, there is no excuse not watching your people closely and knowing their quirks and personalities; how they show loyalty and enthusiasm,” he says. “When a person is targeted by a bully, those things disappear. They start walking on eggshells. They hang their head. They look depressed and powerless.”

Call that employee into your office immediately, says Namie, and discuss candidly what you’ve observed. Ask what you can do to help.

“Targets often feel ashamed so they won’t come out with it right away, but if you make it safe for them to share they will,” says Namie. “You have to do some investigating.”

Indeed, some 40 percent of bullied individuals never tell their employers about the problem, the Zogby survey found.

Part of that reason could be that employees are afraid of their bosses. Paul Hellman, founder of Express Potential, writes that bosses should not underestimate the fear they can instill in employees who are afraid to say the wrong thing. Hellman suggests that bosses can lessen fear by being upfront about what they are asking, and what they expect. And being open to what employees have to say, says Hellman.

If you are certain that a co-worker or manager is bullying someone on your team, separate them from their target right away, either by giving the target (not the bully) some paid time off or moving the target to a different group, says Namie.

“Put the bully to the wall and ask why they did what they did,” said Namie. “Don’t ask ‘if’. Ask, too, how their conduct is related to the interest of the company and make them prove it’s connected to your mission of either profit or public service.”

If they can’t, follow through with disciplinary action — including a written warning, suspension or termination.

Whatever you do, don’t tell the bully and target to work it out on their own.

“If they could have confronted the bully or defended themselves they would have done it already, so telling them to work it out is dooming the person in the one-down position,” says Namie, noting a boss and a subordinate are not on equal footing.

To prevent bullying before it starts, it often helps to draft a code of professional conduct that spells out the kind of behavior you expect from your staff, as well as disciplinary procedures for failure to adhere, says Neuman.

“It’s essential to have some kind of policy in place that defines acceptable and unacceptable conduct,” he says.

For smaller businesses, with fewer resources, though, it can be just as effective to share your expectations with your troops verbally — and unequivocally.

“Declare that you’re not going to tolerate this behavior or put up with it for even a minute,” Namie says. “Tell them that if you see it they’re going to get fired. Whether codified in a policy for done more informally, there needs to be a line drawn in the sand.”

Though the body of research on workplace bullying in the U.S. remains small compared with that of Europe, which has studied the problem for decades, awareness is on the rise.

Over the last few years, in fact, 12 states have introduced legislation based on the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill.

Business owners can put a stop to bullying in their own offices, and do their bottom line a favor, by learning what to look for and how to deal with it when they see it – up to and including sending the bully packing.

“The bully might even be your favorite employee but ultimately, they are just too expensive to keep,” says Namie.

###

Read original article CNBC.com

Stress caused by an abusive manager has a major impact on an employee’s partner, a study has found. This in turn affects the marital relationship and then the worker’s entire family.

The report also showed that the longer a couple had been together, the less impact the abusive boss had on the family.

Some 280 employees and their partners were questioned for the study. Three-quarters had children living with them.

Bullying behaviour was classed as tantrums, rudeness and criticism in public.

Workers were asked how often they had been put down by their manager or had anger directed at them. Their partners were then asked how much tension there was at home and how often the couple argued.

Professor Merideth Ferguson, of Baylor University, in Texas, said: ‘It may be that as supervisor abuse heightens tension in a relationship, the employee is less motivated or able to engage in positive interactions with the partner and other family members.’

The report’s authors said the study highlighted the need for firms to send an unequivocal message to managers that bullying behaviour will not be tolerated.

Professor Dawn Carlson, of Baylor University, in Texas, said: ‘These findings have important implications for organisations and their managers.

‘The evidence highlights the need for organisations to send an unequivocal message to those in supervisory positions that these hostile and harmful behaviours will not be tolerated.

‘Employers must take steps to prevent or stop the abuse and also to provide opportunities for subordinates to effectively manage the fallout of abuse and keep it from affecting their families.

‘Abusive supervision is a workplace reality and this research expands our understanding of how this stress plays out in the employee’s life beyond the workplace.’

via How stress from a bullying boss ‘could harm your marriage’ | Mail Online.

Of course the coverup, circling the wagons defensiveness-at-all-costs strategy is invoked only when a similarly highly valued colleague is in trouble. Jerry Sandusky was a legend and got the protective treatment. If the rape had been done by a lowly janitor, he would have been jailed back in 2002 and still be there! For the powerful, the club comes to the rescue.

Now think of PSU as a medium-size corporation rather than as an academic giant sports brand name. The abuser was one of the elite in the eyes of senior managers. He had many allies. When news came that their fellow (who none of them ever saw abuse anyone, by the way) was an abuser, they kicked into cover-up mode.

Employers, regardless of industry, go to great lengths to prevent discovery of abusive conduct by any of the senior club members. When a VP is accused of harassment or bullying or abusive conduct, the senior-most leader denies it. The reporting target is incredulous to not be believed.

In cases not easily denied (i.e., those with multiple witnesses of public acts), the employer throws unlimited dollars into the defense of their beloved buddy.

I am fond of telling seminar and University participants the tale of a former federal government bureau director (in MMS) who brought us in to deal with an egregiously volatile and cruel bully division chief. The bully was convinced to step down. He accepted his fate. The director, however, would not accept our recommendation or his division chief’s voluntary decision. Said the director:

No. I will not accept it. That would make two chiefs to step down in one week (the other had been caught embezzling). Besides, (the bully) is a lunch buddy and a great conversationalist.

The bond between abusers and their executive sponsors should never be underestimated. Organizations tolerate the banishment of countless victims of managerial abuse without guilt. Organizations have no conscience because the executives are allowed to live in their bubble, never seeing that their sycophant allies are abusers, and never having to acknowledge the truth.

The silence that shrouds the fate of millions of displaced bullied targets enables the country to never learn how bad it is. It enables the “best places to work” to wear the badge of honor while hypocritically covering up the ruined careers of many of their best workers because it suited executives to live the lie.

PSU’s behavior is the norm, not the exception. If the abuse victim had not been a child, you would never have heard a peep. The Paterno/PSU mystique would be untarnished in the public eye.

Lessons for this teachable moment in history:

1. Abuse of adults at work needs to be legally actionable. Pass the HWB.

2. Create misconduct reporting systems inside organizations not prone to favoritism or control by executives. #1 makes #2 possible.

Without the law against child abuse pushing PSU, the Sandusky cover-up would never have seen the light of day. The absence of illegality is the principal reason that workplace bullying remains an employer’s best kept secret.

This is a rare display of political courage. He deserves cheers much more than those given to Texas Gov. Perry’s for his braggadocio about executions by the dozens.

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.

Nasty bosses and mean co-workers can make work a living hell, and working moms are often targets. Here’s what employees and companies need to know about bullying-and how to fight it.

Stephanie Simpson thought she was pretty tough. She felt good about the way she coolly managed a number of hotheaded bosses, many of them elected officials. So when the now 33-year-old mom of two boys became executive assistant to the mayor of a small city north of Seattle, in 2006, she figured she’d handle this job as well as the others. At first it was just the occasional mean crack: In meetings, the mayor would sometimes shut her down with remarks like “Don’t worry about that, it’s above your pay grade” or “I don’t need your opinion.” And when she told him she was pregnant not long after being hired, he snipped, “You should’ve planned better.” When she returned from maternity leave the nasty pokes and pointed personal comments ratcheted up-to the point where co-workers started expressing concern. Her boss insidiously complimented her on her appearance, saying she “looked much better” now that she wasn’t pregnant, and made fun of her full-spectrum “happy light”-even after she explained that it had been prescribed by her doctor to help with postpartum depression. Yelling and swearing became part of his routine, as did calling her with ASAP demands on her lunch hour when she was breastfeeding her son.

The abuse escalated when Stephanie asked to be considered for a promotion, a move that seemed to enrage the mayor, who demanded to know why she wanted the job when she was “doing the mommy thing.” after she returned from her second maternity leave, he refused to acknowledge her presence, communicating with her only through other staffers. “He iced me out completely,” Stephanie says. “He stopped including me in meetings and told key people not to talk to me. He told them I had ‘baby brain.’ For the first time, I was afraid. I couldn’t do my job. I felt confused and crazy.”

Bullying isn’t only a schoolyard problem. It’s raging in the workplace as well: “Thirty-five percent of all adult American workers have directly experienced bullying-that’s 54 million people,” says Gary Namie, co-founder of the Workplace Bullying Institute WBI in Bellingham, WA. Women are bullied more than men, and when it comes to working moms, the stat leaps. in a new Working Mother survey, 55 percent of our readers say they’ve been bullied at work. A tight economy and tough job market only fuel this problem, as supervisors become frantic and stressed about making their numbers and workers shy away from speaking out against abuse for fear of job loss. Bullies can be bosses, yes, but so too can co-workers or even direct reports. What distinguishes them is their pattern of repeated personal attacks, from verbal abuse and yelling to work sabotage see “Bullying Defined”. For those who experience it, workplace bullying can be worse than sexual harassment-a kind of “stealth” abuse that’s just as damaging to its victims but rarely addressed in corporate policy. What’s more, except in extreme cases, workplace bullying is perfectly legal.

Horrible Bosses

When Nicole Richter took a job as an executive assistant to the head of a family-owned Fort Worth bank-holding company in 2008, the HR staffer told her she should run the other way; her new boss was notorious for going through aides like Kleenex. Nicole figured she could handle the challenge—until she was in the thick of it. When the boss was in a bad mood, he’d prowl around picking on people, turning the office into a scene from The Devil Wears Prada, with employees emailing back and forth, “Watch out, he’s coming your way!” but mom of two Nicole, 29, was his primary target. “He’d be nice for a while, then flip, like Jekyll and Hyde,” she says. And when her boss was bad, he was very, very bad: screaming, throwing her work on the floor, saying she was stupid, accusing her of mistakes he’d made himself, criticizing her relentlessly while refusing to tell her how to make things right.

The abuse got worse, to the point of extreme, after Nicole and her boss moved to a new office isolated from the rest of the staff. One day, he asked her to get a particular book for him. She looked everywhere but could only find one with a similar title. When she offered it to him, he took it from her and shoved it into her stomach so hard that she stumbled backward. “I was absolutely stunned,” Nicole recounts. “I went to the HR person, who said she’d seen this kind of thing happen over and over for years.”

Nicole’s experience is classic. while workplace bullying is multidirectional—a top-down, bottom-up and peer-to-peer phenomenon—bosses are the perpetrators as much as 80 percent of the time. “Research shows that when you give people more power, they become more focused on their own needs and may act as if the rules don’t apply to them,” says Stanford University professor Robert Sutton, PhD, author of Good Boss, Bad Boss. That cluelessness and lack of empathy can devolve into bullying. and it’s not just men: Women make up 38 percent of workplace bullies, according to the WBI study—and they target other women 80 percent of the time. In our Working Mother survey, more than half of respondents say women are more likely to be the bully at work—and that working moms are the most likely targets among all women.

Mean Girls

Jeannie Flynn* is a teacher, one who teaches kids at her suburban Iowa middle school not to bully. “But bullying is ongoing in my own department,” she says, describing a clique of teachers who, like the mean girls in the movie, have used gossip and exclusionary tactics to create an in-group that leaves those who aren’t like them out in the cold. “We’re supposed to function as a team, all working together and sharing materials. But it doesn’t work like that,” says Jeannie. The reason for the clique’s power, she believes, comes down to money and social status in their small community, as well as time. Jeannie, 32, has a 2-year-old daughter and a husband who often travels for work, so she finds it harder to stay late or come into school on the weekends, as the clique members do. “I tell my students they don’t have to be somebody they’re not just to have friends,” she says, sadly. “But that’s something I’m struggling with myself.”

Women are thought to be better team players than men—but not if they’re bullies, says Namie. “Women bullies tend to direct their energies toward splitting up the work team, using divide-and-conquer games or pitting worker against worker. and they tend to be hypercritical.”

Sick Workplaces

“It was like an abusive marriage,” says Traci Carter of her previous job as a child protective services investigator in Florida. “Everybody I worked with felt beat up.” the intensity and sheer volume of the agency’s work turned supervisors into ineffective allies at best, and screaming, vicious-email-shooting monsters at worst. But Traci, 33, a single mom of one now living in New York City, managed to handle the situation—until she got pregnant. “Our days started at 8 a.m. and often didn’t end till 10 p.m. or later,” she explains. “We were on call, and sometimes the call came in the middle of the night. Once I was pregnant, the job became unbelievably difficult.” She asked to be reassigned to office work, but her supervisor told her there was nothing she could do. at seven months into her pregnancy, she found herself responding to emergency calls in terrible neighborhoods in the dead of night—alone—and more than once she was threatened. “I told my boss, but she was pregnant, too, and as stressed out as the rest of us, because she was getting beat up by her boss. All she’d say was ‘Work it out!’ ”

Bullies aren’t just individuals with a behavior problem, says Namie. “The workplace culture is the most important precipitating factor in bullying. decades of research show an individual’s free will is easily trumped by circumstances engineered by others. We react and respond to situations—but we forget how much they elicit our behavior. The work environment, with its rewards or negative sanctions, informs the way people act more often than staff personalities do.”

Sadly, most organizations have yet to address bullying directly. Only 3 percent have an anti-bullying policy in place and faithfully enforce it, says namie. organizational cultures that don’t discourage bullying, or that even tacitly encourage it (using harshness as a “motivational” tool, for instance), pay a steep price. Even mild forms of negative behavior, if they become a pattern, can lead to major consequences, according to Christine Pearson, PhD, and Christine Porath, PhD, authors of The Cost of Bad Behavior: How Incivility Is Damaging Your Business and What to Do About It. In their nine years of research, they found that about half of affected employees will cut back on work effort or time, a third will decrease quality, two thirds will waste work time worrying about the offender, and one in eight will quit the job. If, say, 1 percent of the employees at one large computer company were to experience uncivil behavior, the cost would run about $12 million a year.

The effects of bullying on children have made headlines in recent months, but workplace bullying is an issue that doesn’t receive much attention. Yet, it’s a growing problem, partly because Internet cyber-bullying can reach beyond the workplace walls and into employee’ private lives.

Costs of bullying

According to surveys by the Work­­place Bullying Institute (www.workplacebullying.org) and the Employment Law Alliance (www.employmentlawalliance.com), between 33% and 44% of employees have experienced bullying at work.

Victims can suffer physical or emo­­tional harm that interferes with their professional and personal lives. Employers, in turn, may suffer the costs associated with decreased attendance, increased medical and insurance claims, legal claims and lost productivity and opportunity costs resulting from demoralized and distracted workers.

Studies also show that employees working in intimidating environments are less likely to speak out about po­­­­tentially dangerous or otherwise costly errors.

All of this can affect an employer’s bottom line and competitive edge.

Will legislation help?

A movement to legislate against workplace bullying is gaining mo­­men­­tum. In May 2011, Min­ne­sota became the 21st state to propose a workplace bullying law. While no state has yet passed legislation, New York came close last year.

Advocates of such legislation argue it is needed to address legal gaps. While the most extreme bullying and bullying based on protected class status may be unlawful under current laws, it is generally not against the law to be an equal opportunity jerk.

Opponents of anti-bullying legislation counter that it is impossible to adequately define illegal bullying and that the bar for claims will be set too low. Employers, mindful that it’s impossible to ensure universal workplace civility, worry that anti-bullying laws will generate a flood of frivolous litigation stemming from legitimate actions, such as efforts to discipline poor performers.

Despite the ongoing debate, the proposed legislation in New York drew bipartisan support. That proposed law, which was similar to legislation proposed in other states, required that bullying be severe, carried out with malice and unrelated to any legitimate business interest. It also modeled employer obligations after existing obligations under discrimination laws, providing employers with legal defenses for their efforts to prevent and promptly respond to bullying. It is not yet clear whether workplace bullying legislation will be en­­acted, but New York’s near-passage of a law has led some commentators to predict such legislation is in our future.

There appears to be public support for such legislation. In 2010, surveys by the Workplace Bullying Institute and the Sunday newspaper magazine Parade indicated that as many as 90% of respondents favor such legislation.

7 steps to stop bullies

Given these trends, employers should, if they have not already done so, start paying attention—both to get ahead of potential legal obligations and to mitigate the high business costs of bullying.

Some steps employers might consider taking include:

1. Adopt a “no jerks” rule. That’s the first step advocated by Robert Sutton, author of the colorfully titled book The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t. Sutton de­­fines a jerk as someone who oppresses, humiliates, de-energizes or belittles a subordinate or a colleague.

[WBI comment: Better and more practical still is the employer roadmap found in The Bully-Free Workplace: Stop Jerks, Weasels & Snakes from Killing Your Organization.]

2. Adopt and en­­force an anti-bullying policy. Such a policy should include reporting and response procedures akin to those used for har­assment. To avoid contract claims, however, policies should include contract disclaimers.

[WBI: Anderson is right about this. See our approach at Work Doctor, Inc.]

3. Avoid hiring bullies in the first place. Including potential peers and subordinates—not just potential managers—in the interview process may help prevent bullies from being hired. Studies indicate that bullies often target those with less power, so peers and subordinates may be better positioned to spot troubling behavior in interviews.

4. Treat bullying as a performance problem. Don’t reward or promote bullies. Doing so sends a message that bullying is accepted and not a bar to success. Instead, reform or get rid of bullies whenever possible. No matter how valuable an employee seems, the real and significant costs of bullying, if quantified, often outweigh a bully’s perceived value.

5. Train your employees on the company’s expectations regarding bullying. You might also train em­­ployees on how to engage in constructive, respectful confrontations and debates.

6. Use available counseling resources. Those might include anger-management counseling and employee assistance programs.

[WBI: This advice is much shakier.]

7. Take steps to prevent violence. Most bullying does not turn violent, but bullying can be a precursor to violence by the bully—or by the ­bully’s frustrated and angry target. Consider forming a threat-assessment team to address violence risks as they may arise.

###

Author: Megan Anderson, Esq., is a principal at Gray Plant Mooty in Minneapolis. She concentrates her practice in employment law counseling and litigation. Contact her at (612) 632-3004 or megan.anderson@gpmlaw.com.

Kudos to sportswriter Dave Zirin, always a cut above, for pointing out that the highest paid players were not willing to allow owners to contract future and discarded players for as little as $75,000 a year. Yes that means the richest among them (count Kobe in) stood unanimously to stick up for future generations.

Zirin wrote:

Maybe they’re fighting for a reason so basic, we’ve missed it. Maybe it’s because they overwhelmingly come from the ranks of the working poor, have career lengths of six years and have been facing off against the ranks of true generational, aristocratic wealth in all its arrogance, personified by the snide, oozing contemptuousness of David Stern. Maybe they’re just tired of being treated as less than men by the people who write their checks.

Maybe they just hate to lose. NBA players: welcome to the 99 percent.

So, don’t dump on the players for having a strong union willing to work on members’ behalf. That’s what all bullied targets want who have a union. Work for me. Look out for my benefit.

After a terror-filled Friday Nov. 18 afternoon in Davis, California during which peaceful, seated campus protestors were maliciously pepper-sprayed by police in riot gear, the video went viral (identifying Lt. John Pike as the major offender who was suspended WITH PAY). On the video clip, skip to timemark 4:05 to see the full context of the police action. Campus police chief Annette Spicuzza claimed that the police were surrounded and could not escape!! She is temporarily suspended (probably with pay).

Katehi conducted a press conference that night. Students surrounded the building. She remained inside for two hours before she was told the students would not interfere with her exit. She then walked the “walk of shame” between two lines of silent, seated students.

Katehi announced the formation of a “task force” to take 90 days to review the cops’ actions.But she cannot investigate herself! In her blog, she included standard CYA language for her involvement in the violent disruption of the student protests: “the university provides an environment for students to participate in rallies and express their concerns and frustrations through different forums, university policy does not allow such encampments on university grounds,” and “I made the decision not to allow encampments on the Quad during the weekend, when the general campus facilities are locked and the university staff is not widely available to provide support,” (fyi: riot police≠support) “Our campus is committed to providing a safe environment for all to learn freely and practice their civil rights of freedom of speech and expression,” blah, blah, blah.

The faculty association called on her to resign. One brave untenured assistant professor, Nathan Brown, wrote an open letter admonishing his boss. But on Mon. Nov. 21, the arrogant Katehi told ABC News that the “university needs me.”

Here’s an odd juxtaposition of events. On Oct. 26, Katehi celebrated the launch of the UC Davis “Civility Project.” She espoused some lofty-sounding hyperbole. “We are a campus known for its civility and our commitment to respect, equality and freedom of expression runs deep … to engage members of the UC Davis community in an examination of how incivility has been and continues to be manifested on campus and to explore alternative engagements in the future … to help build on UC Davis’ growth as an inclusive environment.”

Are we to assume civility enforcement is handled by heavily armed riot police? Are unarmed, peaceful protesters creating a safety hazard to campus civility and Katehi’s tender sensibilities?

Mark G. Yudof, chancellor of the 10-campus, once-great University of California system needs to fire Katehi and not wait on her internal 90-day delaying tactic.
While he is at it, Yudof should also fire Robert Birgeneau, UC Berkeley campus chancellor.

At Cal Berkeley’s Sproul Plaza, the 1964 home of the Free Speech Movement, campus police (only a few miles north of the Occupy Oakland location), goons with batons beat back peaceful, non-aggressive protesters.

Graham Spanier was fired on Nov. 9. Penn State University’s president since 1995 and in office during the initial revelations about Jerry Sandusky’s abuse allegations was ousted by the Board to mitigate PR damage (both he and his wife taught at PSU, fates of professorships unknown).

The appearance of treating with indifference repeated allegations of child abuse on campus (when Sandusky brought young boys onto campus) is sufficient to end an administrative career. As the top administrator, PSU’s most senior manager, Spanier was made to fall on his sword.

Anyone wishing to share their opinion with Linda Katehi can do so here chancellorkatehi@ucdavis.edu

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

Bullying isn’t just confined to teens; adults in the workplace are targeted, too.

I recently met a remarkable woman who has a lot to say about a kind of adult bullying that hits straights as well as LGBTS, that hurts men as well as women, that harms older and less connected workers the most, and that is so pervasive it’s called “The Silent Epidemic.”

Esque Walker, who lives in Corsicana and drove up to Dallas recently to give a Saturday morning presentation on workplace bullying, has an undergraduate degree in health information management, a masters in healthcare/health information management and a doctorate in public policy and administration.

She also has a score of certifications and areas of expertise.

She has been working diligently for the passage of the Texas Healthy Workplace Bill, authored by David Yamada on behalf of the Workplace Bullying Institute. It’s hard going, as you can imagine.

So far, Dr. Walker has been unable to even get a meeting with Gov. Rick Perry. Perhaps he is too busy campaigning. More likely, if his many aides have put her name and credentials before him, he has retreated into his good-hairyness.

Remember: He scraped through Texas A&M with Ds; she has a Ph.D.

But the governor is not the only impediment to getting this bill in place. So far, Dr. Walker and her associates have spoken with a great many Texas state senators and representatives. Not one has agreed to sponsor the bill.

Dr. Walker was herself the target of workplace bullying some years ago. But instead of simply taking the abuse — as most women and many men have done over the years — she aligned herself with others who understood the issues involved.

So, what are the issues?

To begin, Dr. Walker asserts that adult bullying is based on the bully’s need for power and control. It’s closely linked with competitiveness; the bully may resent the target’s appearance, education, personality or any number of facets of the other person’s being. He or she definitely does not want the target to advance.

So how do you know you are targeted, assuming the bully does not actually taunt or threaten you, as happens so often to children and teens?

You start with power disparity; the bully may have a higher status, longer tenure or perhaps corporate protectors to give him or her a sense of strength.

Then you look at four other criteria: repetition, duration, intensity and escalation.

Workplace bullying, says Dr. Walker, usually plays out in a predictable way. First, the bully criticizes you or gets someone above you in the pecking order to do so. Next, the bully involves others, usually four to six people who may see you as a threat or just want to curry favor with the boss.

Then, no matter what you do, it is not enough or not good enough, and coworkers are not allowed to “help” you. Eventually you are fired — after being told, “You are not a team player.”


Here’s how it looks by the numbers:

• 62 percent of bullies are men (who may bully other men, straight women or, of course, LGBTs).

• 58 percent of targets are women.

• 18 percent of adult suicides in the European Union are attributed to workplace bullying.

• An estimated 1 million Texans are bullied at work every year.

As the economy has worsened, pushing out older workers has become the norm; counselors report the escalation, although putting a number to the pain is virtually impossible.
So what to do if you are the target?

First, document everything, with specifics of person, time, place and comment or event. Second, do not go to your organization’s human resources person or department; HR works for the company and could care less about you.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or your union representative — if applicable — can help; the latter may be especially important in education and medicine, where power disparities and bullying are common.

The Workplace Bullying Institute (WorkPlaceBullying.org) publishes a newsletter and other materials that can offer insight plus specifics. The Dallas Public Library has books by Gary Namie and Ruth Namie, Ph.D.’s known for their groundbreaking research and writing on workplace “jerks, weasels and snakes.”

And of course Out & Equal has done and continues doing great work on behalf of our community.

Final thoughts: The worst that can happen is that Texas will continue to allow vast amounts of cruelty in offices, factories, fields and stores. The best that could happen is that our next Legislature will pass the Healthy Workplace Bill, recognizing the problem, mandating anti-bullying education, and allowing victims to sue.

Meanwhile, if a workplace bully is making you frightened and depressed, find a counselor in whom you can confide. And don’t wait ’til tomorrow. Do it today.

###
Read another story about Esque Walker

You see, I’m from Washington, Pennsylvania. In town was a neighborhood gym (not much more than an indoor basketball court back when it opened in 1926) where my Dad loved to go shoot hoops from his childhood through adolescence. The place was called the Brownson House. It served as a sports center for youths, later run by a friend of my Dad’s, Art. Art had a son, Jerry, who was a mascot for the amateur BH sports team.

As a boy growing up in Washington, I admired local sports talent, including football stars. A family star was my cousin, Bob, a wide receiver for Wash High, and eight years older than me. He had a teammate, Jerry. Bob and Jerry dominated local sports headlines in my impressionable years. It was Jerry Sandusky who went to Penn State (PSU) to first play for, then coach with, Joe Paterno. I also went to Wash High and was keenly aware of local sports lore from before my time.

Unfortunately, Jerry continued in State College his inherited mission of “helping” vulnerable youths. By the time he started his own organization, he was a superstar in a small town, much bigger than when he was in “little Washington” years earlier. He and Paterno were joined at the hip by virtue of sharing the spotlight at PSU for over 30 years.

So, let’s explore some factors that dissuaded all those involved with Sandusky’s record of abuse — then-graduate assistant McQueary (who caught Sandusky raping a 10 yr. boy in the on-campus team shower room), head coach Paterno (to whom the crime was reported), university administrators (who learned from Paterno), and campus police (who were familiar with multiple, similar crimes by Sandusky) — to abandon any personal morals and to not report the crimes.

1. Mike McQueary was an assistant coach for PSU on Paterno’s staff until Friday Nov. 11 when he was suspended. As the one who stumbled on the rape scene and reported it to Paterno, he had already bought into the Paterno/Penn State mystique. He told his boss. To him, it probably seemed like a chain-of-command reflex. Of course, Paterno should be told. But McQueary did not call the town police because he also knew then-former coach/god Sandusky. As an insider, he kept the complaint “in the family.”

2. Joe Paterno, a coach known as a stickler for player integrity and decorum, forgot his own when he chose to report the rape (though I doubt he called it that) to his titular “boss” Tim Curley, the PSU Athletic Director. I say titular because no one at Penn State, including campus presidents could overrule JoePa with his 48 year tenure. Paterno IS PSU. That’s what the big business of college sports has done to the universities that host the teams. Head coaches trump college president power, especially the winningest in history! (Read the The Shame of College Sports Atlantic article by Taylor Branch, an in-depth history of the shifting of priorities.) Telling Curley was all Paterno was required to do. Who wrote that policy? How can a campus rule usurp society’s demand that everyone in education at any level be required to report such crimes? Technically, Paterno did no wrong. But he did nothing right, either.

As a mentor to young men for half a century himself, he allowed his personal relationship with Sandusky to obscure the bigger picture. Paterno was an adult in a responsible position who enabled Sandusky to continue to abuse children. To me, he loses all future claims to being a person with superior morality. Understanding the pull of loyalty to Sandusky is not hard to imagine. But this was child rape. And Paterno knew about more than one incident. He knew Sandusky was banned from campus and he did not enforce the ban.

3. All the PSU administrators were completely in the sway of the Paterno/PSU mystique. It was all bureaucratic CYA by mice, not men. I wonder how many of the senior executives hypocritically are involved with youth-oriented community groups?

4. How could the campus police subsume their anti-crime role to being part of the Paterno/PSU family? I guess to understand we would have to live under the PSU influence. They all drank the Kool-Aid. At least the police could have told Sandusky to leave campus after he was a former coach and had been instructed to stay away. But the police did not take the proper steps. Maybe there should have been a court-ordered protective order for the campus to shut out Sandusky.

Failing to keep Sandusky away from the campus allowed the Paterno/PSU images to be tarnished by child abuse. Paterno should not be personally blamed for child abuse. PSU enabled it with its fealty to its football gods. If administrators either had had the guts to confront Sandusky or to call the off-campus police on him, they would not have been dragged through the public relations crisis that currently grips the campus.

I am doubly sickened by the entire sordid ordeal. The fact that Jerry Sandusky and I share Washington, PA roots is eerie. Second, I recognize all too well the reflexive response of institutions to cover the careers of their “leaders” rather to do what is morally (and perhaps legally) correct.

Employers that support bullying and love their bullies will pay any price (bad PR, fortunes in lost court cases, millions in settlements just to silence complainants) to not have to confront powerful players in their organizations who hurt people.

Penn State’s bungled response has been all about itself and its precious image. Administrators and Paterno deliberately chose public silence out of deference to the venerated Sandusky, an obviously flawed man. Many adults who were Sandusky victims will have to go public to convince callous Americans that this should be a story about abused children.

The Catholic Church spent years deflecting the truth and punishing the courageous, vocal adult victims who came forward. It took decades before the church shifted its tactics to paying out millions in restitution. Finally, the victims were believed.

I’ve written elsewhere about how and why Cain harassment victims are discredited.

Individuals bullied at work are always discredited and not believed. Employers banish targets. They do not hold offenders accountable. And the organization can act like it does no wrong.

This is the lesson from the Paterno/PSU saga. No surprises here. More of the same. It’s all so sickening and so sad.

Our national reverence for individualism rings hollow when the need to help individuals is so easily muted by powerful institutions that have no intention of letting the needs of individuals be heard.

Gary Namie

While at the HWB website, click on the NY State page to see that Assembly bill A 4258 has 74 sponsors!!!

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

Registration details.

Playback Sessions: Friday, November 18, 2011 to
 Thursday, November 24, 2011, 9:00 a.m. – midnight EST

About a third of the U.S. workforce has fallen victim to workplace bullying. Learning to mitigate the problem means creating a more open work environment and crafting a stern anti-bullying policy.

The image of the schoolyard bully is heavily ingrained in our culture. Name a television show centered on American youth within the last half century, and it’s more than likely that at least one episode will be dedicated to the smaller, scrawnier kid doing his very best to avoid — or in some instances, defeat — the intimidating figure.

While the notion of the big, bad bully has been spotlighted in a number of television shows and movies, the practice in real life is undeniably serious. At the school level, instances of bullying have been attributed with causing a range of societal harms: absenteeism, violence, youth suicide and the like.

Although constant attention is given to youth-related bullying at schools, the less-talked-about form of bullying is that which occurs in the workplace.

According to a 2010 survey from the Workplace Bullying Institute, a research firm and consultancy on the subject, 35 percent of U.S. workers — or an estimated 53.5 million Americans — have experienced some form of bullying in the workplace, while another 15 percent claimed to have witnessed it.

“[It’s] epidemic; however, it is still a primarily un-discussable topic in organizations, and that’s why so many people are driven out in silence and without acknowledgement,” said Gary Namie, the director of the Workplace Bullying Institute and a trained social psychologist and business consultant.

Different from workplace harassment, which is generally considered a form of illegal discrimination, bullying is “often directed at someone a bully feels threatened by,” according to an April 2011 report by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries titled “Workplace Bullying and Disruptive Behavior: What Everyone Needs to Know.”

“The target often doesn’t even realize when they are being bullied because the behavior is covert, through trivial circumstances and isolating actions that occur behind closed doors … While harassment is illegal, bullying in the workplace is not,” the report states.

In fact, according to the Workplace Bullying Institute, bullying is four times more prevalent at work than harassment.

“We define it as abusive conduct — health-harming, abusive conduct that takes the form of repeated mistreatment [or] verbal abuse or threats, intimidation or humiliation,” Namie said.

Aside from the negative impact workplace bullying has on people — high stress, absence, reduced self-esteem, depression, sleep problems — bullying can cause turnover in an organization as well as a loss of productivity. High costs associated with investigations of potential ill treatment or, in some cases, legal action are also common.

The Workplace Bullying Institute breaks workplace bullying into different categories.

• The “screaming meanies.” These office bullies may be yelling or cursing at their target in public. Namie dubbed this the “Bobby Knight” approach in reference to the famously irate and emotional former head coach of Indiana University’s men’s basketball team.

• The constant critic. This individual tries behind closed doors to distort the appraisal or evaluation of a particular employee, claiming that the target is incompetent. “That starts to shatter the person’s sense of integrity and they’ll fall apart in a matter of a few months,” Namie said.

• The “control freak.” Oftentimes bullies deem themselves the “gatekeeper” to all resources; they in turn bully by refusing to allow access to these resources to certain employees, potentially hindering those employees’ work performance as a result.

This begs the question: Why hasn’t more attention been placed on the issue? For one, bullying isn’t technically illegal, and in many of the cases may be difficult to detect — the culprit will almost always deny any accusation. But another reason may be political: Those in management positions often end up taking on the role of the bully, so employees may be afraid to report instances they deem as bullying so as not to lose favor with their superiors.

This is something many employees may not want to do, given the frail economic environment. With the job market in disarray, employees may be staying in a poor job situation longer, leaving them subject to more abuse and harm on behalf of a workplace bully. Namie said in the past, it was more common for abused employees to quit and take their talents elsewhere.

Additionally, equally due to the scarcity of jobs, workers may be growing meaner at work, trying to blow down anyone in their path if it means greater job security and standing. “An otherwise very kind and gentle person [could become] a wholly terror at work if they believe that’s what it’s going to take to stay employed and get ahead,” he said.

Hampering Job Growth?

Others claim that a more acute form of workplace bullying takes place after an employee leaves. This may occur when a prospective employer conducts reference checks, and the former employer offers negative feedback.

Most companies have a policy where only titles and dates of employment of a former employee can be verified upon a reference check. The idea is that any other feedback — whether it is positive or negative — could create potential legal trouble for the company.

Still, many fail to abide by this, harming unemployed individuals’ chances of getting back into the workforce, said Jeff Shane, vice president of Allison & Taylor, a reference checking company.

Shane’s firm gets hired by clients, many of whom are unemployed, to conduct reference checks to make sure former supervisors are not giving negative feedback to potential employers. Those who do offer negative feedback — and whose corporate policy is strictly against the practice — are documented and might receive a “cease and desist” letter, threatening further legal action. Even if such unfavorable information is factual, if the company has a strict policy on the matter, legal action can be taken, Shane said.

“We have found, unfortunately, that about half of the thousands of checks we conduct do indeed come back with some form of negative information,” he said.

Being Proactive Pays Off

Preventing traditional workplace bullying, however, is more complex. According to the Washington State Department report, employees can regain control of the situation by first recognizing or acknowledging that the bullying is taking place. The report then recommends keeping detailed documentation on specific occurrences.

As for talent managers, encouraging office open-door policies and starting awareness campaigns on the subject is a starting point. Crafting detailed and compliant anti-bullying policies that differ from a firm’s anti-harassment policy is also one way to start to mitigate the problem, the report said.

Namie, through the Healthy Workforce Campaign, has been championing that a bill get passed to make bullying in the workforce unlawful. The bill, titled the “Healthy Workplace Bill,” has been introduced in 21 states since 2003. Some states have taken more kindly to the bill than others, but it has yet to pass. “We’re getting closer,” Namie said.

Despite efforts to get legal action taken on workplace bullying, prevention must go further than policy or law. The root of the problem is cultural. Organizations need to take a hard look and evaluate if the work environment they’ve laid out is enabling the behavior.

“Until the executive team is willing to say, ‘We don’t need to be abusive to be successful,’ [anti-bullying programs] will go nowhere,” Namie said.

Frank Kalman is an associate editor of Talent Management magazine. He can be reached at fkalman@talentmgt.com.

Read the summary of the British study | Read the 2010 WBI U.S. Survey results

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.

November 15, 2011, from 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM, ET
Hosted by BNA, Bureau of National Affairs. CPE & HRCI credits available.

Register online or call 800.372.1033, option 6, then option 1

While reversing the $5 fee made mainstream headlines, B of A, with approval and encouragement from the Federal Reserve (that exists by and for banks, not the U.S. government), moved $53 TRILLION of derivative contracts from the gambling reckless risk-taking side of the behemoth corporation (the bank holding company, investment house) to the retail consumer side Bank where funds are insured by the FDIC. That means that the massive losses by Merrill Lynch and the junk derivatives that had a Baa1 rating (the third lowest investment Moody grade) become overnight A2 rated because now the American taxpayers will cover the risk of these gambles failing. That’s you and me, the 99%-ers.

Remarkably, the entire financial system loves the dumping of risk onto the unsuspecting and unaware American public. While distracted by the $5 fee return, Bank of America just flaunted regulators. Of course, since the the Glass-Steagall Act was rendered obsolete by Alan Greenspan’s Fed in 1996, and formally repealed in 1999, the firewall separating retail banking functions that use customer money (and always backed by the FDIC) and investment businesses that play risky games to make incredible profits.

Said investigative reporter Matt Taibbi who has been following the underlying stories about the recession:

So the primary regulator of the banking industry is encouraging a functionally insolvent megabank to respond to a credit downgrade by pushing its most explosively risky holdings onto the laps of the taxpayer. This is lunacy…. Remember that story about the Chinese man who had a world-record 33-pound tumor removed from his face? This would be like treating that patient by removing the tumor and surgically attaching it to the face of a new patient, in this case the U.S. taxpayer.

Despite Occupy and the message that we reject control by the 1%-ers over so much of our lives, NYC Mayor Bloomberg had the audacity to claim on Nov. 1 that the banks and Wall Street cannot be blamed for the recession and global economic crisis.

Watch the outrageous video clip.

The facts do not support Bloomberg’s assertions (lies). Read the careful refutations by Mike Konczal. These are the points never known to the public. They are facts not disseminated by the media because financial reporters do not want to be seen siding the the 99%-ers.

Writing in the Washington Post, a UNESCO proponent reminds us of some worthwhile projects.

- development of tsunami early warning in the Caribbean and the Pacific
- stands up for every journalist attacked or killed across the world
- leading education reform and training journalists in Tunisia and Egypt
- training teachers in human rights and Holocaust remembrance
- leading the country’s largest education program in Afghanistan, reaching some 600,000 learners in 18 provinces

UNESCO’s slogan is “Building peace in the minds of men and women.” The U.S., as the self-declared leader of freedom and democracy, will have none of it (from now on)! Acceptance of the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Libya was formally granted by Secretary of State Clinton. But regarding Palestine, …

An internet gathering of rich folks who feel empathy for the rest of us can be found at this website.

One such story is:

The year I was born, my father and grandfather started a business that brought a much-needed service to our community. Overnight, they became millionaires. Simultaneously, I recieved a birthright, and a wealthy inheritance. I grew up in a moderately secular, safe, small city that was consistently ranked in the top 3 ‘best places to live in America’ for five straight years. This city is known for it’s world-renowned medical clinic. Because of this, I have had excellent health coverage my entire life. I have received the highest standard of education and I will graduate college with no loans to pay off because of the family business. I do not have a job because I do not need to work. I do not feel guilty for the life I have, nor do I feel especially spoiled by the things I have been granted. My life is amazing. I want everyone to have what I have. I am the 1%. I stand with the 99%. TAX ME

Congratulations to these individuals with a conscience and brave enough to share it with the world.

The Baum 2010 Halloween staff party mocked the people who lost their homes as a result of the firm’s work. Watch this video clip to see the cruelty. In turn, Keith Olbermann mocked Baum.

Research shows how easy it is to turn a “normal” person into a torturer. Obviously, after working in the anti-family, anti-worker business of separating people from their homes, a hardening of compassion-potential humans at Baum occurs.

It’s one thing to commit anti-social acts under the guise of just “following orders” or “doing my job,” but to make props, costumes and elaborate ways to demean the less fortunate upon whom you prey is twisted.

Maybe they would learn some humility, if the tables were turned.

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.

Military Vet at Occupy Oakland Critically Injured by Riot Police create a war zone in U.S. city

Call for resignation of Oakland mayor Jean Quan

Mayor Quan offers contrite statement in response to public outcry over police tactics

updated Oct. 27, 2010

Follow the story of a worker-driven push for change of a government workplace culture to drive out bullying. No ending yet. We support the unions whose workers deserve to be free from abusive conduct and retaliation. And we support the County administration that has the opportunity to turn a PR disaster into triumph and do the right thing.

2010

As in all government institutions, bullying occurs. Of this we can be sure. 8,000 employees work for Ventura County, California. Using WBI national statistics, we can safely estimate that 720 employees at any given time are being bullied; an additional 2,080 have been bullied. It’s a mid-size corporation.

January, 2011

A group of employees complained to the County Grand Jury (GJ). In a role much like consultants, the GJ investigated complaints (in one of their roles in that county) about workplace bullying by current and former county workers. The GJ as investigator concluded that bullying is a problem and employees deserve protection from it. An investigation conducted by HR might have concluded differently (as it nearly always does). The GJ reported that HR procedures are not trusted.

May 24, 2011

The GJ issues its report confirming the existence of the workplace bullying problem. Read the original Grand Jury report The county HR director, John Nicoll, told the local newspaper “We do not tolerate employees being mistreated because they’ve filed a complaint.” This directly contradicted facts about retaliation and fear of it contained in the GJ report. Read the press coverage of the GJ report and response of County administrators.

May-Sept, 2011

County employees are represented by several unions. SEIU Local 721 represents the majority of workers, numbering 4,500. The SEIU forms an Anti-Bully Committee. Meetings on the topic draw large crowds and several heart-wrenching stories from workers. The Committee conducts a survey of its members. Nearly 500 members responded. Read the SEIU Local 721 Bullying in the Workplace Report.

Some of the most compelling survey findings were:
- 60% of respondents have been bullied, compared to the 35% national estimate
- 69% have witnessed bullying
- Over 40% have been yelled at
- Over 40% have been retaliated against

Sept. 27, 2011

Gary Lowery, SEIU, showing the County's Report Card with all F's

The full record of Union Testimony on Sept. 27, 2011

The full responses by Supervisors & CEO M. Powers on Sept. 27, 2011

Video from the Michigan Education Association, Stand Up for Kids, not CEO’s

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.

You can discount the Occupy/99%-er movement, if you wish. It is a rebellion against the unconscionable concentration of wealth in the U.S. Inequity is a fact, not an opinion, supported by an empirical study from a Swiss university, ETH, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich.

The study used complex mathematical models to determine measurable networking among 43,060 transnational corporations. The principal finding was that 147 “core” companies at the center of the world’s financial universe control 40% of the world’s entire economic value of all corporations. Among the top 50 firms, 45 are from the financial services sector (banks). Barclays is the top ranked firm, exercising the most control. From the top 50 list, 24 are U.S., 8 U.K., 5 are French, and Japan has 4. The allegation of concentration is supported by data. Read the complex study for yourself. Below is the list of the top 50 firms taken from a table in the ETH report.

From their New Scientist article about the ETH study, authors Coghlan and MacKenzie summarize the complex networking study:

From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 transnational corporations and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company’s operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.

The work revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see the image below). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What’s more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world’s large blue chip and manufacturing firms – the “real” economy – representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies – all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity – that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group. [Lehman Bros was still around in 2007, hence they are in the top 50 list.]

The picture of the 1318 firm universe of connections.

It reminds us all that bullies erode profits and prevent balanced budgets because of their meddling. Their misconduct leads to avoidable:
- turnover of the wrong people (the skilled and threatening (to the bullies) ones),
- absenteeism for mental health days,
- presenteeism by the resentful,
- increased healthcare utilization,
- skyrocketing workers comp and disability insurance claims, and
- litigation expenses (defense and settlement costs).

Available as a button or magnet.

Illegitimi non carborundum, Latin for Don’t Let the Turkeys Get You Down (well, close enough)

If you a success, personal or organizational, to report, add your comment. WBI

This type of essay is common in the American business press. We typically ignore them. But in light of Freedom Week, we thought it useful to reply sarcastically in order to defend our constituents — bullied workers. No malice is intended, just an attempt to provide facts for the falsehoods and adjustment for those with arrested moral development.


Keep The Focus on Job Creation
Last thing business needs is a new litigation trigger.
William Barth, Beloit Daily News, Oct. 22
(Beloit is southern WI town of 39,000 right on the Illinois border.)

Add this to the list of litigation risks operators of Wisconsin businesses may have to worry about: Offending the tender sensibilities of their employees.

Tender sensibilities? Since when is the desire to work free from abuse an undeserved expectation? Are all battered spouses too tender and unjustifiably concerned that they are living in danger? Bet you think so.

Guess who is the tender one in the abusive workplace equation — the bully, the abuser. They whine when they are exposed, after thriving in the privacy provided by their executive sponsor. They bellyache that they must be given free reign to operate with impunity, regardless of their offense, because of “managerial prerogative.” Yes, the whiners assert their “rights” and cry if a person has the courage to call out their unconscionable conduct.

No, dear Bill, the tender ones are the bully and his apologists like you.

If, that is, a measure promoted by Rep. Kelda Roys, D-Madison, and Sen. Spencer Coggs, D-Milwaukee, is adopted. They announced the plan — dubbed by sponsors as the Healthy Workplace Bill — as part of something called “Freedom from Workplace Bullies Week,” which apparently is recognized Oct. 17-23.

A press release says the bill “combats the problem of bullying in the workplace by allowing workers who can demonstrate physical or psychological harm from an abusive work environment a limited right of action against their abusers.”

“Dubbed” and “something called” and “apparently is recognized” are cute ways to discount what you don’t know or understand. Let’s similarly scorn the hysterically self-named “chamber,” the business membership and lobbying group, that repeatedly demonstrates its hateful anti-worker agenda as anti-American! More like a chamber of horrors.

Roys, who is seeking to replace Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin representing Beloit and the 2nd Congressional District, says “bullying is too common a problem in Wisconsin workplaces” and “significantly impairs workforce productivity and health.”
According to a study cited in the release 37 percent of workers claim to have been bullied; 72 percent of the bullies are bosses; 62 percent of employers ignore the problem; and only 3 percent of bullying victims file lawsuits. Well, we can’t have that. What Wisconsin needs in these challenging economic times is more lawsuits targeting businesses. Not.

Exactly what do you, as editor-spokesperson for the town paper, profess to not be able to tolerate? Is it the statistic from the national scientific survey that reveals that 54 million American adults have directly experienced repeated mistreatment from one or more employees that takes the form of verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, humiliation or interference that prevents work from getting done. If you believe that such an epidemic level of aggression and psychological violence is something we (speaking for Beloit society) should not endure, we agree. If most perpetrators are bosses, that most of the violence is directed down the ladder at those less able to fight back because of rank, and that annoys you, then we agree.

While you are agreeing with us, we assume you also regret that so many employers chose to ignore the problem even though it undercuts the bottom line and any moral claim to being a decent, let alone a great, place to work. Or do you, in your pigheaded blustering style, believe that bosses should be unfettered to act as they wish. No bad boss ever entered your life. As editor, you are the one with the chance to be a bad boss and make people suffer. If they dare confront you or go over your head, you can hand them their head on a platter as they join the ranks of unemployed journalists. Makes you feel good, doesn’t it, the power? No sense in ever curbing that impulsive desire. Whatever happens at work stays at work, right?

Remember domestic violence? Remember how hyperaggressive people like you always defended the abuser because he never hurt you, another man? Remember how police never got involved because what happened in the family stayed in the home? Then, society (not necessarily the one you live in and pretend to speak for) was enlightened and took a stand against violence that was always in the perpetrators’ control. If you were ever an abuser, you might have stopped for fear of violating criminal law. The law worked. Bet you said that with the passage of domestic violence laws that jails would be unnecessarily crowded with upstanding men who simply had partnered with the wrong women. The reality is that women did not ask to be abused or who dared stand up to the abuse were brave and not prone to “tender sensibilities.” They were not wimps or deserving victims.

In your world, Dear Billy, guess when bad things happen to people at the hands of malicious, evil perpetrators of violence, they deserve it.

Obviously, this silly piece of legislative sludge has no chance of passing the Republican-controlled Assembly and Senate or being signed by Gov. Scott Walker. State government has been trying to make businesses feel more welcome here to spur job creation, rather than brandishing lawyers in the faces of investors and developers.

Silly Sludge? Now you’re getting snarky, but a good alliteration.

Speaking of sludge and scum, what a fine governor you stand behind. Businesses need to feel more welcome sound like tender sensibilities they have that must be coddled.

Job creation by investors and developers? Really? What are you smoking? Stop inhaling the vapors from Frank Luntz and his Republican obliteration of the English language and his truth-destroying campaign.

A fine newspaper editor you are! Too lazy to invent a synonym for “job creators.” And the ethics of investors and developers represent the finest examples of Beloit citizenry? Don’t you know any teachers? How about police or firefighters? How about people who work for a living? Is life at the Beloit Daily News editorial room so removed from work conditions that these real people tolerate daily?

Developers is itself a euphemism for those who finagle building permits from city hall in exchange for political patronage in order to bulldoze homes once owned by foreclosed and involuntarily unemployed working families so that a new commercial strip of shops can be built that will sit vacant since the “job creators” have no intention of risking the start of a business in Beloit. So, by all means, celebrate developers!

We will assume Rep. Roys and Sen. Coggs are bright people, and know their proposal has less chance than a snowball in July. That leaves us with the further assumption that this is a publicity stunt. It allows Roys and Coggs to wrap their arms around the hot topic of bullying, which has become something of a celebrity cause du jour.

Soups are du jour. Workplace bullying has existed since working for another person began. If you say the topic is “hot,” it obviously is one that you feel deserves to have cold water thrown on it. With a little research, you will discover the story of Wisconsin’s own Jodie Zobell. Google her. You’ve heard of the internet, haven’t you?

While you’re at it, google “workplace bullying” to discover that there are three decades of scientific research on the topic, including some of the latest advances in neuroscience.

Or as a Gov. Walker booster, do you doubt that MRI scans reveal anything other than opinions? Don’t let that yellow stripe down your back indicate your abhorrence of science. It’s not becoming of a WI newspaper editor. Well maybe in the era of Walker, opinionated right wingers are “in.”

Likewise, on the predictable response of Walker and his legislative supporters, it paves the way for Democrats to … well, paint the governor and his allies as pro-bullying.

Yes, it does. Let your principle stand and show who you and they are. You are either “for bullying” or “against it.” You’re a concrete thinker and should appreciate the clarity.

Which is, of course, ridiculous. Bullying is harmful, and it is prevalent particularly among school-age kids. Attention deservedly is focused on protecting the vulnerable — children — from such abuse.

In the workplace populated by adults, we don’t see the urgent need for a bill that, essentially, says: You-hurt-my-feelings-and-it-makes-me-feel-sick-so-I’m-going-to-sue-you.
Are there mean bosses? Sure. But they are fewer and farther between, for a very simple reason — it’s bad for business. Churning up the workforce is detrimental to productivity and profit.

Are you certain adults never need help when they cannot defend themselves in situations when in underpowered, one-down positions? Back to the abused spouse. She’s an adult, too. Callous jerks used to say that she had better defend herself and not rely on others or society. Finally, types like you were silenced and the more compassionate and sane Americans prevailed and won protection for those spouses.

Wow. Your ignorance rooted in concrete, simplistic, pollyanish thinking keeps pouring out. Do you really think ass-kissing bullies risk losing their jobs when they are exposed? Never. The bonds with their chief executive sponsor are inseparable. Bullies don’t lose jobs in tight times. They force out those who threaten them.

It would be as if you accidentally (and by your account mistakenly) hired an associate editor or reporter whose competence and professionalism and non-ideological approach to journalism threatened you. You would most likely drive her out. Sure she could sue for sexual harassment, but she would lose because the basis for your cruelty is that you were simply a bosshole (read R. Sutton’s Good Boss, Bad Boss and The No Asshole Rule to see yourself profiled) and you spread your disdain for others around the editorial table on more than one occasion. Being an equal opportunity abuser, defense counsel can protect you. However, it still means you are who you are.

Too bad you put such a prize on being a hardass, a tough guy, an unfeeling person lacking in human moral development. Does your mother know you grew up this way?

There’s an old saying that applies: Never work for a jerk.

And how would you identify one as a job applicant? No one, even you, tough independent guy that you think you are, has the nerve/courage/audacity/balls to inquire of your prospective boss if she or he is a jerk!

If a given workplace is just too difficult, quit and move on to a better employer. That may be tougher in a lousy economy, but it’s not impossible. Know your own value. Don’t sell yourself short.

Now you’re a motivational speaker! Just buck up! Regardless of having no jobs out there to replace the good paying one lost to a bullying environment, just walk. How about you walk first? People constructively discharged by bullies like you can never get hired by tough guys like you because they won’t have an acceptable explanation for their departure from the last employer. And jerks like you insist on calling the applicant’s supervisor (the bully in this case) to get the “truth” about their undeserved, disgraceful displacement.

You see how you win from whatever angle — bully boss, hiring bully boss?

You do know that Herman Cain is a similar motivational speaker and he believes that if you’re not rich and in the top 1% it’s your fault. Eh tu, Barth?

I wish you were on the street peddling your wares when the current bums in Madison are thrown out and your pro-Walker boosterism record is part of your job application. Remember to not sell yourself short then. B-E-L-I-E-V-E (say it with pom poms).

Under current law employers obviously cannot assault an employee or cause physical harm. Or create a hostile work environment. Or harass or discriminate or commit any number of other infractions. Though each situation is different and open to interpretation, reasonable civil protections for employees are valid and worthwhile. Employers are quite accountable.

Now, you’re a lawyer! Wrong again, Scruffy. Assault and physical harm are different. Best to use the internet to discover the narrowness of protections for people against a hostile work environment. Employers are NOT accountable regarding non-discriminatory cruelty that is far more prevalent. That’s why the survey showed that they ignore it!

The law is nuanced. A person with your superficiality shouldn’t wade into deep waters. What you don’t know could lead to a lawsuit against you. Check it out.

Introducing the vagaries of employees’ feelings into the equation is clearly problematic. One person’s abuse is another person’s tough and demanding boss. Turning lawyers loose on that dynamic is as anti-business as it gets.
We need jobs, for heaven’s sake, not a cheering section for more lawsuits.

We’re tempted to say that making work for lawyers is also job creation, but we hate that as much as you.

The reality is that the bill proposed by Roys and Coggs was on the books in 2010 and a hearing was held. You can look it up to see the details that provide no threat or risk to good employers. Good, here, is defined as the ones who have decided that bullying is costly and too expensive to maintain. Those good employers will have voluntarily devised ways to deal with health-harming abusive conduct (the actual language of the bill). With policies and enforcement procedures in place, those employers will be exempt from being named a defendant. No lawsuit. An escape from vicarious liability.

What we really don’t need in 2011 as we slide into double-dip recession created by the financial markets that has enabled employers to hoard cash instead of hiring workers, is another chamber mouthpiece passing himself off as a newspaper editor.

Bill, how could you have abandoned all the lessons learned from your work with the AP? Please have your family and beloved schnauzer Scruffy teach you love and compassion. Stop your chamber-induced addiction. Please re-join humanity and write like you understand your place in it.

###

William, Bill, Barth can be reached at the Beloit Daily News, 608-364-9221, bbarth@beloitdailynews.com

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.

Visit the gallery of proclamations.

California cities: Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, South Lake Tahoe, Culver City, Pittsburg, Antioch, Torrance, Burbank, Carson, Placerville, Palo Alto, and El Dorado County

Texas cities: El Paso, Corsicana, Longview, Killeen, Galveston, San Marcos, Sante Fe, San Antonio, Arlington, New Braunfels, Bedford, Bridgeport, Midland, Rockwall

Throughout Freedom Week, the Texas Healthy Workplace Advocates are hosting an informational table at the state capitol lobby in sight of all passing lawmakers.

Connecticut cities: New London, East Haven, Newtown, Milford, Torrington, Bethel,
Central Connecticut State University

An October 20 6:30-8:30 pm. presentation: “Is Connecticut Ready for Healthy Workplaces?: A Forum on Law, Psychology, and Society’s Response to Abusive Conduct in the Workplace.” Speakers include Tom Witt of New York Health Workplace Advocates, and Vicki J. Magley, Ph.D. Department of Psychology-University of Connecticut. Diloreto 001.

Ohio city: Steubenville

Virginia cities: Newport News, Portsmouth, Norfolk

West Virginia cities: Weirton, Morgantown

A lunchtime power point presentation “Workplace Bullying” by Staff Council member and West Virginia Healthy Workplace Bill State Coordinator Lana Cooke will be given for WVU Classified Staff from noon to 1 p.m. on the following dates: Oct. 17, 401 Marina Tower Conference Room; Oct., 19, Coliseum Jerry West Lounge; Oct. 20, 1 Waterfront Place Visitor’s Center/Theater 1st floor

Oct. 18: WVCUPA-HR Board at the fall WVCUPA-HR Conference, Stonewall Resort Conference Center

Take a moment to sign the Healthy Workplace Bill WV Online Petition

Washington county: Snohomish

Wisconsin city: LaCrosse

State Rep. Kelda Roys & State Sen. Spencer Coggs introduced the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill in the Wisconsin legislature on Oct. 17.

Massachusetts: the HWB Coordinators are introducing new ways to get involved, including our all-new Street Teams, where you can help spread the word at other organizations’ meetings, 5ks, parades, and more. Get all the details at the MA Healthy Workplace Bill website.

Oregon: Celebrate Freedom from Workplace Bullies Week by attending 2 days of workshops in Portland. Dr. Denise Haugen, WBI Affiliate, will be presenting! Find more information at the CNRG website.

Rep. Kelda Roys

Contact Rep. Roys, Wisconsin Assembly (608) 266-5340.

- personal shame by targets (who would brag about being humiliated?)
- coworkers frozen by bullies into not helping their bullied colleagues
- executives covering up for bullies they sponsor/support
- bullying is the American style of managing

Over time, fear paralyzes us all. Overcoming the inertia of inaction is difficult. We know.

But the most successful personal change plans are the ones triggered by events that suggest karma is working — a sign from above, a coincidental omen. That event becomes the excuse, the rationale, for doing something out of the ordinary.

WBI’s Freedom from Workplace Bullies Week is the reason to change how you are dealing with your bullying situation.

- City and County executives can formally recognize Freedom Week by proclamation. At the start of Freedom Week 2011, over 30 municipalities have issued such proclamations. Visit the gallery of proclamations.

- Bullied individuals and their families can take stock of the extent of the psychological injuries sustained from bullying. It sneaks up on everyone. High blood pressure goes undetected until the family physician asks what is stressful in your life. Use Freedom Week as the excuse to schedule an appointment to have your blood checked and to look for the onset of stress-related diseases. Ignoring your personal health is not a good idea. Bullying can kill. Please give your health as high a priority as keeping the salary to keep a roof over your head. If you die, no salary will have been worth it. Family members: please give your bullied partner or spouse the support she or he requires. They can build up credits that can be repaid when the bullying situation ends. Read the book The Bully At Work.

- Managers and executives need to calculate the financial losses attributable to preventable bullying. Bullies are actually too expensive to retain. However, the truth is that you are too loyal to bullies who have conned you over the years. When you acknowledge that “Bob” is a jerk, you are admitting the problem. But when you consider Bob indispensable, regardless of costs to the organization or his effect on others, you are condemning everyone to a living hell. Balance the needs of the business (profit making or budget balancing) with the narcissistic needs of Bob. Do the math. Talk to your Risk Manager. Bob is a liability. Stay friends if you must, but cut Bob loose for the sake of many. Honor your fiduciary responsibility to the organization. Bob will live on (elsewhere). Read the book The Bully-Free Workplace.

- Insurers and attorneys should warn your employer clients to prevent and correct costly bullying for their own self-interest and cost savings. Whether or not the employer has employment practices liability insurance (EPLI), bullying is costly. Premiums rise when liability increases. Bullies pose increasingly costly risks. Attorneys: you have been writing in recent years how your clients need to squelch bullying even though no specific laws exist. Continue this advice. Use Freedom Week to bolster that message. Visit The Work Doctor website to assure clients that something can be done about bullying.

- State lawmakers should enact legislation to curb bullying in the workplace. The Healthy Workplace Legislative Campaign has been around since 2003. It exists to help sympathetic lawmakers of all political parties to address health-harming abusive conduct at work (no need to call it workplace bullying). The Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB) has been introduced in 21 states. In 2011, the HWB is alive in 11 states, including Massachusetts and New York. During Freedom Week, Wisconsin state Rep. Kelda Roys and Sen. Spencer Coggs are introducing the HWB in both legislative chambers.

STEUBENVILLE – A Steubenville man is hoping to build grassroots support for an initiative that would curb workplace bullying.

John Smurda, state coordinator for the Ohio Healthy Workplace Bill, said the protections built into the proposed legislation are long overdue.

“We’re light years behind other countries,” he said. “Australia, the U.K. they’re way ahead.”

Workplace bullying is defined as “repeated, health-harming abusive conduct” by bosses, co-workers or both. It can take the form of verbal abuse, threatening conduct, intimidation and humiliation as well as deliberately stabling someone else’s job performance, all of which can lead to to stress-related health damage, emotional injuries and career harm.

According to the U.S. Workplace Bullying Institute, 35 percent of the American work force an estimated 53.3 million people have reported being bullied at work, while another 15 percent say they’ve witnessed a bullying incident. The institute says another 50 percent say they’ve never experienced or witnessed bullying.

Other sources put the percentage of bullied workers closer to 70 percent.

And while 21 states are considering bullying legislation West Virginia is on the list, Ohio and Pennsylvania are not none have adopted it. So far, Smurda said they haven’t found a lawmaker to sponsor the legislation in Ohio.

“They call it the ‘black plague’ of this century,” Smurda said. “It causes a lot of mental health issues a lot of suicides are attributed to bullying and a lot of unions are adopting preventive measures for workplace bullying. The big thing is employers, even though they have a policy in place for harassment, they don’t know quite how to deal with a person dealing with harassment. What we’re trying to promote is if you see bullying going on, speak up.”

Among other things, the proposed legislation would ensure employers understand what constitutes an abusive work environment as well as how they can correct it, and gives victims an avenue to sue their tormentors as an individual while holding employers accountable.

Smurda also said Freedom From Workplace Bullies Week, which is Sunday through Oct. 22, is a chance to get word out that victims don’t have to be silent, witnesses can speak up and employers can correct and prevent the problem.

“What bullying really is is psychological violence,” he said. “It’s health harming, and employers need to realize … how much the sick days and hospital cost.”

via Herald Star.

After Steve Jobs died last week, TNT aired the 1999 movie “Pirates of Silicon Valley.” While the made-for-TV drama highlights the late Apple co-founder’s many accomplishments, it also portrays him as a cruel, disparaging boss.

Various news media outlets have cast Jobs in a similar light. In July 2010, The Toronto Star ran a piece titled, “Jobs Is a Genius and a Jerk.” The year before, Broadway Books published “The Second Coming of Steve Jobs” in which author Alan Deutschman describes Jobs as “an abusive, egomaniacal boss fond of meting out public humiliations.”

There are also recent examples. An article on Gawker.com published after the tech guru’s death says Jobs bullied and manipulated employees. And Noah Wyle, who starred in “Pirates,” wrote a piece published last week on Forbes.com that tells of a meeting he had with Jobs and several Apple executives. “They all—I don’t want to say they live in fear of him—are certainly are subservient to his will and whim,” the actor wrote.

A spokesman for Apple declined to comment on Jobs and these accounts.

The accounts share a common theme: Even the most successful of entrepreneurs may be unable to avoid earning a reputation as a bad boss when such is the case.

Research suggests that bad bosses – the bullying kind, to be specific — are somewhat common. An estimated 53.5 million Americans – or 35% of the U.S. workforce — report being bullied at work, according to a 2010 study commissioned by the Workplace Bullying Institute, an employee-rights group in Bellingham, Wash., and conducted by polling firm Zogby International. The findings also show that 62% of bullies are men and 58% of targets are women.

The same Institute also reports that since 2003, 21 states have introduced healthy workplace bills aimed at curbing bullying. However, none has been passed into law.

via Bad Bosses Can’t Hide Behind Entrepreneurial Success – In Charge – WSJ.

This begs the question: do these kids grow up to be workplace bullies, or does the workplace make its own class of bullies? Tell us what you think in the comments section.

New York (CNN) — A new study commissioned by CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360°” found that the stereotype of the schoolyard bully preying on the weak doesn’t reflect reality in schools.

Instead, the research shows that many students are involved in “social combat” — a constant verbal, physical and cyber fight to the top of the school social hierarchy.

To read more visit: CNN study: Schoolyard bullies not just preying on the weak – CNN.com.

A Bettendorf businessman, branded as the “boss from hell” by some of his employees, offered prizes to workers who could predict which of them would next be fired.

A state judge has called that a “deplorable” act and sided with the company’s ex-employees.

William Ernst, 57, the owner of a Bettendorf-based chain of convenience stores called QC Mart, sent all of his employees a memo in March, outlining a contest in which the workers were encouraged to participate. The memo read:

“New Contest – Guess The Next Cashier Who Will Be Fired!!!

“To win our game, write on a piece of paper the name of the next cashier you believe will be fired. Write their name [the person who will be fired], today’s date, today’s time, and your name. Seal it in an envelope and give it to the manager to put in my envelope.

“Here’s how the game will work: We are doubling our secret-shopper efforts, and your store will be visited during the day and at night several times a week. Secret shoppers will be looking for cashiers wearing a hat, talking on a cell phone, not wearing a QC Mart shirt, having someone hanging around/behind the counter, and/or a personal car parked by the pumps after 7 p.m., among other things.

“If the name in your envelope has the right answer, you will win $10 CASH. Only one winner per firing unless there are multiple right answers with the exact same name, date, and time. Once we fire the person, we will open all the envelopes, award the prize, and start the contest again.

“And no fair picking Mike Miller from the Rockingham Road store. He was fired at around 11:30 a.m. today for wearing a hat and talking on his cell phone. Good luck!!!!!!!!!!”

QC Mart cashier Misty Shelsky of Davenport was shocked by the memo — although, she says, Ernst had a long history of unprofessional conduct with regard to lower-ranking workers.

“This guy was the boss from hell,” Shelsky told The Des Moines Register. “He treated pretty much all of us like dirt.”

Shelsky said she and her store manager, along with a few other employees, quit as soon as they saw the memo and realized it wasn’t a joke or a prank.

“It was very degrading,” she said. “We looked at that, then looked at each other, and said, ‘OK, we’re done.’ ”

When Shelsky applied for unemployment benefits, Ernst challenged the claim, saying she had resigned voluntarily. The dispute led to a recent hearing at which QC Mart Area Supervisor Anna DeFrieze testified that the contest was created by Ernst because his employees weren’t following company rules.

“None of them were doing their job,” she testified. “They’ve repeatedly been told not to use their phone while they’re working, that bad language is totally unacceptable and, you know, playing video games while you’re working is not acceptable. They just broke all those rules.”

Shelsky testified that she and her colleagues quit due to the hostile work environment created by the contest.

“My entire store was up in arms over it and that’s why we all left,” she testified.

State records show that at least two QC Mart employees sent letters to company managers objecting to the contest. One worker wrote that the contest was “bizarre and unprofessional.” Another worker wrote that it had “created an atmosphere of distrust, intimidation and paranoia.”

Administrative Law Judge Susan D. Ackerman sided with the workers, calling the contest “egregious and deplorable.” Shelsky was awarded unemployment benefits.

“The employer’s actions have clearly created a hostile work environment by suggesting its employees turn on each other for a minimal monetary prize,” Ackerman ruled. “This was an intolerable and detrimental work environment.”

Ernst could not be reached for comment. DeFrieze declined to comment on the case.

via Firing contest by boss leads employees to quit | The Des Moines Register.

Sticks and stones may break my bones…but words won’t break my spirit!

Research conducted by the U.S.-based Workplace Bullying Institute is interesting. According to WBI, “35 percent of U.S. workers report being bullied at work…15 percent have witnessed it…68 percent of bullying is same-gender harassment; 58 percent of targets are women; and 80 percent of the time, female bullies target other women…”

What is workplace bullying and why does it happen? Ray Williams calls bullying “North America’s silent epidemic,” and says “bullying involves the conscious repeated effort to wound and seriously harm another person—not with violence, but with words and actions.”

There are three components to the bullying triad: bullies, victims of bullying, and witnesses or bystanders.

Bullies

The vast majority of bullies are bosses—managers, supervisors, and executives.

Ray Williams suggests that bullies are Type A personalities: competitive and driven, and often lacking in emotional stability.

“Above all, bullies crave power and control” Williams says, and they “seem oblivious to the trail of damage they leave behind, as long as their appetites for power and control are fulfilled.”

My theory—I call it the been there, done that (BTDT) victim’s theory and it’s based on personal experience—is that bullies are insecure, unsure of their own abilities and threatened by a show of independence and confidence in the workers they bully. Unable to reveal their feelings of inferiority to same-level colleagues, and smart enough to not bully upward against their own bosses, bullies vent their insecurities upon their subordinates.

Bullies choose as targets those subordinates who display a confidence gained through experience on the job or through achievements in life outside the workplace, a confidence that threatens the insecure bullying superior.

Victims

The BTDT victim’s theory is supported by research at the Workplace Bullying Institute, which calls itself “the first and only U.S. organization dedicated to the eradication of workplace bullying.” According to WBI, “the targets of office bullies…are the highly competent, accomplished, experienced and popular employees…”

Gary Namie, director of the Workplace Bullying Institute, suggests a higher percentage of female bullies and targets is due to women’s “open jealousy and envy.” Women, Namie suggests, are “hypersensitive and hypercritical, focusing on tiny details. Those details are then used as a basis to “tear into each other.”

Independent workers pose the greatest threat to bullies. When targets refuse to be controlled and intimidated, the abusive behaviour escalates. When the typical victim of bullying has had enough, realizes that neither the bully’s superiors nor Human Resources will do anything to stop the abuse and quits the job, the workplace often loses the best, the brightest and the most experienced.

Bystanders (Witnesses)

Co-workers often know when one of their number is being bullied. Either they see or hear something, or a victim confides what is happening.

Why doesn’t somebody do something?

Ever notice an accident off to the side of the road as you are driving? Ever look over, curious to know what happened but glad it wasn’t you in that mess?

If emergency services are on the scene most drivers continue past the accident scene without stopping. Somebody else is looking after things.

If authorities are not on scene, and if it is safe for you to do so, you might stop to see if help has already been called and if there is some comfort you can give until professional helpers arrive to do their job. But if the situation poses a threat to your own safety, you are less likely to become directly involved.

Bystanders are often useful and compassionate at the scene of a workplace collision, too. They listen to the victim and blanket her with sympathy. But it is a rare worker who will put his or her own workplace well being in jeopardy by giving a detailed, objective, eyewitness account of bullying incidents to authorities. We live in perilous economic times. Many workers are afraid to draw a bully’s attention away from the usual targeted victim toward themselves.

This self-interest on the part of bystanders is understandable, but ultimately not helpful to a bully’s victim.

Albert Einstein said, “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”

Read more at Suite101: Workplace Bullying—The Triad: Bullies, Victims and Bystanders

A lawyer jokes that she “gets angry for a living.” In the midst of a particularly bad day at the office, a real estate agent vows to channel her anger into making that next sale.

Most of us would prefer a tenacious fighter on our side in a legal battle. And business owners probably wouldn’t mind a bit of passion in their sales force. But would we want that same “angry” lawyer or sales rep as a boss? Probably not. Yet plenty of people, particularly young men, view anger as an effective management tool.

“People care about their work so you’re going to have conflict and you’re going to have anger,” says Donald Gibson, a professor of management at Fairfield University.

Anger is positive about half the time, Gibson says. It can spur creativity and competitive zeal. Perhaps most importantly, it can expose unfair labor practices and flaws in products and procedures. At the same time, he warns, anger can undermine trust between coworkers or lead to overly cautious work practices.

“In many organizations there is an anger asymmetry,” Gibson says. “Supervisors can express anger, but workers can’t. Doctors can express anger, but nurses can’t. That’s a recipe for disaster.”

Anne Kreamer, author of “It’s Always Personal: Emotion in the New Workplace,” thinks the traditional view of anger as evidence of passion needs to change. “The culturally accepted notion that angry people are in control is false. Anger is a sign that someone has lost control,” Kreamer says. “Angry work environments don’t make people snap to and work well together. Persistently angry workplaces drive good people away.”

In my mid-20s I worked for a boss who was famous for his temper. He threw books across the room, and even chairs and staplers, when he got angry. If an employee gave him bad news, he was likely to explode — screaming and pounding his fist on her desk. At the time, his rage seemed like a humiliating secret his employees shared. But after leaving that job, I discovered many outside our office knew about the temper tantrums. My secret became my workplace war story and my ability to survive, a badge of honor.

The most effective way to avoid angry outbursts in the modern workplace, says Vicky Oliver, author of “Bad Bosses, Crazy Coworkers, and Other Office Idiots,” is to “up the etiquette quotient.”

“We work in a no-door, no-wall environment. We’re working longer hours than ever. We’re thrown together with people for eight, nine, 10 hours a day,” Oliver says. “So how do you respect people’s boundaries? How do you maintain a healthy emotional distance where there is no physical distance?”

Because conflicts are inevitable in the workplace, particularly in an economy where fewer employees are shouldering more work than ever, Oliver advocates the creation of buffer zones. Announce your presence when you approach someone else’s cubicle, and ask permission to enter. Such niceties can help create a more collegial, less angry atmosphere, especially if they are still observed during disagreements.

Another effective strategy to avoid office flare-ups is to create some emotional distance between you and your coworkers. Consider e-mail, an especially volatile source of workplace anger. If you receive a tersely worded e-mail and feel compelled to fire back a scathing reply, Oliver advises delaying your response as long as possible (without jeopardizing project deadlines, of course). Leave your desk, take a short walk, or go on an errand. If you simply cannot resist writing a biting e-mail retort, then write one, file it in your draft folder — and leave it there. Later, take a look at that angry draft and extract only the information that addresses the work issue, stripping out all the emotional language you possibly can.

“Reframe the conflict or issue as a problem to be solved,” Gibson says, “but that’s difficult when you’re in the throes of anger.”

n e-mail or in person, try to use the adrenaline rush that comes from angry exchanges as motivation to articulate your point of view in an assertive — never an aggressive — way. “If you lash out, no one will remember the source of the conflict, but everyone is going to remember your behavior,” Oliver says.

Keep in mind that people express work frustrations in a variety of ways — from tears, to cracking jokes you may feel are mean-spirited, to sudden expressions of rage. “When you think of the difference between effective and ineffective anger, a lot of it is in the intention,” Kreamer says. “Blaming and bullying anger are not effective.”

According to surveys conducted by the Workplace Bullying Institute (www.workplacebullying.org), one in six U.S. employees has been the target of bullying during his or her career. Bullying differs from other forms of workplace anger. “It’s repeated, it’s malicious, it’s intentional,” says Katherine Hermes of Connecticut Healthy Workplace Advocates. Often the target is isolated from other members of the team, does not receive information or resources needed to do their job, or is belittled in front of others.

Because bullies often target more than one person, you may find allies at work. But be careful, Oliver warns. Coworkers may see the opportunity to ally themselves with the bully by reporting what you’ve said against her. “It’s tempting to vent to your coworkers, but it’s always dangerous to play the gossip game. The gossip wheel tends to work against you,” Oliver says. “You have to remember that there are a variety of personalities in any given workplace, including opportunists.”

Instead, Oliver says, create a support network outside of work. If your workplace has an employee assistance program, consider taking advantage of its confidential services.

If these strategies fail, you’ll need to alert your HR department. Before you do, make sure you can demonstrate a documented pattern of abusive behavior. Emphasize how the bully’s behavior is affecting your productivity. Do not focus on how the behavior makes you feel uncomfortable or try to present an “It’s him or me!” scenario.

“HR may still look at you as a whistleblower, but sometimes the whistle has to be blown,” Oliver says. “The tide is turning on all bullying behavior. It’s easier to talk about it than it used to be.”

If all else fails, begin to work on an exit strategy, Kreamer says, because “chronic, caustic anger always has a price, and that price is almost always your well-being.”

The harming effects of workplace bullying can go further than mere embarrassment. A target may become psychologically injured after long-term abuse.

According to the Workplace Bullying Institute, "workplace bullying is repeated, health-harming mistreatment that takes one or more of the following forms: verbal abuse; offensive conduct/behaviors (including nonverbal) which are threatening, humiliating, or intimidating; and work interference (sabotage) which prevents work from getting done."

Workplace bullying has devastating effects on the targeted individual. Not only does one feel that their job is in jeopardy, they may also start to feel physically ill and emotionally harmed.

Bullying poses great liabilities to employers, including:

• Occupational health and safety violations;
• Actions for negligence or intentional infliction of mental suffering; or
• Defamatory actions.

Another concern that arises from workplace bullying is stress-related illness. These illnesses can range over many categories. It is not uncommon for people under extreme stress to develop symptoms of heart disease (i.e. high blood pressure), gastrointestinal disorders (i.e. irritable bowel syndrome, ulcers) and many other ailments. The stress that results from bullying can lead to long-term illnesses; some ailments by affect an individual for life.

Bullying and Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

As a result of the negative feelings associated with workplace bullying, targets are at a very high risk of developing mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety disorder. Their way of living is attacked for no apparent reason and often, the attacker is intent on harming the target for no apparent reason. Targets may endure abuse day in and day out for months or even years. This abuse harms their overall health. While depression and anxiety can be debilitating, targets may experience symptoms that are different. Yet finding a fitting diagnosis causes a bit of a controversy among some professionals.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) describes symptoms that result when a person is involved in a short-term or single traumatic event. Examples include accidents, natural disasters, assault, attempted murder and rape because these are considered to be of short duration. However, the trauma related to workplace bullying is not an isolated, short-term event.

Long term or chronic events that span a period of months or years tend to develop symptoms that vary from PTSD. There is usually more intense psychological harm when one experiences repeated trauma. There may be complete changes to one's concept of who they are and in their ability to cope with stressful situations.

During long-term traumas, people are held in physical and/or emotional captivity. They are under the influence of their abuser and unable to get out of the situation they are in. Examples include:

• Prisoner of War camps
• Long-term domestic violence
• Repeated, severe physical abuse
• Childhood sexual abuse

Some psychologists believe that a different term, Complex PTSD (C-PTSD), should be used to identify trauma that is repeated or long-term. Bullying targets may show symptoms that are similar to PTSD and/or C-PTSD. For this reason, researchers of workplace bullying believe that bullying should be considered an example of captivity.

C-PTSD is not a recognized diagnosis in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. It should be noted, however, that the main difference between the two types of PTSD is the cause of the disorder in the patient. Symptoms of the two types are much the same. For this reason, therapists may diagnose bullying targets with PTSD, allowing patients receive treatment.

The Symptoms of Complex PTSD

Above all, to be considered for a diagnosis of C-PTSD, the target must experience an extended period under the control of another person. After this has been established, other symptoms must be taken into account.

According to Julia M. Whealin, Ph.D. and Laurie Slone, Ph.D., in the May 22, 2007 version of the US Department of Veterans Affairs site, Complex PTSD, there are symptoms that would occur if someone has been chronically victimized, including:

• Persistent sadness, explosive anger; inhibited anger; suicidal thoughts;
• Forgetting traumatic events or reliving them. Feeling detached from one's mind or body;
• Feelings of helplessness, shame, guilt and stigma. One may feel that they are different than other people;
• Attributing total power to the abuser. Preoccupation with the perpetrator, possibly becoming obsessed with revenge;
• Social isolation, distrust in others or repeatedly searching for a rescuer; and
• A loss of faith or a sense of hopelessness and despair.

Other difficulties that may be experienced by people with C-PTSD include:

• Avoiding topics related to the trauma due to feelings that are too overwhelming;
• Abusing alcohol/other substances to avoid and/or numb feelings/thoughts associated with trauma;
• Self-mutilating and/or other types of self-injurious behaviors.

Workplace bullying is a serious issue due to the harmful health issues it causes. People have committed suicide and/or harmed others while in the throes of PTSD episodes. One should consult their doctor and/or a mental health professional if experiencing symptoms, especially feelings that cause one to be a danger to self or others.

Originally posted at Suite101

Four months after a grand jury report said workplace bullying was a problem within county government, a recent survey of about 500 employees said much the same.

Sixty percent of the county employees surveyed said they had been bullied at work, while 69 percent said they had witnessed bullying. Forty-four percent said they were yelled at while working and 43 percent said they were retaliated against for speaking up.

“I have been a victim of a long-term bullying and I’m here on behalf of those who are afraid to step forward,” said Gary Lowery, a biomedical equipment technician with the Ventura County Health Care Agency who spoke Tuesday before the Ventura County Board of Supervisors.

Lowery was one of about 30 members of the SEIU Local 721 union who presented the report card on bullying to the supervisors, asking that they take action to stop what some described as a pervasive problem. They wore purple union shirts and held up signs reading, “It’s not OK” and “Bullies are expensive.”

“The system does not work right now,” Perry Morefield told the board as he gave a list of things that should be changed to combat bullying. “It will make the county a more acceptable and more effective place to work.”

Much as the grand jury recommended, the SEIU — which represents about 4,200 of the county’s 8,000 employees — wanted the board to come up with a concrete policy on how to deal with bullying. Morefield also demanded mandatory training for managers, third-party oversight of grievances, a centralized human resources department and meetings between the union and department heads.

Ventura County CEO Michael Powers said the county was going create a policy addressing the problem over the next 12 months, as well as start a new hotline to report misconduct. The county also will try to educate people on what resources are available for those who feel they are being bullied.

“We share your belief that you deserve an open and positive workplace,” Powers said, adding that with 8,000 employees, problems are bound to happen. “I don’t think this is a pervasive problem, but one instance is too many.”

Emmett Faulconer, a supervisor in the biomedical department at Ventura County Medical Center, said he’s hopeful, but after 20 years with the county, he is dubious. The union will continue to put pressure on the board for change and to make managers more accountable for bullying, he said.

Faulconer said when he had a problem with a manager who was doing offensive things, he complained a number of times and nothing was done. It was only after he and other employees went to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which told them they had a right to sue, that any action was taken, he said. Faulconer said that manager still works for the county.

Morefield said when he complained that his supervisors were doing things in violation of health privacy laws, he was told he was going to be transferred to a different department. He said he had 15 minutes to move nine years of files and work.

He argued that the human resources managers are part of the “old boys and old girls network,” who just protect the other managers.

After the seven SEIU employees spoke before the board, many of the representatives who were in the audience marched around the normally staid government center, waving signs and chanting: “What do we want? Respect! When do we want it? Now!”

via Bullying a problem within county government, union says » Ventura County Star.

This summer USA Today columnist, Anita Bruzzese, reported a false claim that a new survey found “up to 70 percent of working adults say they’ve been bullied at some point in their working lives,” citing Civility Partners LLC as the source. The same 70% prevalence rate was repeated by a Fort Worth, Texas TV station on Sept. 26. Repeating a mistake does not make it right.

Here are the facts behind the exaggerated prevalence rate.

When one visits the Civility Partners website, the reader gets several stats about prevalence. The three mentions of a 70% or greater rate are:

- 75% in a 1997 journal article by Norwegian researcher Stale Einarsen (whose study used a single almost all-male industrial org in which 7% met the definition of being bullied, not 75%!) This statistic is a misquote.

- 71% of people reported experiencing workplace “incivility” (which no authority accepts as equivalent in severity as, or level of harm produced by, bullying) from a very narrow sample of employees working within a single federal court system (which does not approximate a nationally representative sample of workers)

- 74.1% of respondents from the Corporate Leavers Survey that the Civility Partners website author described as asking “what forms of unfairness were experienced at a former employer, 74.1% of respondents named bullying…” This must be the figure Civility Partners gave the USA Today reporter that has been spread around without correction.

Here is the requisite fact checking that neither the media nor Civility Partners conducted.

The highly credible Level Playing Field Institute founded in 2001 is a nonprofit that promotes innovative approaches to fairness in higher education and workplaces. With support from Korn Ferry International, in 2007, LPFI conducted its Corporate Leavers Study: The Cost of Employee Turnover Due Solely to Unfairness in the Workplace. LPFI commissioned Knowledge Networks to poll a representative 19,000 person sample of the U.S. population. If the work had ended at that stage, the survey would have been a “scientific” one the results from which could be extrapolated to the entire U.S.

Instead, LPFI was interested only in a narrow subset of the population — professionals and managers (salaried, non-entry level adults aged 18-64) who had voluntarily quit work or who had volunteered for layoff within five years of the survey. They were “Leavers.” This was a special, non-representative group. 1,700 people were left from the original screening to complete the survey.

Because LPFI is concerned with fairness, they considered the following acts evidence of unfair treatment: being publicly humiliated, being passed over for a promotion, being compared to a terrorist, being asked to attend more recruiting or community-related events, being bullied (no clarifying definition found in the research report), having your identity mistaken, and receiving unwelcome questions about skin, hair or ethnic attire.

The only respondents asked to complete the survey were those who said that they left their jobs ONLY DUE to unfairness. That very limited sample of people were asked three related questions — which forms of unfairness led to leaving, which forms led to strongly discouraging others from seeking work with that former employer, and which forms led to discouraging others from purchasing the previous employer’s products or services.

For the managers and professionals completing the main survey, 13.5% said they experienced bullying at their former employer. It was the third least frequent factor given for leaving. [Compare this statistic with the WBI 2007 prevalence statistic of 12.6% of all American adults who said they were currently being bullied with an additional 24% saying they had been bullied before.]

On page 7 of the LPFI Corporate Leavers Survey report, a graph shows that 74.1% of those who reported being bullied told others to not go to work at that former employer’s workplace. The report described these particular responses as “recruitment related reputation costs” to employers. Nearly three-fourths of those who were bullied became impediments to corporate recruiting by the former employer. Read the previous sentence carefully. It is not the same as saying that 74% of the 1,700 survey respondents said they were bullied at work. Nor should one compound the error by suggesting that a nationally representative survey indicates that 74% of the workforce reports being bullied.

Finally, of those who reported being bullied and ONLY left their former employer because of perceived unfairness, 48.7% urged others to boycott that employer’s products or services.

I hope this clarifies the results of the Corporate Leavers Survey as misinterpreted by Civility Partners and embellished by the media for sensationalism.

Workplace Bullying is a major social problem of epidemic proportions. The only two national surveys that represent its prevalence among all American adults (employed and not employed (that would include those who “left” jobs) beyond just managers and salaried workers) were the ones produced by the Workplace Bullying Institute and conducted by Zogby International in both 2007 and 2010.

Read the actual Corporate Leavers Report for yourself.

Connie Hedegaard, EU Climate Change Commissioner

My shock is echoed by Connie Hedegaard, the European Union commissioner for climate change. She said, “When more than 90 percent of researchers in the field are saying that we have to take [climate change] seriously, it is incredibly irresponsible to ignore it. It’s hard for a European to understand how it has become so fashionable to be anti-science in the US.”

In November, in Durban, South Africa, 27 EU member states and other western countries will continue their efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and may manage to lay the groundwork for a globally binding agreement despite resistance from China and the U.S.

Read her interview in the Copenhagen Post

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.

First, there was the July Norwegian terrorist attacks by Anders Behring Breivik on government buildings and at the political summer camp for youths his right-wing heart despised. Another crazed person with too many weapons I thought dismissively. Seen it too many times at home. De-sensitized to shock from it. More going postal.

But the reaction of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and the other national leaders made it clear that this tragedy was not a typical American murder spree. There was shock as Norwegians lost some innocence that day. The shooter was one of their own, he had guns (which few Norwegians have or need), and he was intolerant of the Labour Party in power. The emphasis was on mourning and less on the shooter.

Norway is a nation built on tolerance. It has bullying laws. It is the home of the world’s most prolific academic group researching workplace bullying. It is a nation at peace with the world and with itself. Norway couldn’t be more different than the U.S. for all those reasons.

Most stunning to this cynical American was that the Prime Minister insisted that civil rights and existing laws and traditions would not be abandoned even in light of the unprecedented threat to Norwegian democracy. Leaders explicitly stated that democracy for the nation was more important than draconian denial of citizen rights. The response was 180 degrees different than the American response to the Sept. 11 attacks. We allowed the government to take away habeus corpus, freedom from surveillance without a warrant, denial of access to courts if declared a “terrorist” by the loosest of definitions, arrest dissenters, and to use our military against our own citizens. I couldn’t have been prouder of the Norwegians and so ashamed for what we have allowed to happen to us.

The second eye-opening Euro experience was watching the farce orchestrated by the few zealots in Congress to deny the automatic raising of the U.S. debt limit to protect international creditors. We watched BBC and CNN International TV coverage. Both networks took a decidedly different approach than American TV commentators to which we were accustomed. From the outside, the networks had no trouble denouncing the tiny group of Tea Party elected officials as “extreme,” “unsophisticated,” and “naive about the international implications of their short-sighted stance.” Even CNN Int’l, with a different set of reporters than the CNN staff we see in the U.S., were critical. Reading American press reports at the time fixed responsibility jointly on the President and Congress. Those looking from the outside in were not flummoxed by illogic of Tea Party calculations. They called it for what it was — a dangerous game of chicken played by political amateurs.

To us, it is clear the American media have lost their reportorial purpose and direction. Only by seeing other reporters willing to ask the hard questions and call a spade a spade can the public ever approach something nearer the truth. Until they do, the fog of commercial TV news will continue to distort and become ever more tolerant of right-wing extremism as if the political left has a counterbalancing extremism of its own. There is no liberal mainstream media, but with CNN’s alliance with the Tea Party by hosting its own “debate” recently, anyone with their eyes open can see the reality.

Dignity, Deservedness & ‘Lucky’ Jobs

Dignity at work is a human right, not a privilege that has to be earned. In these tough economic times, it is important to not let others tell you that it is an unnecessary luxury.

Download Podcast 20 (in .mp3 format)

Everyone has experienced a bad day at the office when people are yelling and screaming at each other in frustration. But, if one person is the target of constant verbal and emotional abuse, it can escalate into a troubling case of ‘workplace bullying.’

Many small business owners refuse to acknowledge workplace bullying, preferring to hope the antagonist will eventually stop picking on a targeted co-worker. But, if you do nothing, the situation usually worsens, creating serious health and emotional problems for the bullied worker—and financial stress for employers, according to experts in the field.

If business owners don’t deal with bullying at work, it could result in a violent act. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, about two million violent crimes occur at American workplaces every year.

“There’s a real bottom line reason for business owners to take this problem seriously,” said David Yamada, professor of law and director of the New Workplace Institute at Suffolk University Law School in Boston. “If you are working in close quarters and things are tense and combative, it’s likely to affect everyone’s morale.”

An expert on workplace issues, Yamada authored the ‘Healthy Workplace’ bill, which has been introduced by legislators in 21 states. Currently, 16 versions of the bill—which aims to protect bullied workers from abusers, extending legal protections currently not available to them—are under review in 11 states. Most people think federal employment and discrimination laws protect workers from bullying, but they don’t, according to Yamada.

Being bullied at work makes life miserable. Experts say bullied workers suffer from anxiety, hypertension, depression and other stress-related illnesses. A 2010 Zogby study revealed that about 35 percent of all adult Americans have been bullied and 15 percent of the population has witnessed workplace bullying. The survey was authored by Dr. Gary Namie, Ph.D., and his wife Ruth.

Considered experts on workplace bullying, they have written extensively on the topic and consult with companies dealing with bullying issues. Their newest book, The Bully-free Workplace: Stop Jerks, Weasels and Snakes from Killing Your Organization, provides readers with an in-depth look at the problem and several strategies for dealing with workplace bullying.

“Bullying runs rampant in small businesses,” said Namie. “The owner wants to avoid conflict and doesn’t know what to do. They prefer to tell the abuser and the target, ‘you guys work this out.’”

Namie said he became interested in workplace bullying issues after his wife, Ruth, who is a psychologist, was bullied at work. “Our research shows 66 percent of women who are bullied at work lose their jobs,” said Gary Namie. “Forty-one percent quit, and 25 percent are fired.”

People bullied at work feel trapped—similar to someone suffering from domestic violence. It’s often worse for a bullied worker who feels he or she has to take the abuse because they really need the job, especially during this lingering economic slump.

How do you know if you have a bully in your midst?

“Bullying is a hostile, repeated behavior meant to make people feel badly,” said Carolyn Fedigan, a Boston-area human resources consultant who helps clients deal with bullying problems.

“I’ve dealt with a CEO who would regularly say to his secretary, ‘What, are you stupid?’”

Fedigan said some bullies take a more subtle approach. “They leave people out of communication loops, they spread gossip or single people out for the silent treatment,” she said.

No matter how distasteful it is, business owners can’t turn their backs on the problem. “There is a real financial cost to companies that let this toxic behavior continue, “ said Fedigan. “Bullied people take sick leaves, go out on disability and lose productivity.”

She said many business owners tolerate a bully if the person is a great salesperson or clients love them. “Sometimes the boss is scared of the bully,” she said. “They worry about the cost of turnover, of recruiting and training a new person.”

Business owners have to put their foot down and say, ‘We don’t accept this kind of behavior.” She said it’s important to have a written policy prohibiting workplace bullying. It’s also important to encourage your employees to report any inappropriate or bad behavior. “You have to have the kind of environment where employees can tell the boss what’s happening to them.”

Companies often hire Fedigan to counsel bullies. She works one on one with them, delving into why they are acting inappropriately towards a colleague. “Often, they have no idea they are a bully,” she said. “They think it’s an okay way to behave.”

Consider drafting an anti-bullying policy for your business that defines the problem and then:

Provides a procedure to report incidents.
Includes a ‘no retaliation’ provision.
Encourages employees to report incidents.
Informs employees that violations may result in discipline.

The false claim is that the Post Office is broke. (And Social Security and Medicare did not cause the recession/depression; investment banker gamblers did.) Turns out that Geo. Bush in 2006 torpedoed the USPS with legislation requiring an unprecedented prepayment of anticipated pension funds to cover 75 years of operation!

Issa’s move is both union-busting and privatization of a cherished American tradition. Here’s the real story behind the headlines pronouncing (almost celebrating) the death of the USPS.

More news to come about this important story.

Our Instant Polls are meant to be a way to raise awareness of workplace bullying and the issues that accompany it. While they do provide insight into the experiences of those who are targeted for bullying and provide an outlet for those of us working to put an end to workplace bullying (this definitely includes the contributors to this website!), the Instant Polls shouldn’t be seen as all-inclusive or complete. If a particular Poll doesn’t exactly match your experience, don’t worry: in the fourteen years we’ve been advocating for an end to workplace bullying, we’ve seen just about every variation on how bullying plays out. And, as many site visitors have discovered, you can share your experience by commenting on our blog. If you’ve got a story you need to share, we want to hear it!

When push comes to shove, workplace bullies are costing the company money. And that’s a good focus when dealing with them.

As a species, it seems we’re doomed to interact with jerks.

It happens in high school, and we think, “Once I get to college, things will be different.”

Then it happens in college, and we think, “Once I get a job, people there will be more mature.”

Not so much. Jerks abound, and, as fate would have it, the workplace is as much a breeding ground for bullies as the playground.

While much has been done in recent years to address bullies in the schoolyard, the issue of bullying at work remains largely under the radar. In fact, because of a work culture that often rewards aggressiveness, bullies have a nasty tendency of succeeding at work.

“This is one of the great undiscussables in the American workplace because it seems if you haven’t experienced it, you’re likely to believe it doesn’t happen,” said Gary Namie, a social psychologist and co-founder of the Workplace Bullying Institute. “What we’re seeing is a lot of abusive conduct, but it’s accepted as routine in the American workplace.”

Last year, Namie commissioned the polling group Zogby International to survey U.S. workers. The research found that 35 percent of the country’s workforce has experienced bullying on the job, and another 15 percent has seen it happen.

The remaining 50 percent of respondents had neither seen nor experienced bullying, a statistic that Namie said makes it hard for some to relate to the problem. He calls it a “silent epidemic.”

“So often in the workplace the feeling is, ‘Hey, you’re an adult, handle it yourself,’” Namie said. “They sometimes even blame the victim. But you know what? We said that for domestic violence for a long, long time until they criminalized it. So people need to stop the silly rationalizations.”

To be clear, “workplace bullying” doesn’t apply to acts of violence.

“What separates bullying from workplace violence or harassment is the fact that the bullying is something that’s done on a continuous basis,” said Timothy Dimoff, founder of SACS Consulting & Investigative Services, an Ohio-based company that specializes in high-risk workplace and human resource issues. “It’s constant and repetitive; someone who’s using different means of harassment, whether it’s complaining about the person, spreading rumors, blaming them, encouraging others not to talk to the person. It’s more psychological and emotional abuse.”

Think about your workplace, and there’s a good chance you’ve seen this or dealt with it. In the most severe cases, a manager tries to sabotage an employee by taking credit for work or writing a negative performance review. More routinely, a co-worker or manager picks away at an employee, making cracks about them in front of other people, demeaning them even in subtle ways.

This behavior may seem routine in a world of snarkiness, but when it happens day in and day out, and when the targeted person feels unable to fix the situation, it can lead to serious physical and mental health problems. Consider how difficult it might be, particularly in this job market, for a victim to protest the way a manager is treating them.

“Many people nowadays feel really locked in,” Namie said. “Like there’s no escape route, and that just makes the situation worse.”

The fact is, some folks will find themselves in situations where the only way out is to quit. That’s obviously a worst-case scenario, but if a bully is making your life so miserable it’s affecting you physically and mentally, you’ve got to cut ties and take care of yourself.

Before that, however, there are steps you can take to try to put the bully in his or her place.

“They need to take it to their human resources person or their immediate supervisor,” Dimoff said. “If they don’t get any results, then they need to go to somebody higher. In the meantime, they need to document when these things happen, where they happen and what was said and done. If they don’t write it down, it’s hard to remember details, and things get distorted. When management sees an employee come in with this in writing, they react much more quickly and thoroughly to it.”

Namie suggests that the target look for ways to quantify the harm a bully is causing a company. How many people has the person driven away? How much work time is eaten up contending with problems relating to the bully?

“You want to be able to tell the executives that the bully is too expensive to keep; actually present the business argument that the bully is too expensive,” Namie said. “What can discredit the person who is the target is emotionality. The emotionality is scary to management. So you make a dispassionate argument.”

Of course, management is, or should be, responsible for creating an environment that repels bullies.

“The company needs to have policies and procedures against bullying and workplace violence, and they need to let those procedures be very well known to their management and employees,” Dimoff said. “Companies need to work on creating a more positive culture. In positive cultures, we don’t see the bullying. People work together and don’t resort to negative tools.”

Namie’s Workplace Bullying Institute is pushing a Healthy Workplace Bill, which is being considered in 11 states, that would crack down on office bullies and clearly define what it means to have an “abusive work environment.” You can learn more about the bill at healthyworkplacebIll.org.

A final point: If you think a bullying co-worker is trying to make you a target, be proactive.

Bullies, at the end of the day, are cowards. They feed off people who put up with their abuse. So the moment someone begins to pick at you, stand up to them. Let them know you won’t tolerate improper treatment.

The alternative is to let it go, and that’s almost guaranteed to not end well.

From the Chicago Tribune

A break from work promotes a healthy balance in life. How did you use your vacation time?

I spent my vacation emotionally exhausted ~ 34.3%

I spent it by strategizing a way out of my bullying situation ~ 29.7%

I’m afraid to take my vacation time ~ 17.1%

I spent it relaxing and now feel refreshed ~ 12.8 %

I was denied any vacation time ~ 6.1%

Workplace bullying bleeds over into every aspect of a Target’s life, putting pressure on their family and friends and stoping many from enjoying their time off. With an estimated 53.5 million Americas affected by workplace bullying, when will we wake up and fix the problem? Work Shouldn’t Hurt!

Be sure to stop by WBI to participate in the newest survey: What type of bully are you dealing with?

Over the years people have been asking for a better variety of anti-bullying decals, buttons, etc. We’re doing our best to add more options for you. New to the BullyBusters Store: Bumper-Stickers!

Now you can spread the word about workplace bullying everywhere you go! There are seven designs to choose from. Visit the BullyBusters Store for full details.

The Drs. Namie began the first and only U.S. research, education, advocacy and consulting organization — the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI, workplacebullying.org) now in Bellingham, Washington. Their current books areThe Bullying-Free Workplace (2011, Wiley) for employers and The Bully At Work (2009, Sourcebooks) for bullied individuals. WBI regularly conducts research, including the scientific 2010 & 2007 U.S. Workplace Bullying Surveys and online large sample studies. As the go-to experts, WBI has been featured on U.S. and Canadian network and local TV, national and local newspapers, business magazines and radio, with nearly 1,000 interviews.

Two important additional types of work the Namies undertake are (1) to direct the national campaign to enact the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill in states (healthyworkplacebill.org), and (2) The Work Doctor® (workdoctor.com) the Namies’ firm that originated the field of workplace bullying consulting for employers in 1998. Gary was the expert witness in the nation’s first ”bullying trial” in Indiana with the verdict upheld by the state Supreme Court.

Prior to their 24/7/365 immersion in workplace bullying, Gary’s university teaching in psychology and management spanned 20 years. Ruth had counseled substance abusers. Both were corporate directors of organizational development and training – he in healthcare, she in the hotel industry.

The Namies’ professional preparation, consulting experience, and unwavering focus on workplace bullying give them an unrivaled, comprehensive perspective of the phenomenon that they introduced to the U.S.

* * *

How do you define “workplace bullying”? What isn’t it?

It is a pattern of repeated personalized attacks by one or more people against a targeted (our preferred term for the victimized) employee. It’s always repeated, chronic. The resultant health harm derives from the repeated exposure stressful work conditions completely out of the target’s control.

Bullying takes the form of verbal abuse, behaviors (physical and nonverbal gestures, space invasions & paralinguistic cues (interruptions, loud hostile volume, speech rate)) that are threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, and work interference or sabotage that prevents work from actually getting done.

We often refer to it as a systematic campaign of interpersonal destruction launched by bullies against targets who neither invited nor deserved the assaults.

We speak of abusive conduct at work as bullying. Contrast it with the less intense and less harmful negative actions — incivility and disrespect. These euphemisms are favorites of American employers who want to act like they are addressing bullying. Bullying is not rudeness or simply inappropriateness.

We frame bullying as a form of violence, albeit non-physical and sub-lethal (NIOSH agrees with this characterization).

The most important distinction to draw is with conflict. Conflict is a clash of intellectual differences between two equal-powered parties that can be resolved using time-tested strategies. Mediation is the preferred tool. But research and our experience find that mediation applied to serious bullying only compromises the previously compromised target. They begin the process as relatively powerless (the vast majority (72%) of incidents are perpetrated by bosses who outrank their targets). The so-called “middle ground” can never benefit, or ensure safety for, the target. To ask a bullied target to further yield to the bully is unconscionable.

The closest phenomenon analogous to workplace bullying is domestic violence. The interplay between abuser and abused victim mirrors the bully-target interaction. Bouts of explosive violence are followed by pseudo-nurturant interludes before a resumption of the violence. Witnesses do not interfere out of fear. Society (akin to the employing organization) remained aloof until pressure mounted to outlaw the practice. Prior to its proscription, apologists rationalized doing nothing because they felt it “inappropriate” to get involved in private family matters.

A final reason to compare bullying to domestic violence is that mediation is an inappropriate tool to stop it. There is no acceptable middle ground in abusive relationships — not in domestic violence and not in workplace bullying.

When and why did you two begin to work together?

That was in 1985. We started The Work Doctor consulting firm while Gary was teaching overseas for the University of Southern California. His graduate management students were military officers who sought guidance on real world organizational problems. So, we started the family-run consulting company, aptly named by Ruth. She and he worked together from the beginning. From its inception until 1998 Work Doctor provided a wide variety of consulting solutions, including lots of fun topics (e.g., strategy sessions at California beach towns with CEOs). However, when bullying so intensely interrupted normal life for us, we knew at the start what employers needed to do to correct and prevent workplace bullying. Work Doctor has focused exclusively on bullying in organizations since then. Services include professional speeches (done by Gary and son Sean who just joined the company), training on-site for caring employers, and, of course, the systemic solution we devised to stop bullying — Blueprint. Of course, market awareness has lagged in the U.S.

We married in 1983. Ruth’s separate career began after her graduate training in clinical psychology was completed in 1992. She was bullied in 1995. The situation resolved in 1996 and by mid-1997, we decided that to import workplace bullying from Britain was our destiny. So we started what became WBI.

By then had either or both of you already become especially interested in the problems that bullies create in the workplace?

We began collecting, at the Work Doctor website, tales of workplace mistreatment — the dark side of the world of work — thanks to inspiration from our friend Daniel Levine, host of the website and author of the book with the same title — Disgruntled! But it had not yet personally invaded our family in the early 1990′s. We understood the phenomenon only slightly and from the safe distance enjoyed by consultants. We had empathy for targets, but not intimate knowledge of its impact. We probably also confused serious abusive bullying with unethical or uncivil conduct (we were naive way back then).

Please explain when and why the Workplace Bullying Institute was founded.

Ruth’s pre- and post-doctoral career was spent in clinics treating individuals with chemical dependency problems. She was an effective clinician. She moved seamlessly across locations within a large HMO and enjoyed respect from her supervisors. In 1995, she voluntarily transferred to a clinic that allowed her to treat families and end the substance abuse specialty. Oops. She suddenly met the boss from hell, a woman clinical psychologist named Sheila. The demise of her happy career followed the predictable stages we have come to document over the years.

Like all targeted individuals and their caring partners, we did not know what to call the irrational thunderbolt that struck Ruth without invitation or deservedness. Ruth called it harassment as per HR instructions. However, we learned the legal lesson that most bullied targets learn — when the harassment is same gender or same race, it is legal and considered unactionable by HR folks who lack policies with teeth when no law exists to compel action. We hired and fired a lawyer and learned the first of many legal lessons.

After an 18-month recovery period, we surfaced emotionally and searched for the name for Ruth’s wretched experience. We found that the Brits called it workplace bullying; the Scandinavians called it mobbing. We assumed that given America’s size there must be a movement led by an organization we could support and help. In June 1997, there was none. So, we decided at that point, while living in the San Francisco suburb of Benicia, to start the Campaign Against Workplace Bullying.

The modest beginning was represented as a part of The Work Doctor website. We began writing about every aspect of bullying that we could find. We relied heavily on the European and Canadian research that had a decade head start on Americans.

The Campaign got its own website on Jan. 3, 1998 (bullybusters.org). It had grown to be rather encyclopedic. After all Gary was an academic (still teaching in No. California to pay the rent) and determined to teach. Ruth saw the need to reach out to people harmed like she had been. We established a toll-free crisis line for those seeking validation and advice. We answered the number day and night weekdays and weekends. It consumed us, both emotionally and financially. However, before we abandoned the goal of giving advice at our expense, Ruth and Gary had heard over 6.000 stories, most told in one-hour blocks.

Later, we would become known for our empirical quantitative research, but those first eight years when we lived on the phone with others we gleaned rich anecdotal information that no survey could yield. We had heard every conceivable variation of bullying that exists.

Oprah called and we worked for seven weeks to develop a November (1998) show for her. We were abruptly cut out of the show itself when Gary had the audacity to recognize the stupid idea a show producer had — to “rehabilitate a bully on stage” — and to call it just that. It’s still a stupid idea that TV shows still try to plug. Telling Dr. Phil “no” was easier after insulting the Oprah people back in the beginning. But sacrificing the dignity of the movement that stands against abuse is too great a price to pay for TV titillation.

Because of a pending Oprah appearance, we hurriedly wrote and published our first book — BullyProof Yourself At Work. We sold over 5,000 copies and quickly tired of buying bubble wrap in 6-foot diameter rolls and stuffing envelopes. In 2000, we attended the booksellers’ convention, BEA, and the publisher Sourcebooks discovered us and bought the book that became The Bully At Work. Its second edition was released in 2009.

Our first national press coverage came from the Washington Post, then USA Today as a special 1998 Labor Day feature. The Campaign first inhabited a kitchen nook, then a bedroom, finally overwhelming both the living and dining rooms. Callers flocked to us. We recruited volunteers to help with logistics and helping us respond to the hundreds of e-mail requests for confirmation that the sender was not crazy. Ruth ran a local support group and, under supervision, offered counseling to bullied clients.

We moved from Benicia, California to Bellingham, Washington in late 2001 to replenish family funds used for the Campaign. Gary again taught university for two more years, capping a 21-year career. For Western Washington University, he designed and taught the first U.S. college course on bullying — Psychological Violence At Work.

In Bellingham, the Campaign became the Workplace Bullying Institute because a team of volunteer research students made possible more surveys. Institutionalizing the name made it seem more academic. We consider the production and dissemination of research by WBI and others the activity that distinguishes us in the field. In America, WBI remains the first and only organization that integrates all aspects of workplace bullying: self-help advice for individuals, personal coaching, research, public education, union assistance, training for professionals, employer consulting, and legislative advocacy.

To what extent (if any) has its original mission changed?

The scope of our work grew from a narrow focus on bullied targets and their families to include a national campaign to enact state laws prohibiting malicious, health-harming abusive conduct at work (a.k.a. workplace bullying), and an extensive repertoire of consulting services for employers. Listening to, and advising, individuals in the throes of being bullied evolved to professional coaching (for a low fee) by a licensed counselor on staff, Jessi Brown. The public education work has expanded to include contributions of research — by WBI and by others — to inform all work. WBI, since 2008, trains professionals in its Workplace Bullying University, to extend the message beyond what a small group like WBI can achieve by itself. WBI also works extensively with unions striving to help their members restore lost power from bullying. In 2011, we are offering the first-ever union-only WB University. And in an oblique way, Gary educates courts and arbitrators by providing expert witness services in lawsuits.

The three domains of our work are related as follows. Individual targets are powerless to stop bullying by themselves and should not be held personally responsible to do so, regardless of how much knowledge they possess. Mighty organizational forces are assembled to block corrective action. To apply the ubiquitous “personal responsibility” mantra to bullied individuals is to blame victims for their fate, as if they wished upon themselves severe abuse.

Employers are responsible for the work environment — bullying or its absence. So, while we currently serve employers (and unions), voluntary steps are typically modest and ineffective without being driven by the CEO. That has happened but is rare since 1998 when we focused exclusively on bullying consulting (workdoctor.com). In 2009, we launched the nation’s first anti-bullying program for adults in schools (Sioux City, Iowa, Community Schools), melding protections for children as well as for adults (workplacebullyinginschools.com).

Abdication of responsibility by employers to address bullying within their organizations is not currently punishable by law, and is even perceived as an indication of an employer’s command over its workforce to deny relief from abusive supervisors and managers. Nearly all employers choose to not give workers additional rights or protections in the U.S. unless and until compelled by laws to do so. Laws are the motivation.

Thus we began legislative advocacy in 2001. It led to the introduction in 2003 in California of the first of over 70 versions of the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill. The HWB has been introduced in 21 states since. Suffolk University Law School professor David Yamada contacted the Campaign in 1999. At the time, he was writing the seminal treatise on the need for workplace bullying laws (published in the Georgetown Law Journal in March, 2000). He shared the goals of what was to become WBI and offered to write language for the requisite legislation. It is called the Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB, healthyworkplacebill.org). Ruth and I took it to Sacramento, and the journey began.

We learned how to lobby state lawmakers the old fashioned way — without money. In the years since, we perfected and teach the methodology to citizen advocates who volunteer as State Coordinators in the Healthy Workplace Campaign. Currently, we have Coordinators in 36 states. We are a focused and successful group numbering 70 that challenges the Chambers of Commerce and other highly compensated business lobbying groups in each state. Our small but powerful team has 16 concurrent versions of the HWB active in 11 states in 2011. In 2010, both the Illinois and New York state Senates passed versions of the HWB, respectively. According to a 2011 New York Law Journal article, passage of the HWB seems inevitable. We believe this to be true, but cannot predict when or where. No state has yet passed the HWB.

Enactment of state laws will capture the attention of employers. The message will spread. Employers will eventually have to treat workplace bullying as seriously as they currently consider illegal forms of discrimination. Under threat of litigation, employers will create, and be compelled to enforce, policies specifically prohibiting bullying as we define it. In this way, and only in this way, will the millions of Americans afflicted by bullying at work be believed and protected.

Our enlarged mission now incorporates this tautological relationship: laws lead to employer actions that lead to protections for bullied workers that lead to diminishing (if not eradicating) workplace bullying.

Why has relatively little research been completed – at least until recently — on bullying in the workplace, given the nature and extent of its destructive and expensive impact?

The first English-language research journal article by Heinz Leymann, founder of the international movement, appeared in 1990. Leymann called the phenomenon mobbing instead of bullying. In 1996, a special Workplace Bullying edition of the European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, collected papers by Leymann, Norwegians, Germans and others. Bullying was a mainstream academic topic by then. The Bergen (Norway) Bullying Research Group, led by psychologist Staale Einarsen, produces more studies than any other single university or group. Norwegian transplant Helge Hoel completed his doctorate in England and from the University of Manchester is quite prolific. European researchers began to hold small biannual meetings to share new findings back in 1998. That group became the International Association on Workplace Bullying & Harassment. The group by self-definition remains a scholarly group. It holds its 8th meeting in 2012 in Copenhagen.

Laws followed research. The first law is Sweden’s, enacted in 1994. All Scandinavian countries have national anti-mobbing/bullying laws.

Reporter-turned-activist Andrea Adams in the UK launched the movement with her 1992 book, Bullying At Work. She defined the term we borrowed at WBI. Her legacy was extended after her death in 1995 by the Andrea Adams Trust, which closed its doors in 2010. UK unions are fierce anti-bullying advocates. The huge federal public sector union, UNISON, commissioned one of the first UK surveys on bullying done by Charlotte Rayner in 1998. Rayner has been a prolific researcher since. At universities throughout the UK and Ireland, doctorates were awarded in workplace bullying. This leads to a substantial body of peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Australians joined in 1994 with the staging of a conference in Queensland. Laws in various states followed culminating in June 2011 with the passage of a law in Victoria criminalizing bullying. It is only the second in the world to do so, but is the more prominent piece of legislation.

American researchers Loraleigh Keashly at Detroit’s Wayne State (a Canadian by birth) wrote a 1998 review of the literature about bullying, calling it emotional abuse at work. Subsequently, she published results of a Michigan scientific survey that stood as the best estimate of bullying’s prevalence in the U.S. (1 in 6 workers) until the WBI national surveys years later. She often teams with SUNY, New Paltz social psychologist Joel Neuman who applies his knowledge of aggression to the workplace and to bullying. In 2005, NIOSH convened a meeting of workplace bullying researchers. Only a handful of Americans were dedicated to researching the topic back then.

To answer your question about the apparent invisibility of research requires us to contrast the burgeoning international scientific literature with public awareness of research being conducted. Careers of academics depend on publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals. Journal readership numbers in the hundreds, and then only among others competing to publish in the same field. Rarely are articles translated for public consumption. At WBI, we are proud of translating and disseminating significant, but obscure, findings into useable information for the public. We feature such research in our training for professionals and at the website.

The other limitation of research is that it necessarily relies on the perspective of the targeted person. Thus, they are the ones who are researched heavily. Impact on their health, their perceptions of the bullies’ motives, leadership styles of managers involved, etc. The first studies of bullies’ perceptions come from Australia in 2011 where violators of employers’ law-dictated policies have been identified. To date, only their opinions about the injustice of the system that held them accountable for their behavior have been queried.

What are among the most common misconceptions about bullying in the workplace?

Misconceptions by executives: it doesn’t happen here and my trusted and accused colleagues are not capable of being abusive as alleged. Some executives genuinely believe these myths. The national statistics refute the first myth. Clearly the prevalence of bullying across all industries shows that it does happen nearly everywhere. The reason for disbelieving the subordinate who dares to accuse the manager is that that manager used years of ingratiation (butt-kissing) to curry favor with the executive so that accusers are not believed when they come forward with reports of bullying.

Misconceptions by the public: bad things happen to those who deserve it, so when people are bullied, they must have done something to bring the consequences upon themselves. This blame the victim rationalization allows the one believing it to feel protected against future personal harm. Of course, if they have the misfortune (not of their own doing) to be assigned to work with a predatory, toxic bully, they will learn firsthand that it is the bully who chose them, the method of torment, the timing of assaults, and how to convince teammates to betray the target. The target is not responsible for her or his fate any more than a battered spouse.

Misconception by HR-type workplace “experts”: targets are responsible, they actually owe it to themselves, to confront their bully with snappy comeback lines that will make her or him stop. What a joke! And how cruel to add this twist to the myth of “deserving or provocative victim.” By definition, a target is an individual who cannot defend him- or herself when subjected to a surprise character assassination. In other words, if she could have bounced the bully, she would have.

Misconception by workers: all harassment and a hostile workplace are illegal for everyone and HR will ride to the employee’s rescue when the call for help is made. Unfortunately, this is a costly myth. Only in very narrowly defined circumstances where the target is a member of a protected status group (on the basis of gender, race, religion, disability, etc.) and the perpetrator is not similarly protected do federal and state anti-discrimination laws apply. Hard to understand because the details require nuanced public education that does not exist. After a person is bullied, the legal lesson is learned. Part of WBI’s educational mission is to alert employees that most workers have no such legal protection.

Misconception (older and less frequently heard now): bullying happens in blue collar workplaces only to non-supervisors. According to the WBI 2007 U.S. Survey, 55% of targets are not supervisors, but 35% of all targets are managers — first-line supervisors, middle managers and non-executive managers aggregated. Managers are sandwiched between org layers that provide ample opportunities for bullies to emerge. Don’t forget, according to the national WBI surveys, 10% of bullies are subordinates who bully up the ladder.

Do those who are bullies in the workplace tend to be bullies at home and in the community, also?

The worst of the worst are abusers in every domain of their lives — in restaurants, when driving, at work, in church, at home. We cannot know the proportion, but we assume it is small. In worst cases, the person might actually be a psychopath (be diagnosable with an antisocial personality disorder). Robert Hare, the psychopath expert estimates that 1 in 100 executives are psychopaths. They would be excessively controlling and intimidating at home as well as at work.

However, to account for the 35% of adult Americans who have been bullied at work, another factor must be operating. Our preferred explanation subordinates personality as the prime causal factor in favor of powerful work environment cues that suggest to anyone paying attention that aggression is the key to higher status and advancement. When those are the operating rules, regardless of some lofty mission-vision-values language proclaiming that all individuals are respected, it only takes an astute observer willing to test the system to understand bullying. That is, a person who is kind, generous and wonderful outside of work can be transformed, with or without awareness, into a viper and predator at work. When asked why, the answer would be that certain conduct is expected of them at work and they are complying with that expectation. They would be saying that they were only doing what others had been doing all along, and they would be correct.

To what extent (if any) does confronting a bully in the workplace make it much less likely that the bully will be a bully elsewhere? Please explain.

Make no mistake. Bullies are confronted, just not as frequently by targets as they are confronted by bullyproof people. The confrontation conveys clearly to the bully that tormenting those who repel initial attacks will not deliver enough satisfaction to justify the effort required. Those people will not be targeted again.

Ironically, when a bully’s aggression is countered with equal or greater aggression, the respondent is often befriended, and, at the least, respected.

But bullies do renew their attempts to dominate others until they find a target who does not fight back immediately. With a target the benefit/effort ratio is high and the toxic relationship begins.

When coping with a bully, are group efforts much more effective than an individual’s efforts are? If so, why? If not, why not?

Theoretically, group interventions are the most successful. However, we know from studies, our and others, this is a too rare event. In a 2009 online survey, targets reported a joint confrontation in less than 1% of cases.

We could write an entire book describing the many ways coworkers fail their targeted colleagues. The despicable actions range from ostracism to estrangement to abandonment to siding completely with the bully. Many social psychological theories explain why, but the factor in common to all reasons is coworker fear. Fear of retaliation, fear of being the lone person to help, fear of being the next target for the bully.

When coworkers do nothing to help, it is imperative that the employer do something. We discussed elsewhere how dismal is the record of employer intervention, too.

In a way, our legislative advocacy is a way to mobilize the largest group possible – society – to declare the unacceptability of workplace bullying and to demand relief be given to those who request it.

Now please shift your attention to the book. When and why did you decide to write it…and write it together?

We have had the employer book outline on the shelf for years since we started WBI. There was no market for it. American employers showed little to no interest until recently. Corporate employment attorneys started writing about the pending success of our legislative campaign, warning employers to stop bullying voluntarily in preparation for the new law.

Since we started the national movement, drive the legislative campaign and originated the workplace bullying consulting field, we agreed to write the book when Wiley called saying that the market may be sufficiently mature for our employer-specific message.

To what extent (if any) does the book in final form differ from what you originally envisioned?

The Bully-Free Workplace is a business book written for managers and organizational leaders.

Wiley editors did an expert job of contrasting the goals for this reading audience with the business professionals who attend our 3-day immersive training on workplace bullying. For the latter group, we devote much attention to the science and theories that shed light on the phenomenon. The brief book cannot cover so much material without losing the audience. This was a lesson we had to learn.

So, we wrote the book in our most direct consulting voice. What should managers do? We tell them. What should executives do? We tell them. What problems arise when you engage in the wrong activities at the wrong time? We’ve been there and we tell them.

It’s not a coddling and comforting voice to put in an executive’s ear, but given their pay grade, they should be able to handle truths about bullying in order to be best informed. If they don’t care about long-term sustainability of their organization and retaining the most talented people who ensure that future, they should not be executives.

Thanks to our book, employers can no longer say they want to do something about bullying but don’t know where or how to start. We tell them.

Are there bully apologists? If so, what specifically is their rationale for defending/justifying bullies?

Yes. Bully apologists defend heinous actions by perpetrators based on one or more of the following reasons:

• He’s no bully, he’s following my orders (I see myself in the mirror when I see him)

• His personality may be grating to some, but they have to learn to live with him as he is. (“I’m as afraid of him as others are, just keep your distance and maybe he will ignore you

• A little bullying is a good motivational tool (learning theory in reverse)

• People can’t handle criticism, he (the bully) is simply trying to make the employees better workers (workers are thin-skinned, bullies build character)

• He (the bully) needs to be left alone to manage in ways tailored to the workers only he knows how to manage (the unlimited managerial prerogative models

In the book, you observe, “Trying to change bullies is a fool’s errand.” Please explain.

There is little hope that another person will ever alter another person’s personality. By definition, personality is stable across most situations. People marry with the foolish notion that they will change their partner. They leave the relationship disappointed.

Rather than change bullies – as the expensive and wasteful option of sending them to anger management or communication skills training implies – the more realistic goal is to simply constrain their behavior when they are in the workplace. That can be done with new rules, strictly enforced, and constant monitoring.

The behaviors change and how they act outside the workplace need not concern the employer. (Pity the spouses, pets, children, and restaurant waitpersons who run afoul of them daily.)

What are the dominant characteristics of a workplace culture in which there is little (if any) bullying?

A non-bullying workplace is one clearly free of abuse. Workers do not dread the possibility because if it happens, it is squashed immediately and the perpetrator is somehow branded anti-social and unacceptable. A fear-free place is the normal expectation of most workers new to any organization. When bullying surfaces, it always surprises people.

Some characteristics of a respectful workplace (a higher standard than the mere absence of abuse)

• Personally confident, curious, truth-seeking leaders

• Established channels of communication to leaders from staff that are trusted and used by workers without fear of reprisal

• Sick day and off-work policies that reflect an inherent trust of workers (not designed with cheaters in mind)

• Few, if any, secrecy mandates (e.g., compensation)

• Small CEO pay to lowest paid worker ratio

How specifically can bullying “kill” an organization?

We know the word “kill” sounds strong and hyperbolic, but right from the beginning of the movement, Heinz Leymann referred to employee death as the ultimate outcome from repeated mistreatment. Death comes from the onset of stress-related diseases traceable to the unremitting exposure to stress that bullying creates. And death can be by disease or suicide. Those are the literal ways that bullying kills.

It also undermines (kills) profitability, productivity, morale, team cohesion, employee trust and loyalty, and perceived effectiveness of leadership. All of these lead to sabotage, theft, sharing the flaws with external groups, and a tarnished reputation for the employer as one of the “worst places to work.”

Finally, bullying leads to the death of the organization’s vitality and ability to innovate and compete because the culture is understood by those on the inside as one that pits workers against their peers. There is no integrity, an ethical collapse, rendering employee engagement in any bold initiative necessary to keep the company solvent impossible.

Executive calls to purposeful action are met with sullen, disheartened, cynical employees.

Prior to what you characterize as an “epidemic” of bullying, are their any early-warning signs? Please explain.

The “red flags” missed by most organizations include:

• Not believing bullied individuals when they report the misconduct (disbelief from either the descriptions that sound too outrageous to be true or defensiveness of the first responders eager to protect the bullies)

• Simultaneously believing the alleged bully’s dismissal of the accusation as frivolous (who would confess to doing it?)

• Mislabeling bullying, aka psychological violence, as a simple “personality clash” and therefore not worthy of the organization’s attention

• mounting financial losses from lawsuits against the same few individuals who are inexplicably retained and never questioned

• C-suite mindguards who believe their role to be to block bad news flowing upward to executives

• A culture that prizes quiet (the absence of reports about potential interpersonal troubles) and considers conflict abhorrent, to be avoided at all costs (delusion accomplishes this goal)

What are the essential components of the “model of preventable causes of bullying” that you discuss in Chapter 8?

We agree that bullies bully because they can. Employers make it possible and some exploit the opportunities. It’s also true that personality has to be at least a small factor because not everyone sees the chances to hurt someone else.

However, our model states that bullying is primarily dependent on organizational learning. Bullies are excellent learners about, and interpreters of, cues in the work environment that signal openings to harm others. When there are situations in which others can be obliterated and one’s personal career advanced (a zero-sum competitive opportunity), it is because the employer has made the competition possible. (In Jack Welch’s world, the competition is by deliberate design in a twisted social Darwinistic way.)

When exploitation opportunities surface, only a few people willing to exploit need exist. With sufficient numbers of employees, a couple of Machiavellian types are bound to exist. Additionally, there must exist a pool of employees to serve as prey for the predators. In some fields (education and healthcare), the pool is vast. In workplaces where people with a pro-social orientation can be found in abundance, targeting is an easy task for bullies.

Third, the employer’s response to bullying when detected or reported is critical. If the actions are frowned upon and stopped, bullying can be suppressed. If bullying is rewarded, explicitly with promotions or recognition or implicitly by being treated with indifference or denial, bullying thrives. It’s simple learning theory in operation. Rewards reinforce and strengthen the likelihood of repeated actions, even in the case of negative conduct like bullying.

Thus, it is the employer’s responsibility to alter conditions under its control. Employers can stop deliberate zero-sum gamesmanship and even stop inadvertent destructive interpersonal strategizing with careful planning. Secondly, employers can shift the response to bullying from positive to negative in order to extinguish the undesirable conduct.

Bullying cannot continue unless employers want it to continue. If employers want to stop it, they can. And it would stop nearly instantly. Bullying is bringing value to employers; it continues unabated.

When contending with bullying, what are the specific leadership responsibilities, not only in the C-suite but at all other levels and in all other areas within the given organization?

Great leaders know that fostering trust among those purported to be led is critical. Leadership is earned, bestowed by the followers, not dictated or automatically granted to a position holder in the org chart. With respect to bullying, leaders and managers must have a modicum of the following abilities:

• Self-awareness: the ability to accurately read how others respond to them and be realistic about others’ perceptions

• Sufficient emotional maturity to allow that personal flaws do not preclude effectiveness in all tasks (a healthy, resilient ego vs. narcissism)

• Insight turned inward to recognize if they are bullies themselves

• An insistence on being told truths, however negative, by those who surround them – be explicit in your instructions and demonstrate that you can handle the truth when delivered

• Relationship-building with peers so that when others are caught being abusive, you can confront them safely, and in private, to compel them to change because unfettered abusive conduct shapes the workplace culture

• Empathy toward individuals who provide evidence of unconscionable psychological violence directed at them

• Desire to include the impact on employees’ lives and health of business decisions as a serious component of routine processes

By what process should bullying be addressed?

Bullying is rampant partly because nearly everyone is afraid to confront strong-willed, blustering bullies. Choosing to see bullying as the result of a few “bad seeds,” misleads leaders to personalize both the problem and solution. They mistakenly dive into the pointless task of personality re-engineering. It is a band-aid, short-term illusionary fix. Bullying recurs.

Relying on our explanatory model, leaders are guided to solutions that are impersonal. They apply to any organization and any bully, regardless of rank, personal abrasiveness or personality. Our Blueprint to Prevent and Correct Workplace Bullying does not ask executives to betray friends. The system, when in place, snares offenders. The system compels executives to act, rather than relying on personal motivation.

The systemic approach is not rocket science. In many ways it mirrors steps currently taken to address illegal discrimination. We do add our special variations to account for differences between bullying (legal, status-blind harassment) and illegal harassment.

1. Measure baseline prevalence. It stuns us how few clients actually want to know the starting rate prior to taking steps to reduce bullying. The fear of this metric runs counter to businesses’ obsession with tracking relevant data.

2. Create an explicit bullying prohibition policy. The ideal process is completed by a cross-disciplinary, cross-rank writing group assembled especially for this task. The group writes the policy, integrates it with existing ones, creates both informal and formal complaint and enforcement procedures, and, most important, designates a team of employees to be trained as peer experts in workplace bullying at a later time.

3. Train the Expert Peers Team. We find that disembodied policies that are introduced to employees once or twice are not inculcated into the company. Bullying generates self-doubt and personal uncertainty. Individuals need to be able to seek help without fear of repercussions. Peer team members provide the valuable services to colleagues of clarification of the experience, validation of their personhood, and information about how to resolve the problem given the new policy and systems put into place. Team members are volunteers. Teams decide which services they agree to provide.

4. Educate everyone. Peer Teams can provide the training. This is the classic program rollout.

5. Integrate the anti-bullying initiative with management training, performance evaluation, employee orientation, and staff re-training each year.

6. Ensure policy compliance. Hold accountable everyone, at all levels, for any misconduct. Skeptical employees will gauge the success or failure of the program based on the credibility of the first “trial.” If it is perceived as unfair or fraught with interference, the program could be untracked.

7. Continuity is guaranteed with a fully-functioning Expert Peers Team and endorsement by the C-suite.

Morris: To what extent must those involved receive training to prepare for response initiatives and whatever resistance they may encounter?

The primary training is for Expert Peer Team members. They need to become internal resources for all employees on the topic of workplace bullying and the organization’s new policy and enforcement procedures.

They are the first responders. Conversations with them constitute the first response that is an informal, non-punitive step towards resolution. They are trained in intervention and resolution alternatives.

Some become trainers. Some become personal coaches. All become ambassadors for the anti-bullying initiative.

When Team members encounter resistance from bullies and managers, it is imperative that their supervisor or leader intercede and mandate cooperation with the Team activities. Resistance should be considered insubordination and grounds for termination. That’s how we define executive commitment to the success of the anti-bullying effort. Anything less is timid and easily defied by bully managers.

Given your response to the previous question, what seems to be the most serious problem that most organizations encounter when attempting to sustain their bully-free workplace? Why?

We have found new executives unwilling to sustain their predecessors’ commitment to the prohibition of bullying. It reveals a lack of the necessary abilities we said executives should possess to comprehensively tackle bullying.

It can take years to overcome resistance within organizations so that anti-bullying efforts can be started. Sadly, with the stroke of a pen, in an instant, all those efforts by so many people can be eliminated and bullying instantly restored.

That’s the American way of doing business.

See the original article

The national disgrace that the U.S. lags behind the rest of the industrialized world continues.

When our colleagues don’t invite us to lunch, gossip about us, are condescending or otherwise rude to us at work, the impact can be so intense that we take our problems home, affecting our families and partners who in turn may also take the stress to their workplaces, a new Baylor University study reports.

“I didn’t expect to have such strong findings in this study. The research shows if we are treated poorly at work, we see the world as a less bright place and it’s hard to shake it off,” says study author Merideth Ferguson, assistant professor of management and entrepreneurship at the Baylor University Hankamer School of Business whose research was published online in the Journal of Organizational Behavior. “When this happens daily or chronically, it eats away at people’s self-esteem and they are less optimistic about their lives and the future.”

A stressed employee often shares work frustrations with their spouse or partner, and the partner feels desperate to fix it, Ferguson says. But that’s unrealistic, and the feelings of helplessness can build more stress. Additionally, she explains, the stressed and distracted worker may neglect family responsibilities and the ongoing issue also can affect marital satisfaction.

“This phenomenon jumps workplaces,” she says. “It goes from the workplace to the home to another workplace.”

James Powell, 36, of Detroit, understands how deeply work incivility can impact a happy home. About five years ago, as he vied for an executive-level position at a national retailer, a co-worker competing for the same position spread rumors Powell was breaching company policy and shirking his duties. He became depressed when he couldn’t figure out how to stop the jokes and gossip.

“I was consumed with work; it was my life,” he says. “I came home and complained about work every day. After a while, everybody – my wife, sisters and the rest of my family got so tired of it, they started telling me to shut up. My wife was telling me to just quit and asking how I could let people treat me that way. It really affected her.”

He says his world came crashing down soon after a holiday party, where the co-worker and others teased his wife, saying she was too pretty to be with him. He says she internalized the stress and jokes, and their marriage started breaking down. As a result, she began missing work and having problems on her job. The couple separated and eventually divorced. He got the promotion, but the work problems remained so intense that he resigned his position.

“I’m still suffering from it,” he acknowledges.

Ferguson suggests employees facing work incivility contact the human resources department, seek help from an employee assistance program or get outside counseling to help manage work-related stress. She also advises finding ways to avoid taking the stress home.

“Counseling sometimes helps you keep from stressing your family,” she says. “Exercise, go out with friends who are not co-workers, then go home to your family and be relaxed. It’s a trial and error thing; you have to find what works for you.”

Unfortunately, says Ferguson, who is working on a similar study on supervisor abuse, being treated poorly at work may lead to a decision to cut ties with your employer.

via Life Inc. – Workplace drama can damage your home life.

HuffPost Education, 8/19/2011

A Pennsylvania photographer has chosen not to photograph a group of high school girls for their senior portraits after she found evidence of the teens bullying other students on Facebook.

Jennifer McKendrick, from Indiana County, Pa., wrote on her own Facebook page earlier this week that she came across another Facebook page with nasty comments from four high school girls whose names matched her scheduled clients.

She emailed the girls and their parents to cancel their senior photo shoots, while including screenshots of their comments to explain why she was calling off the session.

McKendrick wrote more about her decision on her personal blog in a post titled “I Won’t Photograph Ugly People.”

“I mean how could I spend two hours with someone during our session trying to make beautiful photos of them knowing they could do such UGLY things,” McKendrick writes. “Realistically, I know by canceling their shoots it’s not going to make them ‘nicer people’ but I refuse to let people like that represent my business.

“The photographer told WTAE-TV that the comments she saw were more than just targeting other students for appearance.

“It was beyond ‘your clothes are ugly’ or ‘you don’t have any brand clothes’ or ‘you are ugly, your hair is not right,” McKendrick told WTAE-TV. “It was vicious. It was talking about sexuality.”

Her Facebook page has since been flooded with hundreds of comments from people supporting her decision.

McKendrick blogs that she hasn’t received backlash for her decision so far, but she’s prepared if she does. Two of the teens’ parents responded to her with apologies, noting that they were surprised by their daughters’ actions.

“If you are ugly on the inside, I’m sorry but I won’t take your photos to make you look pretty on the outside … I simply don’t want to photograph ugly people,” she writes.

via Jennifer McKendrick, Pennsylvania Photographer, Refuses To Photograph Teen Bullies.

August 18, 2011

As soon as I heard my friend’s voice, I could tell she was upset. Over the phone, she described an awful scene that had just happened at her workplace. Her new boss called a staff meeting and began to humiliate each sales person one by one, dishing out personal insults. “He’s a bully, and everyone at the office is miserable,” she said.

My friend is a single mother who can’t afford to be without a job. For now, she plans to endure the insults and humiliation. But some of her co-workers have started a desperate attempt to find another job.

In an economic environment where jobs still are scarce, standing up to a workplace bully has become difficult. Experts are calling workplace bullying an epidemic, citing several recent studies that confirm the seriousness of the problem in the United States. One government study says workers are bullied in 1 out of every 4 workplaces.

“Sometimes good people bully,” said Gary Namie, who operates the Workplace Bullying Institute in Seattle. “They become more and more aggressive at work because it gets reinforced. Employers who are indifferent are rewarding it.”

Although unprofessional, workplace bullying is not illegal in the United States. There is no law that prohibits managers from threatening, insulting or mocking employees or making their work lives miserable. Some bullies hide under the guise of being a tough boss.

Teresa Daniel, author of “Stop Bullying at Work” and professor of the human resource leadership program at Sullivan University, has studied the distinction. “A bully makes it personal and vindictive,” Daniel said. “With a tough boss, most employees said he’s not a nice person, but his motives were right — to make the organization profitable and strong.”

Employers may not realize that bullies take a terrible toll within an organization. Their behavior creates stress on employees, increases absenteeism and leads to turnover. Oddly enough, bullies can be strong performers and often do get results because they push people to the wall. But those workers usually are biding time while looking for an exit.

Brenda, an administrative employee at a Miami government agency, said her female boss torments her by questioning almost every accomplishment and rolling her eyes at anything she says in a staff meeting. “It’s wrecked my work and my home life. I dread going into the office,” she said.

Women, it turns out, are other women’s own worst enemies at work. Female bullies target women in 80 percent of the cases. Male workplace bullies, by contrast, tend to be equal-opportunity offenders, targeting both men and women.

Susan Strauss, a consultant and expert in organizational leadership, says women bully in a much more subtle way than men. They typically sabotage each other’s work, make disparaging comments, taunt, gossip, roll their eyes and give out the silent treatment.

“It has the same negative effect on the work environment as more overt forms of aggression,” said Strauss who is conducting workshops for companies on female-on-female bullying. Because female forms of bullying are generally more covert, higher-ranking male managers are less likely to catch on to the misconduct or know how to handle it, Strauss has found.

Experts say the best way to stand up to a bully is document every incident and every detail, including who else was present. Then show the documentation to an objective person of authority, maybe even including the cost of turnover or lost productivity. Namie at the Workplace Bullying Institute explains that getting a higher-up to discipline a bully can be difficult. Typically, he or she has the protection of a higher-ranking supervisor at the company who says something like this: “That’s Bob you’re talking about. I love Bob. Bob does what I want. Who are you to complain?”

For recovering bullies, Namie recommends identifying another manager who has a style totally different from yours. Engage them, ask them for feedback about your style and look to them for suggestions on how you can manage differently.

As the problem gains national attention, legislation known as the Healthy Workplace Bill has been proposed in 16 states, but none has passed it as law. The bill forbids a health-harming “abusive work environment” and requires medical documentation to prove workers claims of bullying.

Kathy Kane, senior vice president of talent management at employment agency Adecco Group North America, believes employers don’t understand the extent of the problem in their organizations. Workloads are building and bullying is more likely to be tolerated because managers don’t have time to deal with it, she says. She recommends exit interviews.

“Workplace bullying is costly to a company, but employers don’t understand those costs,” Kane said. “Good people leave and there’s a cost to losing good people.”

via Workplace bullying a growing problem – chicagotribune.com.

We all have the right to be happy and proud.
We all have the right to stand up and speak loud.

Dignity in the workplace is having a strong leader who believes in what you think.
And when you find he doesn’t, it can really push you over the brink.

It is key to be trusted, supported and respected by your boss.
But if is not a given you may find you’re working with a loss.

A lost case is what bullying is I must say.
It is unhealthy and not worth the stress it brings its way.

A mess of a boss, I’ve had two experiences with thus far.
And I now know someone needs to stand up and set the bar.

We the people and the government too,
Have to stand up for what’s right, that’s what we should do.

Hostility in the workplace is a legal mess.
Hostility in the workplace is a bully’s best bet.

A bully is someone who is weak and threatened.
A bully is usually someone no one wants to recon.

So what do people tend to do when they meet a bully or two?
They may turn their backs or say shoo-shoo.

They may even shake their heads with some regret.

They may not feel pretentious but rather just regress.

To regress is to walk away from the pain.
To regress is to shed oneself from the shame.

I however will stand up with strong pride.
I will admit because I cannot lie.

Bullies in the workplace cause stress and pain.
Bullies in the workplace should be held accountable for the blame.

Dignity in the workplace is not a given, I know.

Dignity in the workplace allows us to grow.

We all have the right to work for one who respects us for being strong.
Dignity is something required for us all to get along.

For those of you that know what I mean,
Please help me stand up for what we’ve seen.

For those of you that are bully’s and mean,
You know who are you but I know, you won’t cause a scene.

Take a vacation and get some sun.
When you come back there is work to be done.

Come back with a plan to be better than who you are.
Come back with a plan to help set the bar.

Rise to the occasion, scary but true.
Come out from under because we can see through.

Don’t hide in shame, for I will not.
Be a man; stand up for what’s right, or get out of the spot.

You may hide behind your lies and shame.
I ask you to stand up and take your blame.

Because when you do you will be proud.
When you do there will be a crowd.

A crowd will stand up for you too.
Once you believe in yourself, we will believe too.

-Anon

“My job is killing me.” Who among us hasn’t issued that complaint at least once? Now a new study suggests that your dramatic grousing may hold some scientific truth.

The 20-year study, by researchers at Tel Aviv University, sought to examine the relationship between the workplace and a person’s risk of death. Researchers recruited 820 adults who had undergone a routine physical exam at a health clinic in 1988, and then interviewed them in detail about their workplace conditions — asking how nice their colleagues were, whether their boss was supportive and how much autonomy they had in their position.

The participants ranged in age from 25 to 65 at the start of the study and worked in a variety of fields, including finance, health care, manufacturing and insurance. The researchers tracked the participants through their medical records: by the study’s conclusion in 2008, 53 people had died — and they were significantly more likely than those who survived to report having a hostile work environment.

People who reported having little or no social support from their co-workers were 2.4 times more likely to die during the course of the study than those who said they had close, supportive bonds with their workmates. Interestingly, the risk of death was tied only to people’s perceptions of their co-workers, not their bosses. People who reported negative relationships with their supervisors were no more likely to die than others.

The study was observational, so it could not determine whether toxic workplace environments caused death, only that it was correlated with the risk. But the findings add to the evidence that having a supportive social network decreases stress and helps foster good health. Being exposed to chronic stress, on the other hand, contributes to depression, ill health and death.

One factor that mitigated the association between unfriendly co-workers and death was people’s perception of control over their jobs. Men who said they had more autonomy at work had a lower risk of dying during the study period than men with less freedom. As Jonah Lehrer noted for Wired:

This makes sense: the only thing worse than an office full of a—holes is an office full of a—holes telling us what to do.

However, the opposite was true for women: those who reported having power at work had a 70% increased risk of death, compared with those with a perceived lack of control. That may be because higher-powered women had more life responsibilities than men — many were working mothers — so the added level of control and responsibility at work may have strained their work-life balance and compounded their stress overall.

Meanwhile, there’s some evidence that workplaces are growing ever less civil: research presented this month at the American Psychology Association found that 86% of the 289 workers at three Midwestern firms surveyed reported incivility at their job, including rudeness, bad manners and insults. Economic conditions like layoffs, longer hours and less pay may be to blame.

So what’s to be done? Every workplace has hierarchies and antagonistic personalities. But knowing that your co-workers may have a powerful impact on your overall health and life span, it might be wise to foster at least a few good relationships on the job. You’re spending 40 hours a week with these people — you may as well make it count.

The new study was published in Health Psychology.

via Job Killing You? Hostile Workplace Linked to Death – - TIME Healthland.

Every workplace has them, but it’s hard to deal with bullies at work because more often than not, they are in positions of power.

It may be the boss, or someone who has been there for a long time and who are just part of the system.

My mate, consultant Rowan Manahan says bullying has become worse in a tough economy because everyone is under more pressure.

What makes it even more complicated is that the issue of bullying is a murky area. What might be considered normal behaviour for some is considered bullying by others.

If you are any doubt over what constitutes bullying behaviour, the CareerBuilder site identifies some common examples: your comments are dismissed or not acknowledged, you are falsely accused of mistakes you didn’t make, you are forced to do work that isn’t your job, there are double standards for you and other workers, you are given looks that should be in a scabbard, people gossip about you, your boss runs you down in front of other workers, belittling comments are made about you at meetings and people steal credit for your work.

According to a Career Builder survey, women reported a higher incidence of being treated unfairly at the office – 34 per cent of women said they had felt bullied in the workplace compared to 22 percent of men. And age also plays a part with 29 percent of workers aged 55 or older and 29 percent of workers aged 24 or younger, reporting they had been bullied on the job.

For most, telling people in HR is no solution. They are unlikely to help because the HR unit is usually pretty political and don’t want to rock the boat. Besides, HR tends not to be that high up the chain of command in many organisations.

According to the Workplace Bullying Institute, HR hardly ever fixes the problem, and only manages it correctly about 3 per cent of the time. Even if that’s overstating it, I haven’t heard of any cases where HR actually resolved the problem.

Laurie Tarkan at BNet recommends you take things into your own hands, first by identifying what you’re experiencing and giving it a name. Emotional bullying, harassment, abuse – it’s all important because that tells you it’s not your fault. She also recommends getting some help. It could include everything from talking to a counsellor to seeking advice from a doctor to make sure you are not suffering symptoms of stress like hypertension.

Research your legal options. That includes reading the company’s internal policies, particularly on areas like harassment, just to see if there are any violations you can report. She recommends documenting what economic impact the bully has had on the company, citing what it has cost the company in terms of lost productivity and absenteeism. If you report the bully, report the person to the highest level in the company, which immediately eliminates HR.

Start a job search and be prepared to leave if management sides with the bully.

Psychologist Michelle Callahan has a number of suggestions that include: not getting emotional about the situation, building a support network, seeking some help, and most importantly, not expecting you’ll be able to change the bully. In most cases they simply won’t accept that they have a problem.

The Human Resources Degree blog has several good ideas. One includes confronting the bully based on the assumption that most bullies deep down are cowards and can’t handle confrontation. The other thing it suggests is to ignore them because when they see they’re not getting under your skin, they won’t derive as much pleasure from the bullying.

Cy Wakeman in Fast Company has a completely left of field approach. He recommends getting inside the bully’s head instead of wasting time and energy resisting them. This involves making some connection but not too much – just enough to neutralise them.

“To remain in a peaceful place and not be rattled by another co-worker, regardless of their assumed motive, is to assure them that you care about them, but you are unable to participate in the conversation or grant their request,’’ Wakeman says.

“Repeat yourself often and diffuse the manipulative co-worker. So stop wasting time hovering in the corner and stand up for yourself. You’ll feel better, and the office bully may turn into a co-worker you’ll want on your team.”

via Management Line.

The persecution and humiliation of Deb Caldieri, the teacher who responded to the suicide of Phoebe Prince with a compassion so utterly lacking elsewhere in South Hadley High School, is complete. She was fired last week.

Gus Sayer, the school district’s superintendent, sent a letter to Caldieri – who went on unpaid medical leave in December because of her multiple sclerosis – saying he couldn’t wait around any longer to see whether the symptoms would subside enough for her to return to work. Those symptoms got worse after Caldieri was punished for speaking out about Phoebe Prince’s treatment at the high school.

Sayer said he hadn’t heard from Caldieri in months, so he had to go hire a new Latin teacher before classes start in September.

“I called Gus Sayer on Friday and asked him why he couldn’t have called me about this and he said my phone was out of service,’’ Deb Caldieri said. “My house phone is out,’’ she said, “because they haven’t been paying me all year and I can’t afford it. But I still have my cellphone. When I asked him why he couldn’t have just called me on my cellphone, he said he didn’t have the number. But the school called me on that number all the time.’’

That’s not what Sayer told me.

“The only number we had for her was her house,’’ he said.

Why not just go to her house and tell her face to face?

“I didn’t know if she was living at home,’’ he said.

But then, that’s the address that the termination letter was sent to, so maybe we’re beating a dead horse here.

In the end, Caldieri’s termination was handled the same way as her slow and torturous exit from South Hadley High: with a cold detachment that made the deterioration of her health inevitable.

The day after Prince, 15, hanged herself in January 2010, after months of bullying at the hands of other students, Caldieri responded with compassion, taking four girls to visit a boy who had liked Phoebe and was devastated by her suicide.

Dan Smith, who has just stepped down as principal, accused Caldieri of not getting the proper approval to take the kids out of school. Whether she did or not was very much open to debate, but that was a smoke screen anyway. Caldieri’s real sin was to challenge Smith’s authority and suggest that Phoebe wasn’t protected as she should have been. Smith told her he was going to get rid of her, and he did.

Other administrators would sit in on her classes, challenging her teaching methods. Her MS was already wearing on her, and the stress from Smith’s threat and the intimidation tactics of other administrators triggered seizures. She went on medical leave in December, bullied out of South Hadley High just as Phoebe was.

Sayer maintains his people did nothing wrong in the Prince case, and he says they bent over backward to keep Caldieri in the classroom. He says her MS was an issue long before Phoebe Prince, and rejects any suggestion that the way the school treated her worsened her symptoms.

He also rejects Caldieri’s claim that Smith, who retired in June, was vindictive in pursuing disciplinary action against her. “We don’t treat anybody like that,’’ he said.

Phoebe’s parents consider Caldieri one of the few adults at the high school who tried to help their daughter. They were furious when they found out Smith purposely excluded her from the girl’s funeral.

Phoebe’s aunt, Eileen Moore, has been paying Caldieri’s health insurance. It’s paid up through this month. Caldieri’s trying to get health insurance elsewhere. She’s already destitute. She may soon be a very sick woman without any health insurance.

Deb Caldieri started crying on the phone with Gus Sayer. He tried to comfort her by suggesting that maybe if her MS gets better she could reapply for a job in South Hadley. That won’t happen.

“I can’t go back,’’ Caldieri said. “I can’t even go near the building.’’

via Cruel lesson for a teacher – The Boston Globe.

MICHAEL NAUGHTON/METRO July 20, 2011

With the suicides of two bullied high school students here in Massachusetts, the focus on anti-bullying efforts thus far has been on children.

But a group of advocates have been trying to convince state legislators to pass a bill that would give a legal avenue for victims of workplace bullies.

The bill was the subject of a recent State House hearing and members of the Committee on Labor and Workforce Development are currently examining it.

“Bullying is much more than incivility or someone losing his temper. It tends to be targeted, repeated and abusive behavior that causes physical and/or psychological harm,” said David Yamada, a professor at Suffolk University who helped author the bill. “Some of the most destructive workplace bullying is of the covert variety, involving attempts to undermine someone’s work performance and destroy her reputation.”

Advocates said that up to 59 percent of employees directly experience workplace bullying.

Gregory Sorozan, who works with Yamada and is also the state coordinator for the Washington-based Workplace Bullying Institute, said the effort has gained momentum and support over the last year. Last year there were 23 supporters signed up compared to more than 400 this year.

Avenues in the workplace, like human resources personnel, don’t usually work to curb bullying, he said.

“Bullying is perfectly legal, therefore there is no reason for them … to put an end to bullying,” Sorozan said. “Human resource officers … work in the service of protecting of the organization.”

Valerie Cade, the author of “Bully Free at Work,” said bullies grow up, but their characteristics don’t.

“For someone who has bullying behavior, it’s addictive, and they have to keep feeding it,” she said.

Currently, 19 other states are considering similar proposals, according to the State House News Service.

via Metro – David Yamada: Will this stop adult bullies?.

By: Gary Namie, PhD, author of The Bully-Free Workplace: Stop Jerks, Weasels & Snakes from Killing Your Organization (Wiley, 2011).

Back in 2007, many were surprised to learn that 37% of all adult Americans claimed to have been bullied at work. The scientific poll by the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI) used the definition: repeated mistreatment by one or more employees that takes the form of either verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, humiliation, interference with work or some combination. Bosses were the main perpetrators (in 72% of incidents). Workplace bullying held steady at 35% according to the 2010 WBI survey.

Employers have a dismal record of voluntarily dealing with bullying. Why? Bullying benefits executives. Or people don’t know how to stop it. If the former is true, laws are needed to compel attention. Better to assume knowledge and skill shortcomings.

While waiting for executives to realize the benefits from adopting a comprehensive solution, there is much that can be done by managers and supervisors to tamp down bullying and dilute its destructive impact on employee and organizational health.

Here are three simple action steps for managers that can be done today.

1.)  Hold confirmed bullies accountable. Drop the “go work it out between yourselves” ducking of your responsibility as manager. Get involved or the festering problem eventually will prevent any work from getting done.

Your task is easier if there a clear statement about what conduct is, and is not, acceptable in the company. If none exists, you can always create one in collaboration with the team that applies to those you supervise. If such a code does not exist, write a list of what you consider unacceptable. Use work-relevant impacts to justify each item. Share that list with everyone you supervise.

If the alleged bully is your favorite, you will have trouble believing that she or he is capable of being mean. To solve the problem, you have to shelve favoritism. All your other employees are counting on you to do so.

Before questioning the alleged bully, provide the complaining target with physical separation for safety, assuring that it is not punitive. Do it because retaliation follows questioning of the bully. Bullies will justify their conduct — targets make them do it or they are perfectionists. Assess the relevance in terms of impact on the work team’s ability to perform without fear.

The rationale for your 1:1 interviews with employees is a “checkup” of the work climate, rather than an “investigation.” Getting information from terrified coworkers is nearly impossible.

Many side with bullies for self-protection. Ask if they personally ever had negative encounters with the alleged bully.  Ask how negative things can be hidden from you. Ask if they have seen personal changes, minor or major, in any coworkers.

Should you be concerned? Believe the accuser until proven otherwise. Bullies lie. Humiliated targets are ashamed. With a mind untainted by favoritism, you will understand the competing versions of reality represented by the alleged bully and target.

If the facts confirm that your “line in the sand” was crossed, make the bully apologize. Choose other appropriate consequences (HR can advise). Promise coworkers freedom from bullying in the future. Help restore the targeted worker’s health — paid time off, counseling, support. Monitor the bully’s conduct, imposing the threat of termination for non-compliance with the policy or your list. Practice in executing this step makes it easier. Paradoxically, it also becomes rarer.

2.)  Catch and correct peer bullies. If you stumble on a colleague berating a worker, you can intervene. The least risky method is to tug on the manager’s arm to remove her or him. Simply interrupt the incident. Then, deal with it behind closed doors for dignity’s sake. It is more likely that a worker supervised by your subordinate or by another supervisor seeks your help. Do not ignore the person who asked you for relief.

When you have the manager alleged to be a bully alone, make the case for stopping the bullying behavior. Encourage change by citing impact on employee health, morale, productivity, trust and loyalty. If an anti-bullying policy exists, remind her or him of the hassle of a complaint and investigation. Good managers do not use tactics of intimidation, domination or humiliation.  Become the anti-bullying advocate within the management team.

3.)  Your Management Style: Could you be the bully? This is the hardest step of all. Ask your family. Do you feel constantly misunderstood and misperceived? Do you think your standards are high and wonder why others seem to not care as much as you? Is it impossible for you make your contributions subordinate to those of others?

Indicators at work include being excluded from social events. At meetings, are your ideas never met with dissenting views? Is the employee turnover rate in units you supervise higher than elsewhere in the organization? Is absenteeism so high that production is subpar? Do you see decline in the pool of available talent so that no new hires seem acceptable?

Look in the mirror. You are the problem. Turn to your staff to ask how you could change to eliminate the above problems. Follow their instructions.

As soon as I heard my friend’s voice, I could tell she was upset. Over the phone, she described an awful scene that had just happened at her workplace. Her new boss called a staff meeting and began to humiliate each salesperson one by one, dishing out personal insults. “He’s a bully, and everyone at the office is miserable,” she said.

My friend is a single mother who can’t afford to be without a job. For now, she plans to endure the insults and humiliation. But some of her co-workers have started a desperate attempt to find another job.

In an economic environment where jobs still are scarce, standing up to a workplace bully has become difficult. Experts are calling workplace bullying an epidemic, citing several recent studies that confirm the seriousness of the problem in the United States. One government study says workers are bullied in 1 out of every 4 workplaces. “Sometimes good people bully,” said Gary Namie, who operates the Workplace Bullying Institute in Seattle. “They become more and more aggressive at work because it gets reinforced. Employers who are indifferent are rewarding it.”

Although unprofessional, workplace bullying is not illegal in the United States. There is no law that prohibits managers from threatening, insulting or mocking employees or making their work lives miserable. Some bullies hide under the guise of being a tough boss.

Teresa Daniel, author of Stop Bullying at Work and professor of the human resource leadership program at Sullivan University, has studied the distinction. “A bully makes it personal and vindictive,” Daniel said. “With a tough boss, most employees said he’s not a nice person, but his motives were right -to make the organization profitable and strong.”

Employers may not realize that bullies take a terrible toll within an organization. Their behaviour creates stress on employees, increases absenteeism and leads to turnover. Oddly enough, bullies can be strong performers and often do get results because they push people to the wall. But those workers usually are biding time while looking for an exit.

Brenda, an administrative employee at a Miami government agency, said her female boss torments her by questioning almost every accomplishment and rolling her eyes at anything she says in a staff meeting. “It’s wrecked my work and my home life. I dread going into the office,” she said.

Women, it turns out, are other women’s own worst enemies at work. Female bullies target women in 80 per cent of the cases. Male workplace bullies, by contrast, tend to be equalopportunity offenders, targeting both men and women.

Susan Strauss, a consultant and expert in organizational leadership, says women bully in a much more subtle way than men. They typically sabotage each other’s work, make disparaging comments, taunt, gossip, roll their eyes and give out the silent treatment.

“It has the same negative effect on the work environment as more overt forms of aggression,” said Strauss who is conducting workshops for companies on female-on-female bullying. Because female forms of bullying are generally more covert, higher-ranking male managers are less likely to catch on to the misconduct or know how to handle it, Strauss has found.

Experts say the best way to stand up to a bully is document every incident and every detail, including who else was present. Then show the documentation to an objective person of authority, maybe even including the cost of turnover or lost productivity. Namie at the Workplace Bullying Institute explains that getting a higher-up to discipline a bully can be difficult. Typically, he or she has the protection of a higher-ranking supervisor at the company who says something like this: “That’s Bob you’re talking about. I love Bob. Bob does what I want. Who are you to complain?” For recovering bullies, Namie recommends identifying another manager who has a style totally different from yours. Engage them, ask them for feedback about your style and look to them for suggestions on how you can manage differently.

As the problem gains national attention, legislation known as the Healthy Workplace Bill has been proposed in 16 states, but none has passed it as law. The bill forbids a health-harming “abusive work environment” and requires medical documentation to prove workers claims of bullying.

Kathy Kane, senior vice-president of talent management at employment agency Adecco Group North America, believes employers don’t understand the extent of the problem in their organizations. Workloads are building and bullying is more likely to be tolerated because managers don’t have time to deal with it, she says. She recommends exit interviews.

“Workplace bullying is costly to a company, but employers don’t understand those costs,” Kane said. “Good people leave and there’s a cost to losing good people.”

Cindy Krischer Goodman is CEO of BalanceGal LLC, a provider of news and advice on how to balance work and life. She can be reached at balancegal@gmail.com.

via Workplace bullying a growing concern.

BOSTON – With a law on the books targeting bullying in schools, it is time to look at another common arena for bullying: the workplace, according to supporters of another bullying proposal.

Known as the healthy workplace bill, the legislation would define and make it illegal to bully an employee or colleague.

Rep. Frank Smizik (D-Brookline) said there is a gap in the current bullying laws that needs to be closed.

“We neglected to acknowledge that bullying is not restricted to our children,” he said.

Several workers who say they were bullied by supervisors or fellow workers told their stories Thursday to members of the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development. A handful of those who were bullied broke down in tears telling stories of harassment and mistreatment.

Debi Caldieri, a Latin teacher at South Hadley High School, said she was harassed and berated at the school that became synonymous with bullying behavior in the wake of 14-year-old Phoebe Prince’s suicide.

Caldieri, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, said teachers and the principal at the school made it difficult for her to work with her medical condition. Caldieri attributed her treatment to being one of the few who complained about Prince’s plight.

“I was disciplined if a student mentioned I wasn’t feeling well,” Caldieri said.

Caldieri said she was reprimanded for not staying at school to prepare for her six classes, and was once thrown out of the building after a misunderstanding with the principal, she said. She has since left her position because her medical condition deteriorated, partly from stress, she said.

Other workers told lawmakers they suffer emotional and physical stress from workplace bullying.

Juana Gayle Flores, a teacher, said she suffered ongoing harassment and “constant ethnic mocking” from the school principal who often publicly corrected her pronunciations in a mocking way.

“When I brought my concerns to the office of labor relations no one took my concerns seriously,” Flores said. “They labeled my case personal.”

Flores said she was hospitalized twice from stress and anxiety brought on by the bullying. “As a Hispanic woman who served in the Army for 23 years, I have never experience anything like this,” she said.

Several legislators testified in favor of the bill (H 2310 / S 916).

Sen. Katherine Clark (D-Melrose) said nearly one-third of all workers experience some form of workplace bullying in their careers. Bullying at work is four times more likely to occur than sexual harassment, Clark said.

“High unemployment rates only make this situation worse,” Clark said, adding that many people will stay in a bullying situation rather than risk being out of work.

Currently, 19 other states are considering similar proposals.

via Massachusetts legislators hear pitch for law targeting workplace bullying | masslive.com.

The grassroots citizen lobbyists, the Mass Healthy Workplace Advocates, have organized perhaps the best-ever hearing with prepared statements and live testifiers who will strongly impact the lawmakers. Kudos to Greg Sorozan and Deb Fazoli for their tremendous volunteer efforts!

Americans face bullying long after they have left the playground with a startling 35% of adults either been bullied or currently experiencing bullying at work, according to the Workplace Bullying Institute.

Workplace bullying is defined by the WBI as “repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one of more persons by one or more perpetrators,” and includes verbal abuse, offensive conduct and behaviors (including nonverbal) that are threatening, humiliating or intimidating and work interference or sabotage, which prevents work from getting done.

These actions have serious side effects for victims, according to the WBI, including heart disease and post-traumatic stress disorder. Now lobbyists are increasing their calls for state lawmakers to pass anti-bullying in the workplace legislation.

Dr. Gary Naime, national director of the Healthy Workplace Campaign, started lobbying for anti-bullying laws in 2003. Right now, his “Healthy Workplace Bill,” has been introduced in 21 states with New York the closest sate to passing it into law. The New York bill has 43 current co-sponsors, and a new Senate version of the bill is in the process of being written. A companion Senate bill was introduced and referred to the Labor Committee in March 2011.

For employers, the bill defines an “abusive work environment” and requires proof of health harm by licensed professionals. It gives employers reason to terminate or sanction offenders and requires plaintiffs to use private attorneys.

“It’s very soft on employers, and will give them rewards for taking care of bullying voluntarily,” he says. “If they do, they have no responsibility – [legally] they are freed.”

For workers, the New York bill provides an avenue for legal action against “health harming cruelty at work,” and allows a victim to sue the bully as an individual. It also holds the employer accountable by allows for restoration of lost wages and benefits, and compels employers to prevent and correct future instances.

According to a 2010 WBI survey, 15% of workers reported they have witnessed bullying in the workplace. With that said, 50% of respondents reported they have never seen or “don’t know” what bullying is.

“It’s not that they don’t see it, but what they do see they do not consider unacceptable,” Naime says. “They consider it routine—not negative or bad. It’s much more severe than trivial stuff. It is repeated malicious verbal abuse, threats, humiliation and work sabotage. That is pretty severe.”

As the national sponsor of the Healthy Workplace Bill, Naime says he is not looking for lawsuits to bring an end to bullying in the workplace. His goal is to have bullying treated the same way as harassment in the office.

“Employers are ignoring it and HR has dropped the ball—72% of bullying is done by management.”

Also according to the Institute, once a person is targeted by a bully, they have a 64% chance of either being fired or quitting his/her job.

Polly Wright, senior consultant at HR Consults Inc., a management and human resource consulting and training firm, says bullying in the workplace is extremely common. She remembers being bullied by a manager at her first job out of college, but she stayed at the job because she had no other options.

“I was married to that job for financial reasons,” she says. “Bullying is just basically harassment. And sometimes you don’t even realize it is happening. As employers we should be handling it the same as we would unlawful harassment.”

Bullying in the workplace can begin with cliques forming in the office, or by hiring someone with a bad temper or anger-management issues. Wright says many of the Human Resource policies she has recently created for businesses have included wording about bullying in the workplace.

All managers in a company should be trained on what the legal line of harassment actually is, and make sure employees aren’t crossing this line, Wright says. Also, employees may try to work out the issue amongst themselves, but once HR is brought into the picture an investigation will be launched, she says.

“I really think that it takes a toll on morale, to the point where employees are so disengaged in their work environment they are just going through the motions,” Wright says. “They will go through their day trying to have the least amount of interaction with their bully as possible.”

Although Wright condemns bullying, she is not in favor of the Healthy Workplace Bill and says it can be addressed in already-established policies, like those that deal with harassment.

“It will be another burden on employers,” she says. “Hopefully we keep it out of final legislation—employers should just address [bullying] in conjunction with harassment. We shouldn’t need a law to tell us that.”

If a worker is being bullied in a family business, or small company, Naime advises to leave right away, and says changing the culture in a smaller office is often more difficult than in a corporation setting.

“All you can do is try and make it, but in a small business you are trapped,” he says. “In a bigger company there are more layers and you do have a chance of convincing someone that the idiot needs to go, not you.”

via New Bill Targets Workplace Bullying – FoxBusiness.com.

Americans face bullying long after they have left the playground with a startling 35% of adults either been bullied or currently experiencing bullying at work, according to the Workplace Bullying Institute.

Workplace bullying is defined by the WBI as “repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one of more persons by one or more perpetrators,” and includes verbal abuse, offensive conduct and behaviors (including nonverbal) that are threatening, humiliating or intimidating and work interference or sabotage, which prevents work from getting done.

These actions have serious side effects for victims, according to the WBI, including heart disease and post-traumatic stress disorder. Now lobbyists are increasing their calls for state lawmakers to pass anti-bullying in the workplace legislation.

Dr. Gary Naime, national director of the Healthy Workplace Campaign, started lobbying for anti-bullying laws in 2003. Right now, his “Healthy Workplace Bill,” has been introduced in 21 states with New York the closest sate to passing it into law. The New York bill has 43 current co-sponsors, and a new Senate version of the bill is in the process of being written. A companion Senate bill was introduced and referred to the Labor Committee in March 2011.

For employers, the bill defines an “abusive work environment” and requires proof of health harm by licensed professionals. It gives employers reason to terminate or sanction offenders and requires plaintiffs to use private attorneys.

“It’s very soft on employers, and will give them rewards for taking care of bullying voluntarily,” he says. “If they do, they have no responsibility – [legally] they are freed.”

For workers, the New York bill provides an avenue for legal action against “health harming cruelty at work,” and allows a victim to sue the bully as an individual. It also holds the employer accountable by allows for restoration of lost wages and benefits, and compels employers to prevent and correct future instances.

According to a 2010 WBI survey, 15% of workers reported they have witnessed bullying in the workplace. With that said, 50% of respondents reported they have never seen or “don’t know” what bullying is.

“It’s not that they don’t see it, but what they do see they do not consider unacceptable,” Naime says. “They consider it routine—not negative or bad. It’s much more severe than trivial stuff. It is repeated malicious verbal abuse, threats, humiliation and work sabotage. That is pretty severe.”

As the national sponsor of the Healthy Workplace Bill, Naime says he is not looking for lawsuits to bring an end to bullying in the workplace. His goal is to have bullying treated the same way as harassment in the office.

“Employers are ignoring it and HR has dropped the ball—72% of bullying is done by management.”

Also according to the Institute, once a person is targeted by a bully, they have a 64% chance of either being fired or quitting his/her job.

Polly Wright, senior consultant at HR Consults Inc., a management and human resource consulting and training firm, says bullying in the workplace is extremely common. She remembers being bullied by a manager at her first job out of college, but she stayed at the job because she had no other options.

“I was married to that job for financial reasons,” she says. “Bullying is just basically harassment. And sometimes you don’t even realize it is happening. As employers we should be handling it the same as we would unlawful harassment.”

Bullying in the workplace can begin with cliques forming in the office, or by hiring someone with a bad temper or anger-management issues. Wright says many of the Human Resource policies she has recently created for businesses have included wording about bullying in the workplace.

All managers in a company should be trained on what the legal line of harassment actually is, and make sure employees aren’t crossing this line, Wright says. Also, employees may try to work out the issue amongst themselves, but once HR is brought into the picture an investigation will be launched, she says.

“I really think that it takes a toll on morale, to the point where employees are so disengaged in their work environment they are just going through the motions,” Wright says. “They will go through their day trying to have the least amount of interaction with their bully as possible.”

Although Wright condemns bullying, she is not in favor of the Healthy Workplace Bill and says it can be addressed in already-established policies, like those that deal with harassment.

“It will be another burden on employers,” she says. “Hopefully we keep it out of final legislation—employers should just address [bullying] in conjunction with harassment. We shouldn’t need a law to tell us that.”

If a worker is being bullied in a family business, or small company, Naime advises to leave right away, and says changing the culture in a smaller office is often more difficult than in a corporation setting.

“All you can do is try and make it, but in a small business you are trapped,” he says. “In a bigger company there are more layers and you do have a chance of convincing someone that the idiot needs to go, not you.”

via New Bill Targets Workplace Bullying.

Sunday, July 10, 2011

As soon as I heard my friend’s voice, I could tell she was upset. Over the phone, she described an awful scene that had just happened at her workplace. Her new boss called a staff meeting and began to humiliate each salesperson one by one, dishing out personal insults. “He’s a bully, and everyone at the office is miserable,” she said.

In an economic environment where jobs still are scarce, standing up to a workplace bully has become difficult. Experts are calling workplace bullying an epidemic, citing several recent studies that confirm the seriousness of the problem in the United States. One government study says workers are bullied in one of every four workplaces.

“Sometimes good people bully,” said Gary Namie of the Workplace Bullying Institute in Seattle. “They become more and more aggressive at work because it gets reinforced. Employers who are indifferent are rewarding it.”

Although unprofessional, workplace bullying is not illegal in the United States. There is no law that prohibits managers from threatening, insulting or mocking employees or making their work lives miserable. Some bullies hide under the guise of being a tough boss.

Teresa Daniel, author of “Stop Bullying at Work” and professor of human resource leadership at Sullivan University, has studied the distinction. “A bully makes it personal and vindictive,” she said. “With a tough boss, most employees said he’s not a nice person, but his motives were right.”

Employers may not realize that bullies take a terrible toll within an organization. Their behavior creates stress on employees, increases absenteeism and leads to turnover. Oddly enough, bullies can be strong performers and often do get results because they push people to the wall. But those workers usually are biding time while looking for an exit.

Brenda, an administrative employee at a Miami government agency, said her female boss tormented her by questioning almost every accomplishment and rolling her eyes at anything she says in a staff meeting. “It’s wrecked my work and my home life. I dread going into the office,” she said.

Women, it turns out, are other women’s own worst enemies at work. Female bullies target women in 80 percent of the cases. Male workplace bullies, by contrast, tend to be equal-opportunity offenders, targeting both men and women.

Experts say the best way to stand up to a bully is document every incident and every detail, including who else was present. Then show the documentation to an objective person of authority.

But Mr. Namie at the Workplace Bullying Institute explains that getting a higher-up to discipline a bully can be difficult. Typically, he or she has the protection of a higher ranking supervisor at the company who says something like this: “That’s Bob you’re talking about. I love Bob. Bob does what I want. Who are you to complain?”

Cindy Krischer Goodman is CEO of BalanceGal LLC, balancegal@gmail.com.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11191/1159109-407.stm#ixzz1Rp876Y20

Interview conducted by Taylor Korsak, Editorial Intern for Human Resources iQ. Listen to the Audio Podcast.

1. Let’s begin our discussion by defining “bullying in the workplace.” How common is it and why should it be a major concern for company leaders?

First, let me be clear that we distinguish bullying from incivility, inappropriateness, rudeness and disrespect. Our definition is “repeated, health-harming mistreatment by one or more employees directed toward another employee that takes the form of verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, and humiliation, interference with work production or in some combination.” It is a form of abuse. It is recognized by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) as a non-physical form of workplace violence. Bullying is not merely an arched eyebrow or raised voice, it is a systematic campaign of interpersonal destruction launched by one person, with many others soon joining in, to destroy another person’s health, status, identity, job, career, and sometimes even their family.

We know from the national scientific studies we’ve run in 2010 and 2007 that 35 percent of all adult Americans have been directly bullied, according to our definition.

Business leaders should care because of its impact on employee health, work productivity impaired by excessive absenteeism, turnover (loss) of the best and brightest workers, workers comp and disability claims and litigation expenses. They should care, but those same national surveys found that the most likely response by employers to reported bullying was to ignore or worsen it.

2.  What is the most common bully-target relationship in terms of roles? Why?

Bullying is mostly top-down. Bullies outrank their targets in 72 percent of cases (2007 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey). Coworkers are perpetrators in 18 percent of incidents; 10 percent of the time it is a brave subordinate who bullies up the ladder.

Why? It is simply easier to inflict pain when you have title power. Coworkers can make your life miserable through ostracism (no small thing), but they cannot threaten to take your job away as the employer can. With so few people in unions, anyone can be fired for any reason on a whim.

All bullies share the need to control other people. They are bright, but not introspective or self-critical and they need to dominate to feel whole. There is an overwhelming narcissism that compels every action. Unless others agree to follow, they will be banished. Narcissism is not restricted to any position in an organization chart.

3. What are some researched effects of bullying and why do targets often neglect to speak up?

Bullying of adults by adults involves a great deal of shame and guilt. Shame is the bully’s goal from humiliating the target. Half of bullying is behind closed doors, so without explicitly telling friends and family, it is the bully’s and target’s secret. Personal guilt can arise because the person is mad that she or he allowed the bullying to happen. Bullies choose their targets, methods, timing, and place, but somehow, targets internalize responsibility, or shared responsibility (from our societal “it takes two to tango” or the equally inane “there are two sides to every story”), for what is happening to them. Shame and guilt prevent targets from speaking up.

In addition, the work culture is clear to those who work there. Complainers are dubbed troublemakers and retaliated against.

Research on the effects of bullying on individuals is extensive. The studies come from the fields of occupational health, epidemiology, medicine, neuroscience, and social sciences. A summary breaks the impact on people into three categories of harm: health, social relations and economic.

Health harm begins with stress-related physical health consequences. Cardiovascular system impact has the earliest onset — hypertension. High blood pressure results from abusive supervisors. The risk of coronary heart disease is 40 percent greater if workers believe their supervisors are unjust and bullies go well beyond being unjust. Cortisol, the stress hormone, is measured routinely in studies and is found to be too high in people exposed to unremitting mistreatment. Most fascinating is that prolonged stress ages women prematurely, costing them 9-12 years of life expectancy, based on studies measuring telomeres — the protective tips of DNA chromosomes.

Health harm is also the psychological-emotional impact, ranging from debilitating anxiety to clinical depression induced by work to PTSD to suicide. Our online (non-scientific) surveys found that 39 percent of targets have been diagnosed with depression and 30 percent of women targets suffer PTSD. Doubters don’t think work can traumatize individuals, but remember bullying creates an abusive relationship. Abuse can traumatize, not everyone, but far too many.

Harm to social relationships primarily involves ostracism, social exclusion, by coworkers. Targets are treated as pariahs once targeted. Coworkers do little to help – they fear for their own safety and status.

Economic harm is clear. The most effective current way to stop the bullying is for the target to lose the job she or he once loved. According to our 2007 national study, 40 percent quit (probably for their health’s sake). An additional 24 percent were fired (by manufactured performance reports or other lies).

4. You draw an interesting parallel between bullying and Darwinism – the concept of survival of the fittest – stating how certain corporate cultures designated by CEOs to weed out the least effective workers and bullying might beneficial for such a goal. Needless to say, CEOs are often thinking very differently than others in their business – how could an anti-bullying campaign appeal to the CEO? How should one build a case?

Yes, bullies and their apologists are social Darwinists. The organizing principle that dominates the entire company is the CEO’s narcissism. He (and it’s a “he” in 97 percent of firms in the U.S.) sets the tone.

Jack Welch comes to mind. He is granted hero status, forgetting his old moniker of “Neutron Jack” who had the reputation of obliterating companies of workers.

I agree that CEOs do think differently. Welch taught his CEO colleagues to focus on shareholder value and short-term profits. His famous strategy of firing 10 percent of workers regardless of performance, to keep them afraid, is simply not human. Unfortunately, that mindset has been adopted by sheep-like Welchians. It’s easy to be cruel.

Some leaders are different people but with a personal moral inner directedness. They stand out because of their rarity. Not everyone believes treating workers like chattel is sufficient. Some can see value in long-term viability, not simply having monotonically rising quarterly profits.

I draw this distinction because without CEO approval (and some degree of participation), there can be no anti-bullying initiative success in the long-run. The CEOs who have brought us in to deal with bullying fall into two categories: early adopters and the legacy-oriented. It is counter-cultural to want to stop bullying that historically has been the characterization of the American style of managing. Bold contrarian CEOs love to be first to adopt a new program before it becomes a fad. Public awareness of workplace bullying has grown exponentially since we started back in mid-97 and corporate attorneys are warning their clients to not ignore the problems bullying causes.

Legacy-oriented leaders may be transitioning to a different post or the final phase of their careers. They want to leave behind something for which they can be remembered. The legacy can be within the industry, among their peer CEOs or for the workers at the company they led. Their gift is to establish a bullying-free workplace with their name attached.

Sadly, the impersonal, traditional business-case arguments that bullying increases risk exposure and that it eats into the bottom line fall onto deaf ears. The personal bonds between executives and their beloved bullies trump fiscal impact, though it makes no business sense. It is a world turned upside down, driven by favoritism and ingratiation, but it is more tangible and real than balance sheets.

The ROI for an anti-bullying program is great. But as long as “Bob the bully” is free to operate with the CEO’s blessing (or implicit approval through his indifference to complaints), stopping bullying will appear expensive when in fact it is the bully who is too expensive to keep!

5. What are other contributing factors that could lead to a bullying situation in terms of personality types and environment?

Most people begin with the assumption that bullies must be crazy or disturbed. Not so. Most bullies are not psychopaths; however those who bully are certainly narcissistic. They have an inflated sense of themselves relative to what others think, but they need not have a certifiable personality disorder. They are egocentric and selfish though that is true of many millions of us.

Bullies are astute at reading cues in the work environment. For instance, they see subtleties that others miss. They see that aggressive acts are noticed by management, which, in turn, are rewarded. Sometimes the reward is a promotion though more likely it’s the granting of special privileges. Those of us who are not bullies might see it and decide that it is deplorable to take advantage of another person but bullies see it as a skill necessary for political survival and career progress. Then, when they are aggressive themselves and reap personal rewards for doing to, the pattern is established. It is simple learning theory — positive reinforcement increases the likelihood that the rewarded behavior will reoccur.

Bullying is always a mix of personality of the bully and target and work environment. But environment is more influential than personality. Regardless of the person’s disposition, if conditions are engineered to create and sustain bullying, most employees can act like bullies at work. They do not become bullies in other domains of their lives. At work, however, they slip into a role and follow the unwritten script. The power of environment over personality is backed by decades of social psychological research.

6. If one is a bystander or witness to a bullying situation, is it his/her responsibility to do something? How should he/she proceed?

We would all like to think we would jump to rescue another person in danger. A bullied target is in danger, but we know from experience and research that others do relatively nothing. We imagine a brave encounter with the bully when the coworker stands shoulder to shoulder with the target and counterattacks. That’s myth. It happens less than 1 percent of the time (according to our 2008 study).

So, why expect coworkers to help when they see a target emerge from a closed-door berating and slip into her or his cubicle without saying a word? Social influence is strongest when situations are ambiguous or murky. A witness can rationalize not doing anything by concluding that he was misinterpreting what he saw and that it was not his business to butt into someone else’s privacy.

You are not likely to be there during the bullying incident. The target will describe events later. Gather all the other coworkers and establish that the response will have to be undertaken by the group. Purposefully share the responsibility. Decide what to do together — go two levels over the bully’s head or confront the bully in person — and have all participate. Power comes from a unified group. Stick to holding the person accountable because of the disruption of work, not because they have a warped personality. Make an impersonal financial impact argument to the highest level manager you can find without accidentally complaining to the bully’s relative or the boss who hired him.

Link to the original article

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

Brodie Panlock 2006 suicide victim

Nicholas Smallwood, convicted bully

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.

My friend, Kelly Abel, is one of those people you would hire to do anything. Why? Because she will not take on something she’s not going to succeed at and she’ll do anything (within reason) to win. It’s this quality that got her hired to manage a New York fitness center—even though she’d never done it before.

Her new job was a potential nightmare. She inherited a demanding clientele, a downtrodden staff, a history of sub-par sales, and a facility in sore need of an upgrade. But Kelly was up for it. Always one to relish a challenge, she was even excited.

Wildly competitive and energetic (and that’s putting it mildly), she worked around the clock with no regard for weekends or holidays, pitching in on everything from sales to cleaning the toilets when a housekeeper quit. Within eight weeks, a physical renovation of the club was underway and a cultural revolution had begun. Clients began popping into her office to compliment her on noted improvements. Her staff’s spirits were rebooted—a trainer even sent her flowers and a note saying she’d changed her life. Corporate was thrilled; the company president himself emailed kudos.

But not everybody was a fan.

Kelly’s regional sales manager couldn’t stand her and made no bones about it. She complained every time she made her rounds at Kelly’s gym, blaming Kelly directly for not meeting monthly sales goals. She and Kelly disagreed about strategy and she refused to give Kelly the support needed to try new things. She publically criticized her in management meetings and, in private, she stood over Kelly, yelled at her, fingers in her face, often reprimanding her in ways that felt more personal than professional.

“She spoke to me like nobody has ever spoken to me,” an outraged Kelly told me after a recent run-in. “My mother, my father, my best friends, even people who I know don’t like me have never talked to me like that. Is she crazy?”

Maybe she is. Or maybe she’s just one of the thousands of bullies wreaking havoc in the workplace. Google “bullying at work” and you’ll get a whopping 33,700,000 results. It occurs in every country in the world and has sparked the proposal of Healthy Workplace bills in 21 states in the U.S.

On-the-job hazing, hostile criticism, sabotage, and outright threats are on the rise, according to a recent study by the Workplace Bullying Institute. (Just the fact that there is a Workplace Bullying Institute is evidence enough that the problem is significant.) Managers and bosses are the worst culprits, although lateral peers do their fair share, often driven by insecurity or an unhealthy competitive streak

Almost any overly aggressive, inappropriate or unprofessional behavior—particularly if it occurs repeatedly and is designed to intimidate, humiliate or undermine—fits the bill. This includes being routinely yelled at, cursed at, insulted, gossiped about or excluded. Left unchecked, bullies cut to the heart of a company’s productivity and damage the bottom line as their victims’ morale and confidence plummet resulting in lost time at work due to stress related illnesses that can lead them to quit or, in the most extreme instances, even commit suicide.

Workplace bullying is no joke.

Sadly, the weak economy and high unemployment have combined to make office bullying numbers go up, but the incidence of reporting has gone down. Fearful of losing their jobs, victims are not seeking intervention. Even more sadly, the baseline abominable behavior we’ve become accustomed to in our reality-TV driven culture, has made many of us more accepting of treatment that is outrageously unacceptable. But Kelly didn’t hesitate to sound the alarm.

When the company’s regional sales manager berated her for “poor” sales, Kelly did her own research and discovered that 2011 sales goals were much higher than they had been the year before, despite the economy and the fact that half of her gym was under renovation. She also found that, while they were below goal, her team was exceeding actual 2010 sales, something the regional manager had failed to mention.

When the regional manager told Kelly that the other GM’s resented her for suggesting changes to corporate, Kelly reached out to her peers directly and learned that they was a lie. In fact, the other GMs confided that they also felt mistreated but, unaware that it was a general issue, they’d been afraid to speak up.

Armed with this information, Kelly fired off a letter to the company president and her direct boss, documenting in detail the regional manager’s behavior and accusing her of creating a hostile work environment that was detrimental not only to her success, but to the company’s overall success. The president is looking into it himself.

While the outcome isn’t yet clear, Kelly is. “I won’t work with someone like that, period,” she told me. “The company will decide who they want to keep. If it’s not me, I’ll find another job. What bothers me is that so many of the other people I work with don’t have the confidence to say that. Or they just can’t afford to take the risk.”

A tight economy is no excuse to tolerate poor, unfair treatment. Don’t get bullied, get help from Human Resources. And, if you have no other option, get out. No job is worth your self-respect or your health.

Caroline Clarke, Black Enterprise

I direct readers to a rather long, but thoughtful and accurate analysis of current culture by Henry A. Giroux, a professor at McMaster University. He stated the case more masterfully than I could.  Reveling in the pain of others: Moral degeneracy and violence in the “Kill Team” photos.

Betty Dukes at SCOTUS

The June 20, 2011 Supreme Court decision in the Wal-Mart v. Dukes case (1) insulted any worker who dares complain about discriminatory mistreatment at work, (2) made it harder for individuals to join together for lawsuit efficiency in a class action to go up against a behemoth multinational employing corporation, (3) ignored and rewrote a 45-year legal precedent, and (4) cemented Justice Scalia and the conservative block’s motivation to serve corporate interests over those of ordinary working Americans.

Betty Dukes, in 2000, claimed that she had been denied promotion to higher-paying jobs. The incident that provoked the lawsuit was when she needed change to make a small purchase during her break. She asked a friend to open a cash register with a one-cent transaction, a common practice, according to Dukes. For that act she was demoted and had a humiliating cut in pay, accused by Wal-Mart management of misconduct. She still works as a greeter at the Pittsburg, California store. She is also an ordained Baptist minister of a local church. Ms. Magazine named her one of its Women of the Year in 2004. As of May 2010, at age 60, she still lived with her mother because her Wal-Mart hourly wage of $15.23 did not allow her to own a home of her own.

Dukes’ attorney was Brad Seligman, of the Impact Fund in Berkeley, California. The lawsuit with Dukes as one of six lead plaintiffs was filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco in 2001. Despite the strain that such a lawsuit has caused its namesake, Dukes said, “In this life you have to stand up or be trampled.”

Corporate Ally

Scalia, writing for the 5-4 majority to strike down the class action suit against giant retailer Wal-Mart, said that because Wal-Mart has an official corporate policy that gender discrimination is prohibited (p. 13 in the decision) and because penalties are presumably imposed for violating the policy, discrimination does not occur at Wal-Mart that can be characterized as pattern and practice.

The majority of justices considered credible Wal-Mart’s claim that they did not discriminate because they said so and had a policy on the books. We agree that a policy, a line drawn in the sand, is the requisite starting point for any workplace culture that intends to treat workers fairly. But to argue that the policy’s presence on the books alone is sufficient is naive. Scalia is not stupid. He and the other corporatists on the Supreme Court simply want to ignore complaining employees as whiners not deserving respect.

This Scalia point is the least legalistic of the several arguments to find in favor or Wal-Mart. It is the HR argument. Recently, a Ventura County (CA) grand jury found evidence of bullying and harassment of employees by management. The HR director, John Nicoll, challenged the evidence by stating that the county has a policy and that he would be shocked if bullying really did happen.

Nicoll, and SCOTUS justices Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito all want us to believe that employers do not lie, never deprive workers of their rights, always follow state and federal laws, and always know best. To challenge the corporate line is wrong. The majority of the current Supreme Court is an “HR dream team.”

Wal-Mart is especially happy with the decision that it failed to win in the federal trial court or the Court of Appeals. Luckily the firm saved their pennies so they could take their case to the one place where they had powerful legal allies willing to protect them and other poor defenseless and largest employers in the U.S.

Gisel Ruiz, Vice President of People (not the magazine, rather the slaves that work for her), Walmart U.S. officially gloated that the SCOTUS decision “pulls the rug out from under the accusations made against Walmart over the last 10 years. Every female associate and every customer can feel even better about the company as a result of today’s decision.” Ruiz feels better, why don’t you?

For their investment, Wal-Mart, on behalf of all corporations, will also benefit from Scalia and the Court conservatives decision to rewrite law. Class action lawsuits are governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rule, prior to June 20, established a low threshold for groups of employees suffering at the hands of a single employer to file a common lawsuit. Many were discriminated against at Wal-Mart, a single employer. Hence the class action.

Scalia and the cons changed the Rule 23 standard to now require groups of plaintiffs to show that they were harmed by the same boss or the same biased employee test, not simply employed by the same corporation with an overarching pattern and practice of misconduct. Wal-Mart’s defense in the Dukes case was that the corporation gives latitude to individual store managers to make local decisions. That dispersion of responsibility was enough to kill the claim of commonality across all Wal-Mart stores for Scalia.

One far-reaching (too “far reaching” according to dissenting Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) implication of Scalia’s judicial lawmaking — the revision of what defines commonality — will be to force each individual worker to file an expensive lawsuit against the giant employer. Employers will find it even easier now to squash cases with motions for summary judgment or prolonged procedures that bankrupt individuals. The original Rule 23 sought to minimize taxpayer-paid public court expenses. Now smaller and more frequent cases without access to class action status will cost government more without putting a dent in the coffers of giant corporations.

Scalia managed to deal a blow to government at a time of great fiscal pressure and to shove workers’ demands for dignity aside.

Another implication is that the merits of the case must be shown to a judge by plaintiffs before having the case certified as eligible for class action status. In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the legal proceedings all centered on the applicability of class action status. The case itself was never tried.

Employers have little to fear from employment lawsuits anyway. The Ashley Alford case is the exception, not a regular outcome. Thanks to Scalia and his cohorts in the majority, employers will have it easier.